Holmes crazy act doesn't work.
 

The jury finds him guilty of murder.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/us...-shooting.html

PS - if somebody can edit my typo in the topic line and make it " Holmes' ", that would be great. Thanks.

What is the dividing line between "sane" and "insane", Ike? Or is that to simplistic a question? I've always thought "insane" would mean an individual is not truly in charge of his own thoughts/actions.

But a person isn't 'in charge' of their actions, who is? I haven't heard of anyone actually being controlled by radio waves from aliens or the CIA.

In fact 'being insane' means 'makes very bad decisions as to what to do.' What else can it mean? We distinguish between persons who's decisions largely make some sort of sense, and persons who are so fucked-up they don't eat unless they randomly collide with food. Somewhere in there we make a line and say the far side of it is 'legally insane.' How we describe that line seems pretty fuzzy and semantically odd to me. So i have no idea what side of it to put Holmes on.

There are plenty of philosophical questions surrounding the insanity defense. You have identified the central one. I have always thought that it takes some sort of mental flaw to engage in cruelty, including murder. On the other hand, one might suppose that there is simply such a thing as evil. That, of course, leads to the question of what is the cause of evil. There are theological theories on the nature and origin of evil, but many do not subscribe to religious explanations for anything.

Do those who would reject theological definitions of evil nevertheless recognize that some force motivates some people to treat others with cruelty and disdain, even when there is no gain other than the satisfaction of such acts? Even when there is a supposedly rational motivation immense cruelty, such as marshaling power, can use of such means still be described as evil?

I believe that evil motivates people to act in ways that can otherwise be described as cruel, immoral or unethical. I don't think that we can objectively discern the source of such evil.

Regards,

D-Ray

.... How, or why, does that seed of evil get planted and take root in some individuals and not others?

I believe that it is because those people lack empathy.

Yes, they lack empathy. But how did that happen?
Are people hard wired from birth to not have empathy? Are they born with it and lose it somewhere along the way?

I'm leaning toward believing that some people are just born evil and no matter what their early life experiences are.... They are destined to carry out evil acts.

Yes, I believe that they are born that way and no amount of psychiatric help can change their thinking.

Is evil an objective standard?

Regards,

D-Ray

Bad genes and a bad upbringing - nature and nurture. Get one of them right you have a chance of overcoming the effects of a substandard other.

Both bad - looking at a big mess down the road if some environmental variable doesn't change the inevitable.