General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Could science convince you that the shooter was not ethically responsible for his actions? [View all]JCanete
(5,272 posts)cause (but maybe even then) isn't an illness itself though, and I see no need to moralize these actions when I think they are better considered as human phenomenons that are far more about neurological triggers and social pressures that pull them...etc. than evil per say. You can certainly have a distorted(an outlier to the general populace) view of what is right and what is wrong, and you can certainly have a distorted interpretation of reality, without that being caused by a tumor. Unless we want to extend the definition of tumor to include the likes of Trump, O'Reiley, etc.
Anyway, I'm not even convinced that there is free will. We act based upon our specific neurology and the specific experiences we've had in life. Can anything be said to be outside of those two components? Yes, our brain does calculations, weighs options, etc...but assuming randomness weren't a factor(and if it were it still wouldn't validate free will), I have no reason to believe that a person living the same moment a million, or a billion times wouldn't ultimately do the same thing every time, because theoretically, the same information, the same instincts, would be at play in each iteration, and would occur in the same chronological order..etc.