If someone does something incredibly immoral, but is mentally deranged, are they truly evil?

Question

It's funny...historians have been pasting together evidence and studying and analyzing footage and some of them are concluding that Hitler may have had Parkinson's disease. I'm NOT trying to play down the seriousness of the atrocities he committed, but what if he really did have a mental illness that impaired his judgement?

Answer 1

If a large boulder rolls down a mountain because rain has washed away its support and it hits a bus full of children, knocking them off the road, down the mountain and all die a firey death: is the rock evil?

If a person rolls a larger boulder down the mountain with the intent of hitting a bus as above and causing the firey death of all with clear knowledge of the consequences: is the person evil?

OK, most would agree that the Boulder is in no way morally responsible and so is neither good nor bad.

If a person does it, one can make many arguements.

And the arguements all revolve around free will. A person who can exercise free will is culpable. A person, who because of some physical/psychological condition, is not capable of exercising free will may not be culpable. The exercise of free will is not such that you either can all the time or cannot all the time. So culpability often depends on where you are on the free will continuum.

As for historians, mental derangement and the attempt to de-villanize various historical figures. I, personally, would ignore most of it. And if Hitler did have a mental illness, so what? He is dead; those he murdered are dead; the only way to stop him was war (which killed an unconsionable number of Germans, their allies and those who fought against them which he might as well have murdered himself) as who was going to place him in a mental institution. And, the Parkinson's Disease Foundation (http://www.pdf.org/AboutPD/) does not mention anything about mental instability.

It would be a really good idea to read up on that which you think may in some way reduce a person culpability.


PS: Thanks for asking a question that actually has some relationship to philosophy.

Answer 2

First of all, in a court of law to be found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity, grave mental illness is not enough. One must also not be aware of the wrongfulness of their behavior.
Hitler clearly was aware of what he was doing. Besides Parkinson’s is not a psychiatric mental illness per se. It does not change how you think about the word. It can cause depression and in latter stages even a subcortical dementia, but it does not influence how much a person hates another.

Hitler would get an erection when he spoke publicly about exterminating Jews and his fascist ideology of eugenics. His doctors and advisers recommended that nothing be done because he might not be as potent of a speaker. He was sexually perverse on multiple levels and was also a Speed/amphetamine addict. The verdict is in and Hitler did indeed have Parkinson’s, but it probably only slowed him down. Without the neurological disorder he would have caused the same if not more heinous pain and agony.

In addition, mental illness is not necessarily the same as being mentally deranged. In its severe form, grave mental illness can mean that one suffers from a psychotic disorder and is out of contact with reality and accordingly less culpable for their behavior than us chronically normal individuals. Mentally deranged is not a clinical term. Arguably a person suffering from a severe sociopathological Personality Disorder could be considered mentally deranged. This person might be sexually aroused when thinking of terrible things. However this person’s behavior springs from who they are, not a biological brain disorder, and they are responsible for their behavior.

Answer 3

You can't "accidentally" commit sin, right? If, for instance, you ACCIDENT LY unplug someone's life-support system, you're not guilty of murder, are you? So for evil to exist, them must be the intention to commit an evil act. That's why a person who is completely insane or severely retarded isn't responsible for the acts he might commit.

But there's a question of degree involved. If you're THAT insane, you can't possibly run a modern nation with all it's complications
for decades And that's what Hitler did.

So I have to conclude that Hitler -- while he may have been in some sense, crazy -- wasn't crazy enough to avoid responsibility for his actions. I don't care if he DID have Parkinson's disease. So did John Paul II, and he led a virtuous life.

Answer 4

I doubt that Hitler's Parkinson's disease had anything to do with his atrocities. But I think the essence of your question is whether mental illness-driven crimes should be judged as normal crimes by societies. Right?

Well, if you believe in Existentialism, you can argue that noone can be judged as evil because each individual is free to define his/her reality, decisions, actions, and be responsible for the actions. Individual's existence (in his/her own realms) precedes his/her essence (to the rest of the world).

So, philosophically, one could argue that Hitler was just doing what was the most responsible thing to do in his realms. But, does that mean he was nonpunishable? No. We may not need to say that he was evil but we can say that his actions have broken so many human right laws that ruled the society he lived in. And, noone should be above the law.

If you have not seen it, I strongly recommend the movie "Memento" directed by Christopher Nolan, starring Guy Pearce. You will tinker on another philosophical ethical issue on whether the anterograde amnesia patient (Leonard) is responsible for the killings he did due to lack of sufficient data into his "world" (read: his memory). You will love this movie I think.

Answer 5

Parkinson's disease mainly manifests iteself in the form of tremors, or muscle rigidity. It doesn't seem to have an effect of a person's beliefs.

To suggest that Parkinson's could explain Hitler's evil actions would be to insult millions of Parkinson's sufferers who do Not become genocidal maniacs.

Answer 6

Well, sice you're talking about Hitler,I would say that his thoughts and his actions bespeak true unadulerated evil,whether he was mentally unbalanced or not. The Final Solution(the extermination of Jews,Gypsies,Homosexuals and other"undesirables")is proof of that. But,can the behavior of mentally deranged individual be deemed "immoral"? Well, that woud depend on the person and the circumstances surrounding whatever morally reprehenible act being perpetrated.

Answer 7

Parkinson's disease isn't a mental illness, but that's beside the point. I would tend to say no to your question. Severe mental illness can make people do terrible things that they're not responsible for.

Answer 8

If someone has a mental illness, then he or she has a disease that impairs his or her judgment. I wouldn't consider him or her to be truly evil then, just immorally challenged and incredibly sinful. In Hitler's case, however, I really don't know what to believe. Interesting topic!

Answer 9

Whatever about HItler - I hope he had scabies. But about your question, evil is not something we ARE, it is something we HOST. Evil can take us over, and it does, in the absence of love. So yes, when people do evil things they are deranged but they are hosting the derangement and the evil and they could, in theory, rid themselves of it. They usually don't, just as an alcoholic doesn't usually give it up spontaneously. This does not excuse the person however from being accountable for their evil acts. That is one of the prices you pay for hosting evil.

Answer 10

Even if the disease was completely responsible for his actions, he is still guilty because we all have a sin nature, whether we are mentally deranged or not. It has been a problem since the beginning of creation.