A question of sanity.

The question ‘How can we define insanity’ (or the reciprocal question of ‘How do we define sanity’) has long been of interest to me. This subject came back to the forefront of my mind during the trial of Anders Behring Breivik. His trial is now over and he awaits sentencing, which is expected at some point during August 2012. His horrifying killings, which led to this trial, have been well publicised (although if you would like further information then this Wikipedia page is as good a summary as any: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik); however it is the issue of whether he should be convicted of the crimes, or deemed insane and placed in a mental institution, that I will consider here.

To briefly summarise, Anders Breivik admits that he killed 77 people on the 22^nd July 2011 – but, and this is the critical part – he denies committing murder. He sees himself as a soldier, fighting a war against the enemy, which for him can be broadly classified as ‘multiculturalism’. Thus, even though he brutally murdered many people, he feels that he is not a criminal because he is fighting for a higher cause. In his opinion he is fighting for what is true and pure, and he believes he will eventually be thanked for his part in this ‘war’.

Now, to some people that seems like ‘crazy’ thinking and maybe clear indication he is ‘insane’. Yet, he knows full well that he killed people, and in his trial he has shown flashes (granted, only occasional glimpses) that he realises his actions caused pain and suffering. He claims to have trained himself so that he could kill without feeling remorse or guilt. This seems to me like someone committing horrors with the full knowledge of what he is doing. What is more, if you read his testimony during the trial you will see how meticulously he planned his attacks, how thorough he was, how careful he was. Sure, he isn’t a genius, and he may be deluded - but is this someone who is insane and thus not suitable for the receipt of a jail term?

I don’t claim to be a mental health expert, nor can I give an absolute answer to the questions I pose. I merely propose this as a good way for us to examine our beliefs on what is insanity and what is sanity. The rationalizations of Breivik are very reminiscent to those by two Mormon fundamentalists, Ron and Dan Lafferty, who committed a brutal double murder (this is quite brilliantly analysed in Jon Krakauer’s book ‘Under the Banner of Heaven’). These two brothers believed they were ‘working for God’ and in 1984 they received divine revelation that they were to kill their sister-in-law and her 1 year old baby daughter. As in the case of Breivik, the men admit they committed the killings, but insist they have committed no crime – they were doing the work of God and that cannot be considered illegal or immoral. They say they were soldiers of Christ and that God’s laws are higher than man’s laws, so if he tells you to do something then you had better do it!

Is this insanity? It might sound so on the surface. They claim to have had direct contact with ‘God’ who told them to kill two innocent people because “... they have truly become obstacles in my path ....” (God’s words as transcribed by Ron Lafferty – he received messages directly from God and typed them out as he was instructed).  Few would disagree that it sounds insane. However, how many people receive direct messages from God daily? Naturally, they aren’t always messages of destruction (although, they sometimes are) but are they insane when they hear the voice of God telling them what to do? If people are ‘instructed’ by God to give their money away to charities then we may praise them, if they are instructed by God to steal money from the poor then are they insane? People hear God telling them to change jobs, move home, sell their car, visit a certain town at a certain time, advising them whether or not to get married, what sex their child will be - and so on. Is it only insanity when we dislike the outcome of a message from God, or when certain actions go against the moral standards of the time?

To continue with this point, if someone claims to receive messages from an invisible other-worldy spirit called ‘Brigadier Smith’ who once roamed the earth, died and rose to life, and now sits in a glorious golden castle surrounded by pink unicorns, we quickly dismiss this as the ramblings of a madman. If we replace the words ‘Brigadier Smith’ with ‘Jesus’, ‘golden castle’ with ‘heaven’ and ‘pink unicorns’ with ‘angels’ then plenty of people are willing to accept it. In both cases, we cannot see the spirit, we cannot prove they exist, yet is one claim insane and the other sane? Is it just because only one man believes in Brigadier Smith and over 2 billion purportedly believe in Jesus? Perhaps if one man gets enough other people to believe in Brigadier Smith then his claims can be considered sane. Why is this? Do we judge sanity by how many people believe incredible things? If so where is the sanity/insanity cut off, when 100 people believe it, 1000, 100,000, 1,000,0000?

On a disturbingly regular basis, people are falling over in churches when they are ‘slain with the holy spirit’, or enthusiastically talking in a completely unintelligible ‘language’ which they claim is ‘speaking in tongues’.  What do we think when people fall over randomly in the street? We probably rush to their side wondering if they need medical assistance, but if they claim that they were overcome by a beautiful, invisible and powerful spirit we probably assume the medical assistance they need is of a psychiatric kind. How do we react when we see someone walking down the high street apparently spouting mumbo-jumbo loudly to themselves? We may feel they are behaving insanely, or maybe on drugs. I don’t mean to suggest that these acts are in any way criminal, whether they do it in church or not, but it serves to demonstrate my point. What is insanity and how do we define it?

Perhaps a supposed ‘crazy’ act is only judged sane or insane depending on the context. If people mutter incoherent ramblings in a church or prayer meeting then we may say they acting in a ‘sane’ way; but if they do it in the cinema or the middle of a shop then are they now acting in an ‘insane’ manner? Or, is it again that we judge the act depending on how many others do it? Millions of worshippers (of different faiths) take part in activities that we might judge irrational, or bizarre, in another context, but when hundreds gather together and do it simultaneously then it becomes ‘normal’ behaviour. When God ‘speaks’ to a few hundred fundamentalist mormons and tells them that pluralist marriage is right and proper, then most people say they are acting insanely; when God speaks to millions of fundamentalist Christians telling them that homosexual marriage is completely abhorrent then many feel they are behaving sanely. How are we judging whether this is sane or insane?

Let’s return to Breivik for a moment and consider a merging of his agenda with something slightly (but not very) different. Suppose that a man hears a voice from beyond this world, telling him that terrorism is a threat to the west, and to democracy, and must be stopped. Suppose this man takes it upon himself to attack the source of terrorism, as he sees it, and enters an Arabic country where he collects weapons and plans an attack. He believes he is justified in killing people, it is not murder it is a ‘war on terrorism’, and there is a greater good. He feels strong in his conviction, the other wordly voice tells him that he is right, he feels at ease, the spirit inside him guides him on. He undertakes a killing spree, he tries to kill only those that he has identified as terrorists, but to his regret many innocent civilians get caught in the crossfire. How do we judge this man afterwards? Do we believe a spirit from beyond actually spoke to him? Do we think he is insane, or has he acted abhorrently but in a sane manner?

I am sure you know what I am getting at. George Bush allegedly heard from God that he should invade Iraq. Let’s lay aside the fact that God was conveniently telling Bush to do something that he already wanted to do (it’s very interesting how God’s voice always matches the internal philosophy of the person who hears it); should we believe that Bush ‘heard’ the voice of God? If so, is he different from Dan and Ron Lafferty who heard God’s voice and followed it to a murderous end? Is he different from Anders Behring Breivik who took it upon himself to act as a ‘brave soldier’ and fight against the global threats he perceived? What about the terrorists who flew planes into the two towers; they were taking part in ‘a war’ against the ‘evil’ tyrants of the west, with the instructions of God and the promise of a reward in heaven ringing in their ears. All of these examples have a strong ‘them’ and ‘us’ mentality, and our judgement of their morality and mental states apparently only depends on context. George Bush can take a country to war, and millions of others can take part, but apparently that is not insanity. A single man, or a few terrorists, can do something quite comparable and that is clearly insanity. Is the definition really as clear cut as this?

As I have mentioned before, I have no answers but I enjoy pondering the conundrum. Maybe there is no insane or sane, just a continuum of beliefs with some people occupying the extremities but more of us sat in the larger middle section. What I think it demonstrates nicely is that there are few black and whites in this world, no absolute definitions for us to conveniently follow. Moreover, we should take great care in examining our beliefs and our thought processes –  and most importantly weigh them up rationally against the evidence. I imagine most people will not need to carefully weigh up a belief that God wants them to kill a relative, or that they are an important solider in the fight against multiculturalism. Nonetheless, it pays to carefully evaluate both the things which we are told by others, and our reasons for believing in the things we do.

In summary, I suppose Anders Behring Breivik may be insane, he may have a genuine mental illness – how we judge those is another can of worms which I’ll keep shut for now. There are genuine mental problems, and he may have one. I just think it’s interesting how many others who share some of the same ideals and traits could be placed into the same category (but never are). The questions I have raised are difficult ones and I will now leave you to ponder them, I know I shall continue to do so.