heavyarms553
Member
I have a question I would like to ask to theists who ascribe to the idea of sin and redemption. For the purposes of this question, please assume that god is real and that he is accurately described by one of the major religious denominations. It doesn't matter which denomination, and in fact I would like to hear the answer to my question from various sources.
There is little debate that the act of murder is a sin. However, is the sinner still accountable if his behavior is altered from what could be percieved as "normal" by psychoactive drugs or drugs which induce aggression? What about mental illness? Is his guilt mitigated by the influence of the drug? And what if he was or was not responsible for his exposure to the drug? Does that make a difference?
Here are several different situations:
An athlete decides that he needs something to boost his performance and so he begins taking anabolic steroids. He has no history of aggressive behavior. After some time his muscles increase in size and he becomes much more aggresive towards other people than he was prior to steroid use. He goes to a bar one night and he bumps into someone else which sends him flying into a rage. They get into a fight and the steroid user hits the offender a little too hard; killing him on the spot. Assume that the athlete would not have killed the offender had he not abused anabolic steroids.
Same situation as above, except the athlete was fed anabolic steroids by his trainer, without the athlete's knowledge, permission, or concent.
Now consider an alternate situation: A man lives a pious, religious life till the age of 24. (I mention this to establish the fact that under normal circumstances he is not violent.) Unfortunately, he has a family history of schizophrenia and soon begins seeing grotesque, horrific hallucinations. He is quickly diagnosed as a schizophrenic and recieves treatment. He responds well to a standard course of Risperdal and his symptoms are supressed to the point where he may lead a normal life. After a period of symptom free life, he decides to stop treatment. The hallucinations quickly return and he mistakenly kills an innocent bystander because he mistook him for an attacking alien.
Same situation as above, except the hallucination which incites the murder is not one that provokes fear, but rage. Additionally, the killing of the hallucinatory object during a real situation would still constitute a sin. An example would be a hallucination of a man beating a woman or some other emotional imagery. If the man really were beating the woman, then killing him would be a sin.
Same two situations as above, but the man continued to take his medicine normally. However, the pills became ineffective due to improper manufacturing practices or an incorrect perscription.
Eager to hear your thoughts.
There is little debate that the act of murder is a sin. However, is the sinner still accountable if his behavior is altered from what could be percieved as "normal" by psychoactive drugs or drugs which induce aggression? What about mental illness? Is his guilt mitigated by the influence of the drug? And what if he was or was not responsible for his exposure to the drug? Does that make a difference?
Here are several different situations:
An athlete decides that he needs something to boost his performance and so he begins taking anabolic steroids. He has no history of aggressive behavior. After some time his muscles increase in size and he becomes much more aggresive towards other people than he was prior to steroid use. He goes to a bar one night and he bumps into someone else which sends him flying into a rage. They get into a fight and the steroid user hits the offender a little too hard; killing him on the spot. Assume that the athlete would not have killed the offender had he not abused anabolic steroids.
Same situation as above, except the athlete was fed anabolic steroids by his trainer, without the athlete's knowledge, permission, or concent.
Now consider an alternate situation: A man lives a pious, religious life till the age of 24. (I mention this to establish the fact that under normal circumstances he is not violent.) Unfortunately, he has a family history of schizophrenia and soon begins seeing grotesque, horrific hallucinations. He is quickly diagnosed as a schizophrenic and recieves treatment. He responds well to a standard course of Risperdal and his symptoms are supressed to the point where he may lead a normal life. After a period of symptom free life, he decides to stop treatment. The hallucinations quickly return and he mistakenly kills an innocent bystander because he mistook him for an attacking alien.
Same situation as above, except the hallucination which incites the murder is not one that provokes fear, but rage. Additionally, the killing of the hallucinatory object during a real situation would still constitute a sin. An example would be a hallucination of a man beating a woman or some other emotional imagery. If the man really were beating the woman, then killing him would be a sin.
Same two situations as above, but the man continued to take his medicine normally. However, the pills became ineffective due to improper manufacturing practices or an incorrect perscription.
Eager to hear your thoughts.
