Why Are Cold-Blooded Murderers Treated With Such Contempt?

[bobevenson]

People don't seem to hold a grudge against lions taking down wildebeests. And if nature didn't encourage the most ruthless and blood-thirsty behavior imaginable, it's safe to say that none of us would even be here. So why is our darkest side condemned rather than celebrated?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

People don't seem to hold a grudge against lions taking down wildebeests. And if nature didn't encourage the most ruthless and blood-thirsty behavior imaginable, it's safe to say that none of us would even be here. So why is our darkest side condemned rather than celebrated?

It is celebrated. Professional soldiers are treated as heroes.

[bobevenson]

It is celebrated. Professional soldiers are treated as heroes.

But people who kill their neighbors aren't.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It is celebrated. Professional soldiers are treated as heroes.

But people who kill their neighbors aren't.

That's because people are fine with killing other people's neighbours in someone else's country.

[The Voice of Time]

People have needs to express their emotions, "get it out", if you want. Psychosocial development trains the individuals into acting differently when they are exposed to materials that affect them differently. Cold blooded murdering is an action of extremity from the philosophical stand-point of the average citizen, for which emphasizes things such as unity and love and loyalty to principles derived from belief, law and social norms. All of these are usually broken when such extremity occurs, and the following clash of forces in mind seeks to press something out of the individual in forms of action, something for which we treat as emotional action mostly, and which, depending on this training/learning/development/reasoning etc. could be laughter, as in the murderer laughing at his own actions, it could be freezing, as in being unnaturally calm, it could be anger, frustration, and so forth.

In my life I was trained to treat extremity in two ways: extremity that is a natural part of society and which does not prove itself worthy of reactionarity, I call them "formal extremity", which includes communism and populism and extreme economical liberalism, all of which are tolerable because they don't pose any significant "threat" to what I love and like as they are not very influental de facto, and this also includes the term "rape" in that we used that term a lot in my childhood for joking, like in the sentence "you totally ass-raped that guy!", but then we have the other side, which is the "emotional extremity" as I'll call it, which includes things, in varying degrees and types, such as xenophobia, racism, totalitarianism, exploitation, murder, authority, inequality, censorship, etc.

My learning was that murder is a distortion of human values, a distancing from society and its members and should be seen as serious misbehaviour but treated with re-integrational methods for return to society. Murder is seen as a fault committed by society to keep its members in equilibrium, and with respect and goodwill towards each other. The fault is not taken away from the murderer but he is not given all the blame and as such contempt is not a valid option of treatment of the individual, and excessive contempt is treated as extremism for people incapable of acknowledging the obligations of society and wants to single out the fault and the individual behind it.

[Grendel]

Killing your neighbours creates social unrest and damages corporate profits. Killing a million foreigners increases corporate profits. Now if serial killers bought all their supplies from hyper marts and existed in large enough numbers that their custom was a significant part of corperate profits, serial killing would quickly be legalised.