The Trolley Argument

My aim is to address The Trolley Argument. It is based on the following two cases: 

ORGAN DISTRIBUTION
Jonathan kills his patient Nick and makes it look like an accident, after realizing that his blood is a match for five other patients in critical condition. Nick Is an organ donor and his organs are successfully transplanted into those five patients, saving their lives. No other organs arrived that day, and the five patients who will now live long, happy lives would have died had Jonathan not killed Nick for his organs.

TROLLEY DRIVER
Corrine is driving a trolley and sees five fraternity pledges tied to the tracks as part of an initiation ritual. The only way to avoid killing them is to swerve the trolley onto a side track at an upcoming junction. Corrine decides to steer the trolley onto the side, but killing the pledge master, who is asleep on the side track. The pledges all live long, healthy lives.
And here is the argument:
The Trolley Argument
(TR1) If there is no morally significant difference between two actions A and B, then: if
A is the right thing to do, then B is the right thing to do
(TR2) Diverting the trolley was the right thing to do
(TR3) There is no morally significant difference between diverting the trolley and killing
Nick
(TR4) So, killing Nick was the right thing to do

The idea behind the first premise of the argument is based on moral equivalence. When comparing

two actions, if you can’t find a reason for them to be morally different, then if the first action is either moral or immoral, so is the second action. For example, lying to your mom is morally equivalent to lying to your dad. Lying to your mom is just as good or bad as lying to your dad, unless you can explain why one of these actions is morally better or worse than the other. Otherwise, they both carry the immorality of lying, regardless to who that action refers to.

The idea behind the second premise of the argument is mostly obvious. The right thing to do is always the one that results in the highest overall levels of happiness. Corrine did the right thing by diverting the trolley because she saved five lives. She did kill an innocent person, but she would have killed five innocent people had she not diverted the trolley. Since her action resulted in the highest overall levels of happiness, she did the right thing.

The idea behind the third premise of the argument is that the acts of killing Nick and diverting the trolley are morally equivalent. In both cases, one innocent person is killed in order to save five other lives. There is nothing morally different between those two actions, since they produce the same results.

My plan is to challenge premise TR3 by showing that there is a morally significant difference between diverting the trolley and killing Nick. In section two, I will present my criticism of TR3 and then in section three I will anticipate and address an objection to my criticism.

My Defense Against The Trolley Argument
Rule Utilitarianism:
Performing a certain action is the right thing to do if and only if it is prescribed by the
collection of rules that, if adopted, would have the greatest positive effect on overall levels
of happiness.
Based on Rule Utilitarianism, the moral thing to do in both situations is to decide to save the five people instead of the one. However, when comparing Jonathan’s and Corrine’s situations, this is only true for Jonathan’s case. Killing Nick and diverting the trolley have morally significant differences.
First of all, Corrine is faced with a spontaneous decision and is supposed to figure out what to do

within seconds. She is in an unfamiliar situation, where she knows nothing about those pledges nor the pledge master. In contrast, Jonathan makes a decision under no stress, no rush, and in full knowledge of both his patients and Nick. Jonathan, therefore, has an advantage that doesn’t excuse his action from being immoral.

Furthermore, Nick and the pledge master are not on the same level of innocence, making the pledge master more morally permissible to kill than the five pledges. Specifically, the pledges are the pledge master’s responsibility. They ended up in those tracks because of the pledge master, since he is the one responsible for their initiation. By falling asleep on the side of the track, the pledge master knows that there’s a one in a million chance that a train can pass over him. He is doing something that is not usually normal, and Corrine could never expect to find people lying on the train tracks.

On the other hand, Nick goes to the doctor to get treated, not to get killed. Nick is not doing anything risky because going to the doctor is something usually normal. The pledge master had taken a risk by taking himself and his pledges to the train tracks. At the same time, Nick is not responsible for the five patients’ situation. He isn’t the one that put the other five lives in a risky situation, unlike the pledge master.

Therefore, the moral decision to make in Corrine’s situation is to kill the pledge master, while in Jonathan’s situation the moral decision is to not kill Nick.

Addressing an Objection to My Criticism
One might object that we can’t confirm that it’s the pledge master’s responsibility that the pledges are tied to those tracks. With that in mind, the pledge master is as innocent as Nick. Also, let’s say that Nick was in a car crash with the other five patients and he is the one responsible for their condition. Would it then be morally permissible for Jonathan to kill him? Of course not. Maybe he would deserve it more, but that doesn’t make it right for Jonathan to kill him. Even if someone deserves to die, it doesn’t make it morally permissible for someone else to kill him.

In addition, even if it’s more difficult for Corrine to make that decision, it doesn’t affect the morality of her action. Therefore, there can’t be a moral difference with what Jonathan is doing. Suppose

there’s a serial killer walking into a house and immediately stumbles upon twins on his left side and a girl on his right side. He freaks out because he wasn’t expecting to see them at the door and has to

make a quick decision on who to kill. After a few seconds, he decides to shoot the girl and kills her, then walks out. Is his action moral because he was under stress and in a rush? Of course not. The result of the situation is the same and nothing can change it.

My reply to the first objection would be that my argument isn’t supposing that anyone deserves to die. It is calculating who would deserve to die more or less. Corrine isn’t killing the pledge master because he deserved it and she wants to kill him. She’s killing the pledge master because the pledges deserve it less than he does. As for Nick, the kind of responsibility he holds of getting in a car crash with five people is not the same as the pledge master’s responsibility that I mentioned in my argument. Nick’s car crash would be the result of an accident that Nick obviously would have no control over. The pledge master had the control of not being in the tracks and falling asleep. Nick couldn’t possibly be in control of his doctor not killing him.

As for the second objection, I would reply that the intentions of a person do change the morality of their actions. Corrine did not want to kill the pledge master nor the five pledges. The serial killer entered that house with the intention to kill. Therefore, Corrine’s rush and stress during her action only allowed her to save as many lives as she could, and make her actions moral. Jonathan, however, intended to kill Nick and under no stress, making his action immoral.

Being unconscious is the worst thing that can happen to you

My aim is to address the argument against fearing death.
Against Fearing Death
(FD1) You cease to be conscious when you die.
(FD2) If you cease to be conscious when you die, then being dead is not bad for you. (FD3) So, being dead is not bad for you.

(FD4) If being dead is not bad for you, then you should not fear death. (FD5) So, you should not fear death.

The idea behind the first premise of the argument is that death, under all conditions, results in your loss of consciousness. No matter what each religion believes happens after death, the only thing that is scientifically sure is that once you’re dead you’re no longer conscious. Right now, you can tell that you’re completely conscious since you’re aware that you’re alive, you’re aware of where you are and what you’re doing, and you’re aware of your thoughts and emotions. And you’re also aware of everything going on around you, such as your roommate walking in your room, the cars passing next to you on the street, and your friends calling you to come pick you up. Once you’re dead, however, you’re not able to experience nor understand any of those things, since you have no communication with the inner and outer world.

As for the second premise of the argument, in order to clarify what “bad for you” means, the author created HD*:

(HD*) Something is bad for you if and only if it results in more pain than you would otherwise have had.

Regarding that HD* is true, being dead is not bad for you. Since when you die you’re unconscious, and therefore can’t feel any pain, being dead is not bad for you. No matter how much pain you’re

feeling right now, it is more than the pain you’ll be feeling when you die. Of course, bad things will continue to happen after you die, but you’re not going to be able to acknowledge them. Nothing bad that ever happens will be able to affect you and cause you pain.

The idea behind the third premise of the argument is that there’s no reason to be afraid of death since it’s not bad for you. There’s nothing that can harm you when you’re dead. That means that there are no sources of fear either. You should be afraid of spiders, because they might sting you and cause you pain. You should be afraid of needles too, because your skin will be pricked by something sharp and cause you pain. Every single source of fear is due to something that will be bad for you. Being dead is not bad for you, so there is no reason to fear it.

My plan is to challenge premise FD2 by showing that losing consciousness is what makes death bad for you and not what excuses death from being bad for you, because unconsciousness ends all your pleasures. In section two I will present my criticism of FD4 and then in section three I will anticipate and address an objection to my criticism.

My Defence Against The Argument Against Fearing Death

Unconsciousness is in no way a reason to excuse death from being bad for you. On the other hand, unconsciousness is the reason why being dead is bad for you. Even though losing consciousness does not result in more pain than you would otherwise have had, it deprives you of all the pleasures that you can experience when you are conscious.

To support my argument I am rejecting HD* and modifying it into HD**:
(HD**) Something is bad for you if and only if it results in more pain or less pleasure than you would otherwise have had.
Regarding HD** is true, being dead is bad for you. That’s because when you cease to be conscious you stop living. Involved in “living” is not only the pain that you wouldn’t otherwise feel, but also the

joy that you wouldn’t otherwise feel.

Being conscious is the only thing allowing you to enjoy this life. It allows you to have feelings, thoughts, ideas, intuitions, and memories. Your consciousness is the only thing that allows you to have knowledge. Since all that you know is all that there is, your consciousness is the only thing that can confirm your existence. Without it you don’t exist. There is absolutely no case where you can agree that not existing is better than existing, since existing is the least that you could ever get. Humans are ego centric beings, meaning that the idea of us not existing scares us naturally. Therefore, consciousness is the most important thing that you possess right now, and the only thing allowing you to be somebody.

On the other hand, unconsciousness is bad for you for many reasons. First of all, once you die you stay dead forever. Death is not like a summer break, where you relax for a few months and then get back to your everyday life. You keep being dead for infinity, depriving you of everything that you could ever experience. Secondly, unconsciousness limits you to the complete unknown. Since all that you know is all that there is, not knowing anything is equal to nothing. Nothing isn’t better than something, no matter what that something is. Even if you’re conscious and you’re in pain, it is better than not to be conscious at all. That’s because pain can still offer you something good, such as making you stronger and more courageous.

Furthermore, when the author says that you shouldn’t fear death, they’re indirectly implying that you shouldn’t fear anything. That’s because every single fear is a result of your fear of death. Why are you afraid of spiders stinging you? Because their poison might kill you. Why are you afraid of heights? Because falling from a high surface might also kill you. You cannot accept every other fear and not accept the fear of death, because every other fear has the source of the fear of death. So, the author’s argument is basically leading to the conclusion that you shouldn’t be afraid of
anything. However, we need fear in order to have survival instincts and to be alert to danger, otherwise our lives would not have meaning nor purpose. Your fear of death might even be useful to you, because it makes you enjoy life more and not waste it.

Addressing an Objection to My Criticism

One might object that even though being unconscious deprives you of your pleasures, it does not mean that it’s bad for you. Once you’re unconscious you won’t be able to remember any of your joy and happiness. You won’t be able to remember anything from your life, so the loss of these pleasures will not affect you. Since death is inevitable and you’re going to cease to be consciousanyway, it’s not in your favour to believe that unconsciousness is bad for you. It’s in your best interest to accept unconsciousness as an advantage of your death and live your life happily, without worrying. Imagine if you died and your conscious mind still continued to exist, reminding you of all the pleasures that you’re no longer able to enjoy. The fact that you cease to be conscious when you die allows you to stay dead in peace.

However, it’s irresponsible to accept something that would potentially be bad for you, just because it is inevitable to avoid it. This suggests ignoring the reality of things and finding comfort behind excuses. You are conscious right now and you are aware of the pleasures that you are receiving right now. Therefore, these pleasures are important to you during the time that you are alive. You are also aware that you won’t be receiving these pleasures once you’re unconscious. This loss of pleasures will be bad for you, and you’re not excused from fearing it just because it is inevitable. So, being dead is still bad for you and you should fear it, even though you cease to be conscious when you die.

Believing in God Has The Same Expected Utility As Not Believing in God

My aim is to address the argument for betting on God.
The Argument for Betting on God
(BG1) One should always choose the option with the greatest expected utility (BG2) Believing in God has a greater expected utility than not believing in God (BG3) So you should believe in God

Here’s the idea behind the first premise of the argument. Suppose you’re a competitive athlete and have a race coming up. You have one week left of practice and you really want to do well at your race. At the same time, you don’t know if the training is worth it, because your chances of winning are not that high. So, you have two options: train hard and compete with a possibility of getting a podium, or don’t compete and avoid all the wasted energy and stress. If you choose to train and compete, you will either win and your hard work will pay off, or you will lose. If you choose to not compete at all, you won’t need to go through strenuous training but lose every possibility of getting a podium. But by choosing to train for your race, you have absolutely nothing to lose. Even if you don’t win, you still gain the experience and preparation for your next race, which you wouldn’t get otherwise. So, you should choose the option to train hard and compete, because it has the greatest expected utility. It’s in one’s favour to always choose the option that will benefit them the most. Suffering is unpleasant, which is why everyone prefers to take actions that have a positive outcome on them. It doesn’t make sense to ever choose an option that will cause you more harm than the other option would.

The idea behind the second premise of the argument is that you receive more benefits from believing in God than not believing in God. In other words, you’ve got absolutely nothing to lose by believing in God. You can only gain the best possible outcome. That is because if you believe in God and God turns out to exist, the expected utility is infinite. You will go to heaven and experience the best possible afterlife you can. And then, if you believe in God and God turns out to not exist, you still haven’t lost anything. Not believing in God, on the other hand, might result in the same or lower gain of benefits. If you don’t believe in God and God turns out to not exist, that’s great, you proved believers wrong, but still didn’t gain anything that will benefit you. If you don’t believe in God and God turns out to exist, that’s when you lose, because you will not get the benefits that God gives to believers (heaven). Here’s the probability matrix the author uses to justify BG2:

   

My plan is to challenge premise BG2 by showing that disbelief in God has the same expected utility as belief in God. Specifically, I will show that disbelievers will not be deprived of heaven and other potential benefits of the afterlife and will receive the same outcomes as believers, in case God exists. In section two I will present my criticism for BG2 and then in section three I will anticipate and address an objection to my criticism.

My Defence Against The Argument for Betting on God

Belief in God doesn’t have a greater expected utility than disbelief in God. Even if God turns out to exist, believers and disbelievers get the same outcome. That is because God loves unconditionally all of his creations no matter if they have faith in Him or not. It’s similar to the way a parent loves their child. No matter how many times you disrespect or disappoint your parents, they still love you. Maybe they don’t like you or respect you, but they always love you, because it’s in their nature. Even if a human doesn’t believe in God, they are still God’s creation. One’s faith doesn’t change their nature and what God has prepared for them in the afterlife. Instead, the criteria for entering either heaven or hell are based on one’s character throughout their life.

I would argue that everyone goes to heaven, since God’s love is unconditional. But God cannot be that generous. And since religion is based on both a heaven and a hell, there must be some criteria for hell too. That’s why my argument is premised under the assumption that good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell.

Regarding that this assumption is true, being good doesn’t refer to believers and being bad doesn’t refer to disbelievers. There can still be bad believers and good disbelievers, which is why faith cannot determine one’s consequence after they die. For example, between a believer that has committed murder and a disbeliever that spent their life doing community service, the disbeliever deserves to enter heaven, not the believer. Of course, there can still be good believers and bad disbelievers, but that would just be a coincidence with no correlation whatsoever.

Furthermore, the author says that you’ve got nothing to lose by believing in God. However, the author also failed to take into account that belief is a huge commitment that involves devotion. A person that is devoted to God spends most of their life going to church, praying, avoiding committing sins, and following religious principles. Even though every religious person offers a different amount of time to God, it is still some part of their time that they ‘lose’. Whether it’s praying three hours a day or one hour a week, it’s still wasted time. What a disappointment it would be for a believer to finally get to heaven and realize how many disbelievers are also there, even though they didn’t go to church every Sunday.

Addressing an Objection to My Criticism

A possible objection to my argument might be that it is unfair for believers to get the same outcome as disbelievers. Part of my argument is the exact reason why: believers devoted a significant amount of time and energy throughout their life to praise God. God could not possibly ever disregard all the prayers, church visits, and dependency that so many humans went through only for Him. Disbelievers did nothing to deserve an afterlife of happiness. Even if a disbeliever is a good person, this doesn’t change the fact that by not believing they showed doubt and disrespect toward God.

My reply to that objection would be that God doesn’t want our belief to be formed out of
fear. Faith doesn’t serve as a way of “giving back” so that God will reward us with heaven and not send us to Hell. Since God doesn’t want us to be afraid, He also doesn’t expect us to be devoted to Him, which shows that he is not expecting anything more from disbelievers and excuses them for not having faith. Believing in God or not is your free decision. Sending disbelievers to hell for choosing not to have faith in God is basically punishing a person for having free will.

Conclusion

I have argued that believing in God and not believing in God have the same expected utility. I defended the idea that God loves all humans and doesn’t send unfaithful humans to hell. I then showed that the criteria for heaven are based on one’s character and not on one’s faith. And I also showed that you have something to lose by believing in God and God turns out to not exist. Lastly, I addressed possible objections to my argument by saying that God respects our decisions and doesn’t want us to believe out of fear.

What makes one a psychopath- "YOU" Series

After watching the first two seasons of “You” on Netflix I am speechless. There’s not enough time or space to analyse the whole series. I would love to focus my attention on the main character, however. Joe Goldberg is the best example of a person that has countless mental health issues but aren’t visible at first sight. He reminds me of Ted Bundy, but Joe’s story has a different specialty.

Most people would call Joe a psychopath, or even a sociopath. However, I think his mental health is much more complicated than that. For starters, he constantly has the need to be obsessed over someone. He craves to be involved in someone’s life and make them love him. Being independent is unknown to Joe, because he can’t deal with himself if he is not sharing his self with someone. He wants to feel valued, respected, honored, loved. Joe is severely co-dependent of his partner, which is why he is always in control of the women he’s dating. He feels insecure not knowing what his partner is doing, not because of lack of trust, but because of lack of independence.

Now, why was he a murderer? Or wasn’t he? Does killing make you a killer necessarily? After every murder he committed he would say “This is not me. I am not a killer” and then he would go and kill again. This is a clear sign of split personality disorder, as Dr. Nicky mentioned in the series. There is a part of Joe that is loving and caring and seeks good for others, but there’s also a part of Joe that seeks revenge through murder. Revenge for everything that went wrong in his childhood and isn’t his fault. Here is where Joe’s childhood PTSD steps in and shows that it’s the main reason Joe is capable of killing.

He grew up with an abusive father and a completely unstable mother. After leaving his father with his mom, he had to watch his mother being beaten many times by her boyfriends. Hiding in a closet every day, all he could feel was abandonment. He was never loved and never taken care of. All he knew was that he had to protect himself and his mom cause that was all he had. That’s when he committed his first crime, to protect the one person he craved care from. Once he pulled that bullet at the age of nine there was no coming back. That was now his way of defending his ground.

Later on his adolescence, it was no better when he lived with that bookstore guy. He was too strict on Joe, locked him up in a cage for hours, beat him, and burned him with his cigarettes. This is not exactly an image of a good childhood. Joe never in his life was loved by someone else. He felt as his existence was something random, that it would make no difference to anyone if he hadn’t been alive.

It turns out that the way this person was raised influenced his whole life. Had he been born in another environment with better circumstances he most probably wouldn’t have committed all those murders. It was all a reaction to his disturbed past.

Knowledge: what if we used the 100% of our brain?

There are many things I understand now that I couldn't when I was younger. For example, I have better managed the concept of time, and the passing of time. I have become more aware of death, disease, and generally danger and emergency. And there are many more things I'll probably understand later in life that I don't have the wisdom yet to understand now. The more I see,feel, and discover emotions and new states of mind, the more knowledge I gain.

As we grow older, we understand more things about the world. We gain consciousness. We become alert. The more we experience, the more knowledge we have about existence.
But some questions are never going to be answered. No matter how many things I experience, my brain will never be able to understand everything that exists, everything that "is". That is why we don't use our brain on its full capacity. It's nature's way of protecting us from realizing truths that would make us crazy. I've analyzed this further enough at my other article, though. The basic point I'm trying to reach here is: what would happen if we could use our brain to its full capacity?
What inspired me to think about this is the movie "Lucy" with Scarlet Johansson and Morgan Freeman. What happens in the movie is that the main character Lucy is injected with a performance-enhancing drug called CPH4 which basically causes some chemical reactions that somehow result in her using her brain on its full capacity. Of course, this kind of science is not proven legitimate and may lack many explanations, but it's very interesting to give it the benefit of the doubt and think what would happen if it was true.
Once the drug kicks in, Lucy is able to understand and control everything that exists. As she uses more and more of her brain's capacity, she moves from one dimension to the other. In the beginning, she starts to feel everything around her. She can feel space, the air, the vibrations, the people, the gravity, the rotation of the earth. She feels the heat leaving her body and the blood in her vains. She can access the deepest parts of her memory and remember feelings of touch, taste, and pain from when she was younger than one years old. As her usage of brain capacity increases, she is able to feel other people's bodies, thoughts, to identify diseases. She is able to access every single computer and control every source of electricity. Her brain absorbs every single piece of information that exists in the world. She reaches a point where she can travel in time. She goes back to the beginning of time, to the beginning of matter, where the first ever cell existed. Imagine being able to understand EVERYTHING. All that "is". She "unlocked" everything about existence.
So, after I watched the movie and let all of this kick in, I decided to conclude my brainstorming with a very simple yet disturbing idea: time is the only true unit of measure. There are no numbers. There is no 1+1= 2. We have codified our existence to bring it down to human size to make it comprehensible. We've created a scale so we can forget its unfathomable scale. Imagine a car speeding down the road. Imagine it going faster and faster and faster. Now, speed up this image infinitely and you'll notice that the car eventually disappears. So, what proof do you have of its existence? Time gives legitimacy to its existence. We all exist because of time. Time gives proof to the existence of matter.
I know, kind of scary and crazy. Thinking about stuff like this is just a reminder of how powerful and extraordinary life is.

Insomnia

We have all heard about the case of a patient who collapsed four years ago after overdosing on hypnotic pills. His family thought it was a suicide attempt, but when the patient came back he said he just wanted to sleep. Shan, 37, is one of the first doctors at Beijing University Hospital to specialize in psychiatric treatments and mainly insomnia. Medicine for the treatment of insomnia appeared in China in the 1980s.

Before then, all this was considered superfluous. In today's China, however, sleep disorders are common and widely researched. A study conducted by the Medical Committee on Sleep Medicine of the Chinese Medical Association ahead of the 18th World Sleep Day shows that over 60% of the adult population worldwide are not sleeping well.

Especially young Chinese sleep very little. About 75% of people under the age of 30 suffer from sleep disorders due to depression, nervousness and anxiety. Stress at work, obesity, and poor nutrition can also affect sleep quality. Another major cause of insomnia is the use of smartphones, computers, and other electronic devices, as the screens emit a blue light that stimulates the optic nerve, leading to a significant decrease in melatonin, a hormone that regulates sleep. Those who suffer the most from insomnia, according to the survey, are media workers, IT developers, and e-commerce professionals.

A Chinese sleep research company released a report last year showing that 93.8% of young Chinese spend a lot of time online before going to bed. It is ironic, however, that these young people often turn to the Internet to combat insomnia. A report that came to light last December showed that nearly 79% of people who click the word "insomnia" to buy related products on the Alibaba platform are between 18 and 35 years old. The most popular products are tranquilizers and massage machines. In 2012, approximately 23.8 million people made online purchases between 11 pm and 5 am.

Wang Weidong, a leading sleep expert, has developed a mobile app that provides online diagnostics, medical advice, and traditional Chinese medical treatments. Since its launch in 2017, more than 30,000 users have subscribed and received information. In addition to conventional medicines, traditional recipes such as lavender oil for massage, recipes, and exercises are available online.

"Our generation is more susceptible to insomnia and we care about sleep more than our predecessors," says Match, the founder of the online group: "Sleep Bar - Say Goodbye to Insomnia", created in 2010 and has over 20,000 members. Match was always troubled from insomnia when he realized that constantly complaining about the problem was not the solution. He then began reading books on sleep medicine and sharing this knowledge online.

"Scientific methods are the key to improving sleep quality. Ultimately, the cure is inside the individual himself,” he says.

Criminal Psychology: Ted Bundy

A person who has the ability to kill another human being is not someone mentally okay. Almost all serial killers have a past that has caused them to become crazy. Take, for example, the case of Ted Bundy, a man who managed to kidnap, rape, and murder more than 30 young women. Bundy would grow up believing that his mother was his sister, and his grandparents were his mother and father. His maternal grandfather who at first raised him was racist, misogynistic, and altogether abusive. Bundy spent his adolescence across the country, removed from all he’d known as a child, raised by a stepfather who he felt no connection to.

When reviewing how troubled and disturbing Bundy’s childhood was, it’s no surprise that he turned out to be mentally sick. What is so interesting in his story is that he didn’t look nor act like someone who is a serial killer, and that’s how he covered up for his murders for about 7 years. He was tall, attractive, and generally good looking. However, what made him a great serial killer is that he was a genius.

He was so intelligent that took his appearance to his advantage and never failed to impress women. Women would trust him because he was charming. But isn’t that how society works anyway? Our reactions are not the same to every new person we meet. Take a homeless, old man and a young, attractive man in a suit. They both approach you and ask for your help with carrying something from their car. Who would you trust? The correct answer would be no one. Just because someone is attractive and is formally dressed does not mean that he is not a serial killer. Ted Bundy was so smart that he knew he was charming and he knew women would trust him because of his appearance.

But what was going on inside this man’s mind? He was not just a regular serial killer. He had no motive and no desire for revenge. He was just mentally sick and addicted. It’s like his mind was infected and felt like he would get satisfaction by killing. Like a smoker, his cigarettes were his murders. Every time he thought it would be his last one, he ended up having the need again. The creepiest fact in his case is that he only killed certain kinds of women. All of his victims were women, with long, dark hair parted in the middle. All of them were raped, before and after they were

killed.

 

So, after researching his story and past, it’s very interesting to find how many mental illnesses this person had: antisocial personality disorder, psychopathy, narcissistic personality disorder, bipolar personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, schizoid personality disorder, addictive disorder, and Machiavellianism. Imagine how hard was plain thinking for this person. When your mind is constantly kicked by so many anomalies, how are you supposed to act right? It’s scary to think how a monster can be created just from genetics.

The psychology that hides behind this story is fascinating. How a person can become inhumane after being raised abnormally, how our mind only can turn into a weapon without us realizing it, how we make instant conclusions based on what we see rather on what we know. Being a criminal is not a label for a person. It’s an identity for his/her mind.