What's sanity got to do with it?

I'd say there can sometimes be a fine distinction between sane and insane, but when you deal with people who have mental health problems that line can made very clear. Almost everything that exists is defined by society. Intelligence, what's good or bad, who is attractive or ugly. That's just the way it works. Even if you go across different cultures, for the most part you can tell sanity apart from insanity. Obviously a bigoted person might have issues making those distinctions, but a person with a severe case of schizophrenia is obviously on the other side no matter where they are from. There are plenty of actions people take that may not be socially acceptable, or proper in the minds of some people, but that doesn't make them insane. If I decide to conduct an experiment with humans and implant new genes into their DNA, I'm wrong but not insane. There is certainly no singular definition for sanity but it is a complex issue. However, to me that doesn't mean sanity doesn't exist.

When you say the word "insanity" I generally think of serious mental illnesses and disorders. I will say that most people, if not all, have their own degree of "crazy". The word "crazy" is thrown around so lightly nowadays that it has lost its meaning, thus when saying "crazy" we have a differnt reaction than when "insane" is said. Crazt and and insanity are, technically sinanims, but, because of who they are used, have a different impression when said. One can be sane and be crazy,as a large number of people are. Let's face it, everybody is unique and strange, in their own ways because of how the impression of "crazy" had changed. Therefore, weird/strange/crazy is a normal, not a difference. However, insanity, in my opinion, is different, because insanity causes some issues, which effect the person, and maybe those around them, in a negitive way.

I think that insanity is, at its core, the inability of an individual to act within instinctual societal norms. By that I mean that we, as animals, have instincts that drive us to interact with one-another. Because our instincts require interaction, we develop unspoken rules for that interaction. As an example, it's rude to randomly stab someone mid-sentence. People can be unhealthy mentally, they can have a mental illness or "disorder" (which a lot of the times is used to signify something that goes against the generally accepted order of a given society), and still be completely sane. They can hold to belief structures and ideals that clash dramatically with a societies accepted norm or morality, and still be perfectly sane. It is in the individuals ability to cope, translate, and interact according to the rules of instinct and society that dictate sanity. They may still choose not to, but they are capable of it. When someone is incapable of it, when they lack, in their entirety, the mental ability to provide stability and interaction, they are then labelled insane. But that's just my view, based on observation. I could be way off. This is what comes from having a therapist for a mother. That and many, many complexes. lol

Well said, tobitairu...I almost completely agree (not to say that you're wrong in any way, just that I would explain it a bit differently...like I'm going to now). The way I see it, it's the inability to rationalize and be affected by consequences (my SUPER simplified explaination). It goes along with the famous saying, 'doing the same thing over and over, expecting a diffferent result', yadda, yadda, yadda...but not quite the same. I'll elaborate. A sane person, whether moral or not, will at the very least THINK about their actions. There will be a plan of escape, feelings attatched, and unavoidable physical reactions involved in their decision making. The sane person fails a polygraph (unless trained otherwise). The thought of consequence never crosses the insane person's mind (even personal harm), hence (as per the rule), they are capable of repeating the same thing over and over...with the thought of a different outcome. That's the way I see it, anyways (without writing a book on it).

Silly me, I forgot to explain the difference [between our opinions]. I don't think it has anything to do with actions being socially acceptable/lining up with society/being 'civilized'/etc., as those values vary per person. Morality is probably THE most subjective thing known to man. The thing is, the insane person just cannot conceptualize morality. They have no idea that what they're doing is 'wrong'; it's just not a question that comes up. The 'inner self' never steps in and goes, "Don't do that, because..."

Insanity is defined, in the criminal country system, as the inability to understand the nature of you actions and what you are doing. I think that is a good way to define it.