It is not enough to say simply "we are what we are," for although there are certain aspects of one's personality which, I feel, are unchangeable, I must also believe that man has a certain amount of liberty over his actions; yet possessing that mental freedom, man also is capable of perverting both instinctual behavior and societal standards of conduct.
The ideas of right and wrong are generally clarified for each person by his elders when he is yet quite young. Even those with learning disabilities and those who are not severely mentally retarded have the ability to distinguish between socially defined "good" and "bad" behavior. When children grow into adulthood, it is difficult to view wrongdoing as simply "bad behavior," much less "acceptable"; one has been taught to think, and then to act.
Even when the environmental aspects through one's youth are considered, certainly the expectations of behavior and conduct are taught in the school; the child cannot say he was not aware of the societal rules, despite any lack of respect for those rules in the home. Each individual possesses a mind of his own; he is free to act upon or disregard negative pressure.
Saying evil occurred due to environmental pressures is, perhaps, today's way of avoiding the issue of bad and good behavior, blaming life's circumstances for immorality, instead of facing the fact that the person made a wrong decision of his own accord. Those who continually blame other people and circumstances for their personality disturbances gain little respect, for one can choose with whom and in what manner he desires to spend his time. Exceptions shall always exist, yet often a grand problem can be reduced by making select changes in one's life; changes such as a transferal from a tough job situation, or the decision to stop interactions with a "friend" who truly is not a friend. People must be responsible for their own actions, although it is always easier to blame, to utilize a scapegoat. It is virtual music to the ears to hear someone in this age admit that he has made a mistake or has done a grave disservice to humankind.
The environment argument robs each person of his individuality, for if one cannot be punished for wrongdoing then he cannot be applauded for decent behavior. It would be as if one was a robot, devoid of character, and stripped of choice. Furthermore, the fact that two children from the same environment, indeed, the same home, can grow to be complete opposites in character, subtracts environmental importance regarding one's disposition and life choices. It is not so much the environment as the manner in which one reacts to it that forms one's personality.
There are countless choices in life; whether to lie, or tell the truth, to cheat or be fair; whether to be unresponsive or kind, to give or, like a child, demand constant nurturing. Then, of course, there are degrees of tolerance regarding the enactment of distasteful traits and illegal practices. While a minor may snatch a bottle of liquor and proceed to intoxicate himself in the woods behind his house, an adult can legally indulge, yet will then climb into his car and drive haphazardly to his next destination; an under-aged drinker, and a drunk driver…both are illegal, but for me there is no contest as to which is the worse offender since the "adult" drunk is jeopardizing lives with each block he passes.
When other crimes are committed, such as mass slayings and violent attacks upon innocent victims, insanity is often utilized as a way to avoid severe punishment. While certain individuals may well be apart from reality, surely not all of those who claim insanity are, for they knew exactly what they did, as well as the implications and seriousness of the crime.
When an apparently mentally intact adult commits such a brutal violation of the societal code of conduct, it is difficult to rationalize his behavior as acceptable by way of insanity; certainly he exercised a choice, worsened by the fact that he was an adult. He did not use self-control; though he felt murderous, he did not have to act upon his impulse.
If an individual was bound inextricably to a fore-fated disposition by (God) then his actions would prove nothing as to the man's character… that is, his inherent ability to choose right over wrong. If God undertook the creation of a perfectly "good man," in so much that he, the man, was incapable of doing evil, the man could not receive applause for his acts of good will because he essentially had no other choice.
In conversations with my father, he often offered an inquiry for discussion as to which man is essentially the "better" of the following: a non-drinker who, without the slightest twinge of anxiety, refuses a drink, or the alcoholic who, fighting desperately, also refuses a drink as sweat forms upon his brow. My father could always come to the conclusion that the non-drinker was, in essence, the weaker of the two described since he felt no temptation in the first place and could not be congratulated for a decision which created no mental turmoil.