click here to jump to start of article
Join Our Newsletter

Join 400,000 Aish subscribers
Get Email Updates




The Human Core

The Human Core

Lessons from the Andrea Yates killings.

by

Some events shock us and beg the question "Why?" Other events are even more profound, so overwhelming that the mind still struggles to fathom the "What?"

Consider the recent case of Andrea Yates murdering of her five children in Houston. What about this event so shakes us? Is it a profound revelation of evil? Was it really evil? Does anyone doubt that this depressed woman was psychotic?

Perhaps the tragic death of children is what disturbs us so. Yet there have also been recent earthquakes that have leveled entire villages, wiping out hundreds of children and families. We feel empathy, pity and great sorrow. But the horror we feel upon hearing the Andrea Yates story seems of a different caliber.

To understand these feelings, let us analyze other events that provoke similar feelings of horror, and overwhelm us with increasing intensity.

How little of our "self" is really indestructible and inviolable?

Imagine the completely healthy person who suddenly has a stroke or is maimed in a severe traffic accident. When we visit him, we are taken aback by the person's condition. It is not merely the sympathy for his pain and difficulties, but rather the sight of someone losing his "self." The person we had known before was the "full person." We imagined that every part of that self was intrinsically bound up to that person's "self" and could not be separated from him. And now we see that his robust health, movements of limbs, and physical independence are but endowments and may be rescinded. We picture ourselves in a similar position and realize how little of our "self" is really indestructible and inviolable. It frightens us.

Next, picture a neuro-surgery ward where someone has undergone extensive surgery to remove a brain tumor. The person is recovering, but many of his talents, skills and specific memories are gone. This can be a devastating encounter for the visitor. The experience of horror is similar to the previous example, but much deeper. While our limbs are "appendages," we expect at least that our skills, talents and experience be "ours." We are confronted with an even deeper sense of helplessness and non-existence.

And finally, take the person with Alzheimer's disease. We watch him dodder and disintegrate, and we sympathize. But the unbearable moment is when he turns to his spouse of 60 years, stares at her vacantly, and asks, "Who are you?" Losing one's innermost knowledge and experiences is traumatic. It is as if the person has not even a tiny bit of "self" that is indestructible. It seems no real "person" exists.

REACHING ROCK BOTTOM

A healthy person is proud and sure of his self-existence. The loss of any part of "self" is the most agonizing and painful experience of the human being. It strikes at his innermost sense of existence. And the degree of trauma is proportional to the degree of "self" associated with the loss. Material possessions are indeed least traumatic of the losses, followed by limbs and organs, mental skills and talents, and finally our memories.

But we have not reached rock bottom yet. For the person who is morally sensitive, the core of a human being is his conscience: The ability to tell right from wrong, the pangs of guilt for misdeeds, and the drive to help others even at the expense of self-denial.

Why may the smartest cow be slaughtered for food, while the stupidest human may not? Because human beings are of an entirely different nature; we are capable of moral awareness.

We may picture our mind losing its clarity with age, but we never imagine becoming intrinsically "evil" people.

If there is anything that we really feel is us, it is that sense of right and wrong. We may picture our limbs weakening with time, or our mind losing its clarity with age, but we never imagine that we will become intrinsically "evil" people. At our core, we feel we are good, and this is as basic to our existence as protoplasm to our cells. True, we may act badly at times, as our desire for venal pleasure overrides our conscience. But the conscience itself is always keen. We may become senile, but never a murderer. Underneath it all, our core is "good."

REMOVAL OF FREE WILL

And now we come to Andrea Yates' horror of horrors.

Yates shattered our assumptions. It is generally assumed that the feelings of a mother to her child are at the deepest depths of conscience. Even the nastiest criminal is usually protective of his children. Yet here was the most tender of human instincts, the noblest conscience, a mother bathing and stroking her children... to death.

Had the murders been done in a fit of rage, we would have viewed it as an act of evil overriding the conscience. But here, the twisted and skewed conscience saw the murder of children as a fulfillment of the noblest duties. It was not done despite maternal instincts, but in "fulfillment" of them.

Perhaps this accounts for some of our horror. Just as seeing the amputee makes us realize that limbs may not be forever, and seeing the Alzheimer patient reminds us that memory is but an appendage, so too, Andrea Yates lays bare that our moral conscience is not the perfect and indestructible part of "self" that we had taken for granted.

Our last vestige of indestructibility has been stripped from us.

This forces upon us serious reexamination. What is our conscience? Where does it come from? Can we ever be sure of ourselves?

Judaism understands it thusly: Free will and moral conscience are not intrinsic and inviolable to the human being. They are God-given. Maimonides explains:

Free will has been granted to every person, if he wishes, to turn himself toward a righteous path, and to become a righteous person; he has been granted that ability. And if he wishes to turn toward bad and to be a wicked person, he has been granted that ability. (Mishna Torah - Laws of Teshuva, 5:1)

Free will and moral conscience are not intrinsic and inviolable to the human being.

Maimonides does not state that man has free will. He stresses that free will is a faculty, granted to man. Thus it is possible for free will to be rescinded, as Maimonides relates:

It is possible that a person sin so severely, or so frequently, until the True Judge rules that the appropriate punishment for these sins (done willingly and wantonly) is that he be denied the possibility to repent, and that he is not granted the ability to repent...

The classic case in the Torah is that of the Egyptian Pharaoh. Despite Moses' pleas to "Let my people go," Pharaoh repeatedly hardens his heart and refuses to comply, even in the face of devastating plagues. At that point, God tells Moses: "I will harden Pharaoh's heart." In other words, God denied Pharaoh the ability to repent.

Free will is the most profound and inner gift endowed to humans. But it is not a self-existent, indestructible entity. Rather, it is an endowment, a gift of God. As Andrea Yates showed, it may become destroyed, distorted or perverted.

IMMUTABLE MORAL YARDSTICK

Having recognized the fragility of human conscience and its non-intrinsic nature, we must search for the ultimate moral yardstick not within us, but somewhere outside of our human consciousness.

It was this discomforting realization that provoked the first sin of man. The serpent did not tempt Adam with the flavor of the fruit. Rather, he realized that the most important thing for man was his freedom. Man was created to be free, to have a will of his own, and to make decisions about right vs. wrong. Since man's essence is one of independence and freedom, his strongest desire is to remain completely free and unfettered.

But Adam realized that this freedom of conscience and moral determination is only relative. In absolute terms it is subsumed by God's freedom and morality. The human being is moral only as long as his conscience matches God's, and he is free only as long as God grants him freedom, including free will.

Therefore, the serpent offered the greatest pitch possible: "You will be like God, the One Who understands good and evil." (Genesis 3:5). In other words, you will become independent of God, in this, the most basic of human attributes.

The lesson of Yates goes beyond the realm of psychosis. It should motivate us to seek that immutable moral yardstick, against which we may calibrate our conscience.

Further, the lesson of Yates should push us to seek counsel from others, recognizing that despite our good intentions, we can be hopelessly off target. When personal interests are at stake, we should be particularly wary of trusting our conscience. For as a moral compass, the conscience may be strong enough to detect the homing point thousands of miles away. Yet at the same time, it is so frail that one small piece of magnet, held nearby, can distort it totally.

And the results can be more horrific than any human tragedy imaginable.

Published: August 18, 2001


Give Tzedakah! Help Aish.com create inspiring
articles, videos and blogs featuring timeless Jewish wisdom.

Visitor Comments: 10

(10) Anonymous, March 14, 2002 12:00 AM

She was responsible but so are we.

I have suffered through post-partum psychosis. It is very hard to tell anyone that you have entertained thoughts about killing your children. When I thought about it, I knew I was mentally ill. I knew my children were at risk of having the same illnesses that I have and I didn't want them to go through the pain that mental illnes induces.
When you have this disease you want what you feel is best for your child. You carry them in your body and when they arrive into the world you want to put them back into the safe haven of your womb.
You look at your child as it lay sleeping in your arms and you don't ever want it to experience the pain that is inevitable.
I knew that taking the life of my child would not please God. And so I forced myself to tell others the thoughts and feelings I was having. It was very difficult. How do you tell someone you think about killing your children? You don't if there is a chance that person will treat you poorly afterward. You don't if you feel like everyone is just going to blow you off and tell you it is just hormones. You have to have someone you can trust, who really cares about you. And you do have to be able to tell someone you can trust with your spirituallity. Someone who will help you find balance without judging you. My family had this and we are going to make it. I encourage anyone who reads this to be ever so careful about what you say and how you say it when you are trying to help someone balance their judgement and re-adjust their thinking especially to be in harmony with God's. Andrea Yate's obviously did not have this. She had religious "perfectors" surrounding her reminding her of her God given responsibility. That would have killed us too.

(9) martin markowitz, August 24, 2001 12:00 AM

Staying honest w/ oneself

The reminder that "when our own personal interests are at stake we should be particularly wary of our consciousness" is perhaps one of the most relevant reminders of our times to me. There seems to be a lot of deterrents to follow a staid course of self honesty, and "bouncing" this off a mentor seems real important. Any good mentors out there?

(8) Reb Chaim, August 23, 2001 12:00 AM

Rosie Defends Yates

The Media and it's self proclaimed expertise on life issues took a lady named Rosie who is adored by millions of people and many of them Jewish and religious. She goes on Good Morning America to tell the world how sad she feels for this woman and understands why she did what she did. She wants to raise money for her defense and the rest of the media is following her lead.
By the way, the 5th kid saw she was drowning the child and ran away from her. She chased him down and killed him. Yet all this means nothing. As long as we can put a name to it. Why not put the same name it labels on those who do good. Perhaps the world would be a better place.

(7) David Gersh, August 22, 2001 12:00 AM

Andrea Yates

As a teacher of psychology here in Houston, it has been upsetting to hear many of my students (and Houstonians in general) demanding that Andrea Yates receive the death penalty for what she did. Your article will definitely help me explain the situation more clearly.

(6) Anonymous, August 20, 2001 12:00 AM

Thought provoking!

I have, from time to time, thought about the conflict between "free will" and the conscious termination of that "will" by G-d in the case of Pharaoh, Sodom & G. as well as with some of the Cannanite tribes. Rabbi Lopiansky has done a wonderful job of clarifying that for me. Thanks!

See All Comments

Submit Your Comment:

  • Display my name?

  • Your email address is kept private. Our editor needs it in case we have a question about your comment.


  • * required field 2000
Submit Comment
stub
Sign up today!