3 ms·

Then let me amend my statement: I was not intent on stating that those who are mentally ill are more likely to be violent, rather I'm interested in if those who

Then let me amend my statement: I was not intent on stating that those who are mentally ill are more likely to be violent, rather I'm interested in if those who do indeed commit mass murder have problems with mental health - would you disagree with that interest? Is it the act of a healthy mind to kill dozens of people? If we allow that someone who can willfully kill 48 peaceful individuals may have something unhealthy in their mind, then maybe we should look into the treatment of that specific subset of mental illness. I'm not part of the group who says the tail wags the dog here. I don't think mental illness leads to violence, but that violent people may be more likely to have certain kinds of mental illness.

anigbrowl 8y ago
The thing is that empirical inquiry already suggests that mental illness is a much less important factor than personal associations. Considering that psychiatry has a severe etiological problem already, I don't think it's such a productive line of inquiry. I mean, a pacifist could argue that choosing to join the military or obey orders that might result int eh deaths of civilians is pathological, or that states themselves suffer a sort of institutional pathology. But if one accepts a casus belli as a valid premise for military action, such questions are immediately collapsible into a cost-benefit analysis - which is, to some extent, how military forces actually operate. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2014-33751-001.html https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2014-33751-001.html