3 ms·

The people dead did not choose to die. They were killed by someone. And that person killed people and intended to kill people. By our society's definition, this

The people dead did not choose to die. They were killed by someone. And that person killed people and intended to kill people. By our society's definition, this person is mentally ill- they are ill because they have decided to kill people when their own life is not in imminent danger. If one's morals justifies one to kill when one's own life or others' lives are not in danger, then they are mentally ill by our society's definition. Of course, mental illness being defined as holding behavior, emotional, or experience structures that deviate from the norm such that the person cannot function within their society in a productive manner. I think you'd be fascinated by the twists of someone with a personality disorder or someone on the schizophrenia spectrum. If someone claims they are god, or claims they are a wolf, and thus justified by self-definition of predator to predate on other humans, are they mentally ill or do they have a different philosophy?

Aeolun 7y ago
> Are they mentally ill or do they have a different philosophy? By the discussed points I would have to say it’s both. It’s certainly a different philosophy, but it would most definitely be classified as mentally ill.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  The rhetoric I'm responding to discusses them as if they are mutually exclusive. I'm trying to respond that different philosophies can, in fact, be sick ones.
pmoriarty 7y ago
"The people dead did not choose to die. They were killed by someone. And that person killed people and intended to kill people. By our society's definition, this person is mentally ill- they are ill because they have decided to kill people when their own life is not in imminent danger." I guess all those soldiers who invaded Iraq, for example, were mentally ill, as were the politicians who ordered them to. As were all those involved in the many other invasions of other countries when they themselves weren't in any imminent danger. Same goes for guards who shoot to kill escaping prisoners and police who shoot to kill people to keep them from killing others while their own lives are not in danger. Then there are executioners who legally kill people sentenced to death by a court of law. All of these people must be mentally ill, by your definition. You should distinguish your definition from society's definition, because by society's definition all of these people are not mentally ill. In fact, society often rewards them with honors and praise, calling them heroes or at least paying them for their work and legally protecting them from prosecution for the killing they do. The suggestion to lock up such people in mental institutions because they're "mentally ill" would be considered laughable, insulting, and not worthy of serious consideration by the vast majority of society. All of this is not to say that any of the above are morally equivalent to the killings that were perpetrated in this tragedy, nor is this to claim that the perpetrator is not mentally ill (it's for psychologists to decide that), but if the perpetrator is mentally ill then they can't be branded as such merely because they "killed people and intended to kill people.. when their own life is not in imminent danger" without also branding as mentally ill all those mentioned above.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  Note that my specification is that they are choosing to kill with no other lives, including their own, in danger. War is a contested topic in society, because of the ethical concerns above.
  - pmoriarty 7y ago
    Plenty of military actions resulting in death have been taken when there were no lives in danger. A guard may kill an escaping prisoner even when that prisoner is not in jail for any violent crime and is of no danger to anyone's life. An executioner may kill a prisoner even when that prisoner is of no danger to anyone, as that prisoner may instead be kept in jail for the rest of their life and might have been non-violent to begin with.
galangalalgol 7y ago
I think you are right about the gp's motivation, but it's really semantics. I would have called the guy selfish, cruel, maybe evil even, but probably not a sociopath or insane. Most murderers are not sociopaths. But when scared or angry empathy is impacted in even normal people. If that anger does not dissipate over time either due to repeated offense or reminders of an offense, an otherwise rational individual can have their empathy suppressed long enough to plan something like this.

Aeolun 7y ago

> Are they mentally ill or do they have a different philosophy? By the discussed points I would have to say it’s both. It’s certainly a different philosophy, but it would most definitely be classified as mentally ill.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
The rhetoric I'm responding to discusses them as if they are mutually exclusive. I'm trying to respond that different philosophies can, in fact, be sick ones.

pmoriarty 7y ago

"The people dead did not choose to die. They were killed by someone. And that person killed people and intended to kill people. By our society's definition, this person is mentally ill- they are ill because they have decided to kill people when their own life is not in imminent danger." I guess all those soldiers who invaded Iraq, for example, were mentally ill, as were the politicians who ordered them to. As were all those involved in the many other invasions of other countries when they themselves weren't in any imminent danger. Same goes for guards who shoot to kill escaping prisoners and police who shoot to kill people to keep them from killing others while their own lives are not in danger. Then there are executioners who legally kill people sentenced to death by a court of law. All of these people must be mentally ill, by your definition. You should distinguish your definition from society's definition, because by society's definition all of these people are not mentally ill. In fact, society often rewards them with honors and praise, calling them heroes or at least paying them for their work and legally protecting them from prosecution for the killing they do. The suggestion to lock up such people in mental institutions because they're "mentally ill" would be considered laughable, insulting, and not worthy of serious consideration by the vast majority of society. All of this is not to say that any of the above are morally equivalent to the killings that were perpetrated in this tragedy, nor is this to claim that the perpetrator is not mentally ill (it's for psychologists to decide that), but if the perpetrator is mentally ill then they can't be branded as such merely because they "killed people and intended to kill people.. when their own life is not in imminent danger" without also branding as mentally ill all those mentioned above.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
Note that my specification is that they are choosing to kill with no other lives, including their own, in danger. War is a contested topic in society, because of the ethical concerns above.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  Plenty of military actions resulting in death have been taken when there were no lives in danger. A guard may kill an escaping prisoner even when that prisoner is not in jail for any violent crime and is of no danger to anyone's life. An executioner may kill a prisoner even when that prisoner is of no danger to anyone, as that prisoner may instead be kept in jail for the rest of their life and might have been non-violent to begin with.

galangalalgol 7y ago

I think you are right about the gp's motivation, but it's really semantics. I would have called the guy selfish, cruel, maybe evil even, but probably not a sociopath or insane. Most murderers are not sociopaths. But when scared or angry empathy is impacted in even normal people. If that anger does not dissipate over time either due to repeated offense or reminders of an offense, an otherwise rational individual can have their empathy suppressed long enough to plan something like this.