People are so complex, IMHO. We are all so conditioned from EVERY experience, and EVERY relationship, and even EVERY discussion and image we are immersed in. My question is where do we find a basis for defining the character of another that we have no REAL personal or intimate relationship with?

I was always taught "There but for the GRACE of God go I". and that lent me to have a baseline of giving people the benefit of the doubt in any 'judgment' of them as a PERSON, although I still am left judging what they may do or say. That is because, without actually having had the EXACT combination of experiences and condition, I can only ASSUME the person I might be, or the way that person would behave or react to things, which is why I TRY to be careful not to assume I know others beyond what they APPEAR to be, with open minded consideration that they may be someone other than they APPEAR.

Anyway, I say all this because of the highlight that has been given to violence in our country. People are very divided on the role of guns, but they seem to be less defensive when the discussion is around 'mental illness' instead. And from THAT standpoint, I wonder, if people who impose violence upon others can all be considered on some level to have 'mental illness'? I wonder how we assess some violent people as evil or low in character, but others as needing help or being 'ill'?

Is it all up to whether or not medical professionals have become involved with that person? because that seems to be a classist standard that leaves out alot of people who have either never considered or never been able to seek assistance from those professsionals?

Are all mentally ill ANd violent (most mentally ill are not violent) people also 'evil'?

Are all 'evil' people suffering from a mental illness?

Violence is indeed awful, yet we do acknowledge the context of violence when describing those who participate, dont we? Someone being violent in SELF Defense is seen differently, than someone who is unprovoked. Someone who has planned their violence ahead of time is seen differently than someone who behaves in an impulsive moment of reaction. Someone who has been documented to be 'ill' is seen differently than someone who has not ever had the privilege or experience of being documented.

I dont think this latest mass killing was the sign of someone evil or with flawed character, and most will probably have sympathy on some level because he was a soldier and had a documented illness. But I also consider that many of the inner city killings in this country are not because of an evil person with flawed character, but of young minds who have lived in warlike zones of this country and never had the privilege of medical assistance to name their trauma.

IT is just hard to assess whats underneath. But if we start from an assumption of conditioning and experiences being the stimuli when people go off the rails, might we then be able to do something to improve and alter those conditions by proactive means, rather than continuing to elevate the consequences of the conditioning and stimuli by reactive means like Prisons and burials? is it worth it to give a different priority to where we are investing our resources? Is it worth it to worry about and invest just as much on the preventive measures, as we do the reactive and punitive ones?

I dont know. I feel for all who become involved in these displays of violence, but I feel not only for those who are victims, but those who victimize as well.


Can I/you/we be a culture that is more sympathetic to what lies underneath, I wonder?

Evil does exist, and evil acts can be the product of evil thinking.

Is it something that we can observe and notice in another that we have no in experience with on a personal level?

I've often wondered about that myself. Does evil exist without some type of mental illness? Are all these crimes committed, especially the mass shootings, all evil in original? I can't really buy that, it seems more an emotional/mental thing. I actually find it sad that our society seems to have so many of these incidences. What does that say about our society. I will at times try to put myself in others shoes to try and understand if they are different than me. The deliberate harming of others I can't even understand a bit, but it has to be something way off for anyone to be able to do that. I find it so sad.

Its cool to see someone that can relate. I always remember my kids when they were born, innocent and in the nursery. Everyone starts off as that new life, with no conditioning or experiences yet. What things happen in the interim that send us in so many different directions? And no, I dont believe its all on the parents. They arent sitting on their kids shoulders 24/7, there are many other experiences and influences well have than our immediate family.

I don't think as a whole we could ever be sympathetic to what lies underneath these occurrences. We have so many personality types in society that only certain ones would be able to be sympathetic.

You can clearly see it from the political arguments, most just want to make assumption and accusations. You don't see the different parties trying to understand the others point of views. You don't see them trying to work together to accomplish great things. What you see are people judging,making crazy assumptions and being led by ignorance/blindness, instead of trying to work together. It would be the same kind of scenario.

Mental illness is an evil within people. More people than you think have a mental illness, as you stated most mentally ill are non-violent.

I think to be able to harm others in any form, there has to be a mental illness. Mental illness can go by many names and be in many different forms and levels.

Example, a child that grows up in poverty and a dysfunctional home life may turn toward a gang for love, safety, stability, an escape. This person may never see a professional for any mental issues, but still suffer from mental illness due to the environment they grew up in.

Another example, one grows up fairly normal, is well educated, never gets in trouble with the law, never commits a crime greater than j-walking, but is a pathological liar, most of the lies they weave may be fairly harmless, but they still suffer from mental illness.

In both examples, neither individual may be evil people, but have evil in them.

I think we need to have better discussions of mental illness and deal with it better as a society rather than to try to sweep it under the rug and pretend it's not there.

We don't have to view mental illness as evil, that's just my own view, but we have to acknowledge that it is a serious issue and it effects everyone, everyone is susceptible to mental illness.

you make a good point. Sympathy and compassion are not exactly highly promoted or encouraged attributes in this climate.

Not all mental illness is the result of genetics. That's why behavioral science came to prominence. Many forms of mental illness develop as a result of conditioning, but not enough research has been done yet to understand it. In fact, behavioral science really only came to prominence in the 1970s. Since then it's had to undo nearly a century's worth of poor scientific thought. It will be some time yet before we fully understand how life experiences impact mental health.

I think things are a bit simpler than we like to admit, our arrogance forces us to complicate things. Mental illness is a complex issue, but we make it more difficult on ourselves by furthering complicating it for really no reason, other than our own arrogance.

IDK, there's things we can do much better and really should be doing a lot better.

I have been convinced by logic and observation, that neither good, nor evil, exist in the universe as independent forces.

Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that, I am convinced that it is not a successful strategy, to deal with what happens in life, as though those concepts are real entities.

Be sure, I do know very well, what it is like to face someone who is so intensely twisted in their attitude toward me, that I know that they will NOT listen to reason, and WILL do me great harm, if I fail to act against them. I know that that is what most people mean, when they say someone is evil. And I know well what it is like to deal with someone who is officially completely sane, but whose approach to life is so vile, that they are intolerable to exist around.

However, I am opposed to allowing someone to shift their responsibilities to someone else, on the grounds that they were influenced by the forces of "good" or "evil."

In addition, I try to separate out the MECHANICS of dealing with existence, from the JUDGEMENTS made about it. That means that if you are behaving violently and irresponsibly, regardless of why, I will support whatever optimum action is necessary to cause your behavior to become more reasonable.

For example, I might (and have) felt great sympathy and emotional support for someone who is outraged by being poorly treated by someone else. I have agreed completely that they are justified in being furiously angry. But I have still acted VERY forcefully to prevent them from acting violently on their anger. Because of something else I am completely convinced of: that a WRONG action never BECOMES RIGHT, simply because of how righteously upset someone is.

When it comes to what to do about a problem after the dust settles, is based on my informal philosophy of Solutionism. It has two basic parts: one, that I believe in recognizing and addressing all problems; and two, that the solution should be specifically designed to solve the exact problem. That means that mental issues should be treated as mental issues, and criminal acts should be treated as criminal, and mixed situations should be treated as both.

When a person intentionally harms others, it makes a lot of other people feel powerless and/or afraid. Evil is a powerful word. Calling a perpetrator or their harmful act evil, I think implies that a supernatural force (d-evil) was involved. Maybe it brings some people comfort, because then we aren't being victimized simply by another human, but by a force that only the power of a God can defeat.

I believe that more emphasis on recognizing when anti-social tendencies are escalating into psychosis, and intervening peacefully, is a step in the right direction. In my opinion, vengeful punitive actions such as execution, only perpetuate the same illness.

"by the grace of God, go etc..."

I have found that everyone who mentions "God" in their descriptions are either extremists in their chosen religion, or hypocrites whom have double standards when you attempt to have a dialogue about a legitimate topic of discussion. Particularly when you catch them in a lie, whenever they claimed one thing a few hours earlier and contradict themselves later.

Why not just omit "god" altogether until the issue comes up for discussion.

anyone beginning a thread is free to omit God. I am a believer in God, which is why God was part of my description of myself.

I have been convinced by logic and observation that both good and evil exist in the universe as independent forces.

I believe it is nature AND nurture. Obviously, the balance is different for everyone. However, it seems to me that the influence of nurture has grown stronger with the rise of mass media.

Some people just aren't "wired" correctly. This young ex Marine in the latest shooting by all reports displayed problems since his youth. If he had been given some kind of treatment then, maybe this tragedy could have been prevented.

I can't speak for anyone but me but I define others based on my experience amd the wisdom I have gained from those experiences.
I also try not to assume things I couldn't possibly understand.
BUT...When I look at a person and watch their manor, there are certain things I have learned to expect from the tells they display (very often without realizing they are displaying them) that allows me to expect certain behaviors and personal habits.
Its been my experience that I am right more than I am wrong but when I am wrong it usually is because I gave them a quality they do not possess.
I see people positively until I learn differently.


Evil is relative to the observer.
What I consider as evil, may be normal to some and extrodinarily good for others. And... vice-versa.

Violence is also relative to the conditions of the act.
Dr. Ian Malcolm Jurassic Park (1993):
What is so great about discovery? It is a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores. What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404
Rule 404. Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts
Violence only appears ONCE on that page. Violent appear 5 times on that page.

That's the nature part of the equation. There is more to it than just bad wiring, though. The nature vs. nurture debate has been going on for centuries. The constant exposure of children, with that bad wiring, to all the evil and depravity of the entire world has changed the ability of the family to guide them towards acceptable behavior.