People casually using and over using mental illness term

Because different people have different ideas.

Yes, and the "faithful" perpetrator had likely considered his/her victims mentally ill and/or evil. But no matter what thought or belief someone might have had about his or her own actions, murder is still murder and murder is still evil even if a given society might consider the murderer a saint.

Yes rose, I understand that, but why do different people have different ideas.
This is going around in non sensical circles and is derailing the thread.
After many attempts I’ve still failed to convey my idea properly since the answers have fallen short of satisfying my curiosities.

Lee, do you consider death doled out by the justice system evil as well?

They have different ideas because we are human n not pre-programmed machines. That's like asking why some people like spinach and others do not - because we are human, and different people have different thoughts, different tastes, different beliefs, different body chemistry, we are each unique and we behave as such.

You're so right. Murder is murder. What is unfair is that every murder is handled differently by our justice system. Some murderers only get 5 years in jail, and others get 50 years. My co-worker's uncle Jimmy murdered his wife and only got 5 years in prison because he paid an excellent team of hot-shot lawyers to defend him. His lawyers made it seem that his poor mental state caused him to be the victim.

Whereas some people suddenly claim they are "mentally ill" after they just committed a horrific murder. They get a free pass and sent to a hospital for the criminally insane instead of going to a prison with the rest of the population. (This happens more often than we think.)

It would be nice if everyone could be treated equally. But that's just a fairy tale.

In my opinion, even if you are mentally ill, it should not give you a free pass - but that's just my opinion (and not a popular one) - by the way before I am asked, yes, that includes if it were me or someone I love.

Not being satisfied with answers or responses does not prove one's ideas and questions have not been heard.

Yes, evil in the sense of being in conflict with nature -- survival instinct violated -- and yet justified by-and-within a given society for the sake of its own instinct for the same...and yes, I do understand the threat of capital punishment does not stop every potential murderer.

If I may chime in, that's actually a very good question, though it's not what this thread is focused on.

There is, in the Western World, right now, an ongoing debate about that exact question. Evil, if you look up the definition, is the deliberate doing of something that is profoundly wrong, by someone in a position to appreciate the wrongness. That something is "wrong" is a moral judgement, and people disagree to varying extents about what is "wrong." Pretty much everyone agrees that banging an old lady over the head and taking her pocketbook is wrong. There is no such consensus about the moral status of administering capital punishment. And so there is an ongoing debate.

In Western Europe, capital punishment has been discontinued. The majority of people in that part of the world feel that it is wrong. Same thing in Mexico. (This is why the Mexican government won't extradite to the U.S. persons wanted for crimes that incur the death penalty.) But, here in the USA, that issue is still up for discussion. Some people think capital punishment is evil. Some don't. Quite a hefty percentage of Americans think that capital punisment is a good and worthy tool for advancing the cause of justice. People hold differing ideas about it.

People hold different ideas because people differ in their experiences and in the influences that they are exposed to.

Webster distinguishes between natural evil and moral evil, and the above would fit the definition of moral evil...

...but not all evils (such as disease or euthanizing a sickly animal) are *moral* evils.

Lee, “evil in the sense of being in conflict with nature -- survival instinct violated”.
Survival instinct violated is not in conflict with nature, in fact nature is based on violations.
In nature there are no “rights”, like the right to survive.
Some animals eat their own children, but it does not make them evil, because to a certain degree they are pre-programmed machines albeit organic ones.
Human conceptions are not the same as the animal worlds as far as evil acts and punishment.
My point is that ‘evil’ is not a natural concept, it seems more likely to be a man made judgement.

Your point seems to change as you go along.

You were content to repetitively argue "why do people have different ideas" until I pointed out people are not pre-programmed machines - a phrase you just quoted as pertaining to animals, which again is wrong. If they were pre-programmed they would not raise other animal's young, nor would there be cases of animals rescuing or even raising humans - there also would not be any animals who grieve themselves to death when their owners die or leave them. No, animals are unique as well - just not as well recognized as being so.

I think you are absolutely correct to say that "evil" is "a man made judgement."

Humans, however, are a product of evolution (if you believe in that.) Our ancient hominid ancestors - if you go back far enough - no more concerned themselves with the concept of evil than did the dinosaurs or the bunny rabbits. But, out of the animal world, a species evolved that came to concern itself with questions of right and wrong. A species evolved to become capable of forming the concept of "evil." It is an abstract concept that exists in the human mind. The human mind, however, is a product of nature.

Humans aren't really evolving anymore. We are no longer subject to the pressures of natural selection which drives evolution. That's because we control our environment, rather than it controlling us. Fair skinned people can survive near the equator by slathering on sunscreen. People can live in the arctic by creating artificially heated environments. We no longer have to adapt to the environment. We adapt the environment to suit us. But there is a sense in which we are continuing to evolve. We are evolving in terms of what we believe. Survival of the fittest has been replaced by survival of what seems most true.

The human species continues to change, in what ideas it holds to be true. There is competition of ideas. We can even think of differing ideologies - systems of differing ideas - as being at war with each other. Ideas matter. Men make judgements about what is evil, based on the ideas they have held. Some old ideas fade away and new ideas are formed. Behavior in animals is instinctive. Not so in human beings. Our behavior is governed by what we believe - those ideas about what is true.

I did not say it was...and the fact of a survival instinct being possible to violate without the violation being immoral proves there is "natural evil" within nature.

Yes, so-called "necessary evils" amongst non-humans.

True, but that does not make the violation of another animal's survival instinct any less evil in relation to the victim.

Not all humans have confused conceptions there, just those who believe evil does not exist unless it is moral evil (punishable).

Evil exists within nature, but not at the moral level until we begin talking about human beings (and possibly certain other animals committing evil that is not necessary for survival). But even then, not every human who commits evil is automatically judged to be evil...and that is a great part of what this thread is about since "mentally ill" and "evil person" are not synonymous.

Aside: Animals have a right to be eaten (as a "natural evil" committed against the prey) where humans do not naturally need to consume each other in order to survive.

This is a tantalizing conversation and I appreciate all the replies, agreeable and conflicting to my own point of view alike. I just want to interject some friendliness into my posts so that I don’t come across as a stubborn fool.
Can I go back to the idea of ideas?
Ideas are formed, or transferred. They are formed within the brain, often using environmental influences. In a situation where people have the same environmental influence but one person comes up with an “evil” solution and the other one a non “evil” solution what can be attributed to their different behaviour?
They are naturally evil? What does that mean, their brain is disfunctional, their soul is tainted?
I fail to grasp the concept of evil if it does not come from a physical or mental disfunction of some sort.

One of my brothers and I once has a spat and my mother sent us out to get switches for her to use on each other. Believing I should have the upper hand because I am the elder, I selected a large switch for her to use on my brother where he selected a small one for her to use on me...and maybe all of that was because he was of higher moral character (nicer) or because he either could not or would not challenge the matter of elder dominance.

I would say someone who is inherently evil would likely be that way because of a lack of mental health as there is no such thing as "natural evil" for a human being. Animals occasionally commit natural evil against other animals for the sake of survival, but humans have other options and healthy-minded or moral humans (either-or) only ever harm others during self-defense against aggressors.

Are you speaking of natural evil or of moral evil? But overall, a person does not necessary have to be evil in order to commit evil. Some people commit evil in simple ignorance (not knowing something is evil).

Thanks for the anecdote lee.
I did mean ‘natural evil’ and intentional ‘evil’ acts, not ones committed through ignorance or accident.

For at least most non-human creatures, those would be the same and without the animal being considered "evil" for having committed the act. But for humans, the question is about whether the individual committed the evil act either because of mental illness or because of something related to moral character.

As I said earlier, some of these are committed because of differing beliefs (think religion), even amongst the same family you have differing beliefs. Some are done because of differing brain chemistry (physical), some are done because of ailments to the brain (think brain tumor), some are done because of brain injury (think major head trauma), and some are done simply because one believes it is what God wants for that particular individual to do (may or may not be mental illness). In my prior response I simply was abstract rather than specific, but these are exact reasons and none of them "have" to be a mental illness or mental disorder. Some "may" be a mental illness or mental disorder but can also be strictly physical or spiritual.

Yes, and I had been short-sighted while mentioning only mental illness or moral character as possible causes behind evil acts.

I live in the Southwest. Pueblo Indians, who live here in tribal communities, are usually baptized Catholic and identify with Catholicism as their faith. This is because the Spanish conquistadors invaded their land, enslaved them and demanded they accept the religious beliefs of the Spaniards, on pain of death, if they didn't. The Spaniards did a good deal of evil to these people. This is why there was a Pueblo revolt in 1680 A.D.

The Spaniards had the idea that God wanted them to spread their own particular faith. They were prepared to force this on the indigenous people of the American Southwest by any means, including a great deal of violence. Nowadays many of us believe that this was wrong. (Even Mother Teresa decided that the idea of forcing people to convert was wrong, and she often refrained from even preaching to the Hindus and Muslims that she worked with in India.) So why did the Spanish Conquistadors commit great violence against the Pueblo Indians, oftentimes to strip them of much of their culture and force Catholicism upon them? Were the Conquistadors mentally ill? I don't think so. I think they were acting in accordance with ideas that they believed in. They believed - ardently - that God let them conquer lands in the New World, so that they could "win souls" for Christ. Toward that end they enslaved native peoples and forced them to build many of the "mission churches" that one finds throughout the Southwest. Most of us now think that extracting such forced labor from enslaved people would be wrong . . . and would be an enactment of evil. Are we more mentally healthy than the Conquistadors? Do we possess better functioning brains? Not many people would claim that. The difference is that we ascribe to different ideas.

So, throughout history, people have engaged in activity that future generations would disavow as evil - not because these more modern generations had developed better functioning brains, or had purer souls . . . but because the systems of ideas that humans subordinate themselves to change over time. Ideology evolves.

In some old cultures, tribes offered human sacrifice to the sun. The Incas did this. I think that was an evil practice. Many would agree with me. I don't think this "evil" occurred because the Incas were all mentally ill or had dysfunctional brains. They were entralled by what we now regard as a very terrible idea. Ideas matter.

Original topic of misuse of mental health terms. I've been on that soapbox quite a few times. Generally, if it's a normal reaction to a specific event, it's not a mental health situation.

If you're about to get married and you've got butterflies in your stomach, this is not anxiety. It's pre-wedding jitters. Anxiety is when you're sweating an ocean and about to throw up, and you're not even sure why.

If your dog died last week, and you dreamed about him last night and woke up crying, this is not depression. This is grieving. Depression is when you're watching your children play excitedly in the back yard with their new puppy, and you're too dead inside to feel any joy.

If you separate the clothes in your closet by category, pants in one place, shirts in another, you aren't "being" OCD, and you probably don't "have" OCD either. You are neat, efficient, and organized. OCD would be when you can't leave the house unless you make sure the fringe on your area rug is lined up parallel and exactly 1/8" apart, and you even get out a ruler to make sure it is.

If you once hurt yourself falling down a flight of stairs, and now you make sure you always hold on to the rail, this is not PTSD. It is learning a lesson. PTSD involves lives being in danger, and the inability to function normally afterward.

Yes, it does bother me when someone commits a horrific crime and then tries to escape the consequences by claiming mental illness. And it also irks me when someone is mean and rude and abusive to me, and I get, "Oh, you have to overlook him. He can't help it. He has a mental illness." Yeah? Then why is it that when I am not at my best, I'm told to quit "blaming" mental illness and take some responsibility for my behavior?

it contributes to stigma and how people see mentally ill people.

when ever their's a shooting or something like that, it's the first thing to come out on the news.. that person was mentally ill

makes us all come across as criminals, when the truth is that quite a lot of us have never done something of that nature.

Which is exactly the point of the OP to my understanding

The shooter definitely *committed* an evil, but the "Why?" or "How could he?" behind his deed has yet to be determined as a matter of mental illness, immoral character or whatever else.

When mental illness was first thought of in Merry Olde England, as a defense, the standard for that was expressed as pertaining to someone who "hath no more reason than a wilde beast." That was a pretty high bar.

The Las Vegas shooter demonstrated plenty of "reasoning" capacity. He quietly got those weapons into a hotel room that he rented for the purpose of shooting out it's window. He cooly took aim at the crowd assembled for the concert. He presented at the hotel checkin desk as a lucid individual. This was not a person in a hysterical state of mind. This was a man conducting himself in a calm, cool, deliberate maner. Stephen Paddock would not have met the standard for an insanity defense in 16th century Britain.

That begs the question as to "Why?" His father was a convicted bank robber, wanted by the FBI, after escaping prison. But, according to family, his father didn't raise him, so the passing on of poor moral values from the father doesn't seem real likely. It is tempting to speculate that the father passed on genes coding for immorality. No one knows if that is possible. Like his father, he was highly intelligent. Current thinking argues that genetics is largely responsible for intellectual capacity. (which seems to have no correlation with moral rectitude.)

Wikipedia reports that law enforcement had reason to believe that Paddock had some financial setbacks that caused him to be despondent. Supposedly, he was drinking excessively and may have been abusing Valium. I don't know that that constitutes "mental illness." Even if the argument is made that he was clinically depressed, few depressed individuals go around shooting into crowds of strangers.

I think a key is to be found in his high stakes gambling. He wasn't experiencing what most of us would call financial hardship. But that is relative to a person's expectation. He was used to having a good deal of money. I think it's safe to say that compulsive gamblers live in hope of making a real killing at their gaming activity. There are reasons why various religious traditions forbid, or, at least, discourage gambling, as being injurious to the soul. It's certainly not an activity that elevates the human mind. Maybe the moral condition of Stephen Paddock was initially not that he loved evil, but that he failed to develop an interest in much that could be called "good." (The absence of fathering could contribute to that.) Maybe all evil needs, sometimes, is a void.