It seems to me you are trying to create a unified framework to analyze all bad (aka non-rational) behaviors. That's fine, but if it's remotely complete, it has to recover several important distinctions.Pfhorrest wrote:If mental illness is then characterized as thought patterns that are contrary to reason (maybe only those that are in context sufficiently contrary to the ordinary expectations of reasonability), then all bad actions done on purpose are a consequence of mental illness (or maybe just something trending in the direction of it but not meeting that threshold yet).
Some behaviors can be changed with argument.
Some can can be changed with punishment.
Some can be changed with reinforcement.
Some can be changed with specific therapies and /or drugs.
Some can be changed by propaganda.
Some can be changed by changing political or economic circumstances.
Some behaviors can't be changed (yet, in practice, with certainty, et cetra).
If one applies these different circumstances (mistake of fact, robbery, mental illness, terrorism) They see different solutions are more obvious appropriate to different circumstances.
Socially and politically its important to maintain separate labels to avoid stereotypes.
The violent and the medicallymentally ill don't correlate, but the stereotype exists of the violent lunatic and endangers the mentally ill as people and law enforcement react to them as violent threats.
Terrorists may be members of groups with legitimate grievances (separately: those may or may not justify their actions), labeling them as mentally ill invites people to dismiss their arguments.