Mentally Ill People Are Not Inherently Violent and Dangerous 


Negative stereotypes place vulnerable people at higher risk 

man in straight jacket and laughs to himself with a disturbed look on his face in a darkened room with one window and a small amount of light shining through the window
Photo by Marko Garic 

Billions of people worldwide suffer from mental illness. 

While it’s true that people with mental illness are more likely to be violent than the general population, they are also more likely to be violently victimized than the general population. In fact, the average mentally ill person is more likely to be violently victimized than they are to be the perpetrator of violent acts. If they have some other identity characteristic that is stigmatized, like if they are black or trans, the risk gets even higher.

The images of mentally ill and otherwise neurologically disabled people presented by the media aren’t helping the situation. Mentally ill people are often depicted in a dehumanized way, as evil villains or as monstrous, beastly, out-of-control characters who are disposable to plot lines by virtue of their differences.

Mentally ill people are also often portrayed as helpless victims. This false dichotomy obscures the reality of mental illness. As someone who suffers from mental illness myself, I know that the vast majority of people who do are pretty normal people. Most of us aren’t scary monsters or scared, witless adult children, regardless of how we are portrayed in the media. 

The media demonizes common mental health symptoms like psychosis, hypersexuality, or self harm, feeding into social stigmas surrounding these kinds of symptoms. This stigma makes it more difficult for people to talk about these symptoms. This makes it more difficult or frightening for people to seek treatment, which then leads to less people getting help for their illnesses. 

We have to accept the reality, as mentally ill people, if we want to be functional, that we are both more likely to be dangerous, and more likely to be placed in dangerous situations. It’s also good for us and the people around us to have an awareness of how these realities affect our lives and how they can best support us for our own good, their own good, and the good of everyone around us. 

Mentally Ill People Are More Likely to be Assaulted

Studies show that mentally ill people are more likely to be physically abused or sexually assaulted than the general population. We are also often targeted for property crimes, such as internet or phone scams that also target groups like the elderly. 

Mentally ill people are more likely to be targeted for such crimes for multiple reasons. One of these is that, because mentally ill people are perceived as violent, it’s easier for an abusive person to blame their violence on the mentally ill person who is their victim. Mentally ill people are seen as less credible in general. We are less likely to be believed if we go to the police or to anyone to report a crime. 

Mentally Ill People Are More Likely to be Shot by The Police

It’s estimated that between about one quarter and one half of all fatal police shootings involve someone with a mental illness. People with untreated mental illnesses are possibly as much as sixteen times more likely to be killed by law enforcement

In a police encounter, it may be difficult for an officer to determine whether or not a person with a mental illness really is or isn’t a violent threat. This problem is exacerbated by racial factors.

 Bad public policy creates a vicious cycle 

A lack of public resources for things like mental health, housing, and addictions contributes to these problems. 

When mentally ill people are violent, or when we become so sick that we are unable to care for ourselves, we often become the responsibility of the state. The state often seriously fumbles the care of vulnerable people with mental illness or other disabilities. 

If someone doesn’t get treatment for their mental illness, often it will get worse. And if they are arrested for a violent crime or another crime due to their mental illness, incarceration often makes things worse instead of better. The standard of care for people with mental illnesses in jails and prison is very low. According to NAMI, around two thirds of people with mental illness don’t get proper care while incarcerated.

Fight the stigma 

It’s vital to make sure that mentally ill people receive a high standard of care. 

When people with mental illness receive a high standard of care, we are less likely to become dangerous towards ourselves or anyone else. We are also less likely to end up in danger ourselves. The best way to make sure that we get the care we need is to help the world see us as fully human and deserving of the same level of respect as other humans. 

Remember that the schizophrenic man you see shouting racial slurs on the street corner is still a person. So is the woman who is huddled in an empty store doorway wrapped in wool blankets and talking to herself. So is your co-worker who has emotional outbursts. So is your family member who is so depressed that they can’t get out of bed. 

We don’t stop being human because we are sick. Being sick isn’t a moral failing, or at least not a moral failing of the individual who is sick. Civilization is built on cooperation towards common goals, like the safety-and well being of everyone. If we cannot help people who are sick or otherwise incapacitated live healthy, normal lives, we are failing as a civilized society. We are failing at the very thing which makes us a civilized society.

The Eurocentrism of Academic Philosophy


How an imbalance of cultural perspectives robs the next generation of thinkers

a model skeleton posed so that it looks as if it is thinking
Photo by Mathew Schwartz

In their New York Times opinion piece, “If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is,” Jay L. Garfield and Bryan W. Van Norden made a strong argument illustrating the current lack of cultural diversity in academic philosophy curricula.

The two professors provide a troubling piece of evidence:

“Of the top 50 philosophy doctoral programs in the English-speaking world, only 15 percent have any regular faculty members who teach any non-Western philosophy.”

This issue alone seems big enough to be cause for alarm, but the authors also raise several others, like the facts that “of the 118 doctoral programs in philosophy in the United States and Canada, only 10 percent have a specialist in Chinese philosophy as part of their regular faculty,” and that “no other humanities discipline demonstrates this systematic neglect of most of the civilizations in its domain.”

Garfield and Van Norden proceed to exhaustedly declare that it would be futile to rehearse arguments for greater diversity one more time,” because of the apparent commitment of the academic philosophy community to its Eurocentric perspective.

They continue with an ad absurdum argument, suggesting that any philosophy department offering courses in only Western philosophy declare its true intentions by renaming itself “Department of European and American Philosophy.” While amusing, this argument is not particularly compelling.

I disagree with Garfield and Van Norden in their assertion that it is the “intention” of the philosophy community to teach a curriculum heavily weighted towards Western thought. Instead, I believe this situation to be a lingering side effect of broader and more complex systemic issues.

Everything in our world needs constant updating as our cultural and global values evolve. While other academic disciplines do appear to be leaving philosophy in the dust in their pursuit of diversity, this is not intentional, but is rather due to the common nature of those who choose a life of contemplation: we often consider it to be superior to a life of action.

This trait is often disappointingly revealed in our all-too-frequent unwillingness to act. It’s not that a majority of us within the discipline stubbornly refuse to change, it’s that we are often paralyzed by own analysis and that we are prone to make excuses for ourselves on that basis.

I also disagree with Garfield and Van Norden’s claim that to continue to argue for diversity is “futile.” Not only is it worthwhile to argue this point, but it is also our specific responsibility as philosophers to argue such points.

As John Stuart Mill explains in On Liberty:

“A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case, he is justly accountable to them for the injury.”

We in philosophy must hold ourselves justly accountable for the injuries brought about by our inaction. As philosophers, we cannot condone this kind of intellectual or moral laziness, as this is the antithesis of every goal at which philosophy has aimed throughout history.

Garfield and Van Norden conclude their case with a Stoic adage: “The Fates lead those who come willingly, and drag those who do not.” It is true that those sticks still stuck in the mud are likely to find themselves “dragged” forward into a more diverse future; but what about those of us who would come along willingly?

There are some obvious consequences of keeping things the way they are, like supporting an overall cultural narrative rooted in xenophobia, and further marginalizing the groups whose ideas have been left out of the discourse. However, there’s another group being cheated by this paradigm: philosophy students.


When an LA Times op-ed asked why it was that “Like the Oscars, #PhilosophySoWhite,” it wasn’t just a question of “political correctness,” but a cry for correctness in cognition. The authors of this article, Myisha Cherry and Eric Schwitzgebel, cite troubling statistics regarding the lack of diversity in philosophy departments, like the fact that only 28% of philosophy PhDs are women, and only 2% are African-Americans. They go on to explain a possible reason for why this is:

“It’s not that white men are innately better philosophers than women and people of color. It’s that white men have better command of the cultural apparatus of seeming smart.”

In a culture with many conditions that favor white men, it’s much easier for white men to appear wise and insightful. Illogical as it obviously is, this appearance is key when it comes to getting recognition in academic philosophy circles. The fact that our archetypal image of a philosopher is a white, Western man hurts the credibility of anyone who doesn’t fit that mold before they ever speak.

We are committing a collective ad hominem fallacy by poisoning our own well of ideas. This must certainly discourage women and minorities from entering any debate. While this is bad news for these groups in both the context of the philosophy community and the world at large, it’s also bad for everyone else in philosophy, and as a result, bad for society.

We are ironically sabotaging our own community and culture with our own bad logic. “Before you listen to her, let me remind you that she’s been in jail…”

Even if we completely ignore the race and gender-based political implications of what is happening here, we are still left with other ethical issues, as well as practical ones.

We shouldn’t change the academic philosophy narrative just because refusing to do so is racist, misogynistic, archaic, and wrong; we should do it because there is an undeniable intrinsic value to cultivating broader views of life in our society’s future thinkers, as well as to cultivating diversity in the pool of said thinkers.

Without politicizing the issue at all, in maintaining the status quo we are still guilty of failing to do our jobs as seekers of truth. The motto of my university is, “Let knowledge serve the city.” We are failing to facilitate this, though ours is the department that is perhaps most concerned with how knowledge serves us.

I, myself, serve as an example of someone who was frustrated with the lack of cultural diversity in my department’s curriculum even before I started reading the opinions of others on the subject. There are many parallel ideas across cultures, and exploring their similarities and differences can help us to better understand the nature of human thought.

Excluding non-European thought from the academic philosophy narrative doesn’t just hurt the interests of non-Europeans overall, it also hurts the ability of students like me to learn the thinking skills which we are studying philosophy in order to obtain, and narrows our perspectives of the world. These are serious consequences when it comes to nurturing our minds, because our minds will be responsible for passing on the legacy of humanity’s centuries-old pursuit of wisdom.


The ancient Aztecs believed that a good life is a life spent doing what is worthwhile. It was a common aphorism in their culture to say that the earth was “slippery.” They thought it was unrealistic to live a life in which we are expected not to make mistakes.

According to philosophy professor Sebastian Purcell:

“The Aztecs held, in short, that it’s unrealistic to think that anyone can lead a perfectly good life, one in which you never slip up. A better goal, then, is to try to lead a rooted life, which they called neltiliztli: literally, rootedness. In this kind of life, one is able to manage the mistakes and slip-ups well, rather than avoid them altogether. The reward is not happiness necessarily, but the promise of a worthwhile life.”

Purcell goes on to mention that public drunkenness was severely punished in the Aztec capital. Nobles could even be put to death for such careless behavior. Among my own friends, when someone behaves carelessly like that, we say that they are “slippin’.”

According to Urban Dictionary, this colloquialism is defined as, “Off guard, not paying attention to your surroundings and not putting in the right effort.”

Philosophy: You are slippin’.

Those of us who have chosen the contemplative life have a responsibility to ourselves and to the world to relentlessly pursue knowledge. In this worthwhile pursuit, we must learn to manage our mistakes.


Originally published on medium.com on December 9th, 2019.