Islam in Europe: perception and reality

[Mudhammam]

In a smaller domain: Drunk driver gets into car and subsequently kills three others in a wreck. He didn't intend to kill anyone, he only wanted to get home. Is he more or less culpable than the guy who grabs his gun and kills three people in a spree killing at your local mall.

I don't think intent is as morally decisive as you seem to think. That's fine, morality is relative and subjective anyway. I'm enjoying the discussion, btw.

I'm inclined to think that the drunk is less culpable but still deserving of whatever punishment vehicular homicide (or would it be manslaughter?) entails. My reason being that there is some amount of bad luck involved for the drunk, who perhaps 9 out of 10 times drives without ever killing someone. Now, of course, the fact that he decided to get drunk and drive still makes him responsible, but intention, here, indeed matters. Is he a bad person in the same way that a sober-minded individual who decides to go on a killing spree is a bad person? Probably not. So, while intention might not change the consequence or lighten the sentence in all instances (and we can say he intended to drink and drive if he had not set up a prior arrangement to get home, which was foolish for all the reasons made evident in the tragedy), it still makes a huge difference if we are to ask ourselves what danger that person might pose to the rest of society in the future. For the drunkard, there's probably not much of a danger so long as he or she is not drinking and driving (unless making compulsively bad decisions is a pattern that effects other areas of his/her life); for the mass shooter, I'm willing to bet that there exists a danger, in terms of violent and aggressive tendencies, which is bound to manifest itself regardless of whether or not he/she has a gun in their possession.

And if morality is subjective, well, then there's no right answer to any of these questions and this debate has been completely pointless. ;P