RE: What IS good, and how do we determine it?
June 22, 2015 at 12:55 am
(This post was last modified: June 22, 2015 at 1:08 am by Catholic_Lady.)
(June 21, 2015 at 11:42 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: How do you define "culpability", if not in terms of moral responsibility?
Actually, that is a great way to put it. Culpability = a particular individual's moral responsibility.
However, the ACT itself is inherently immoral. While culpability may vary between the 2 offenders in my example, the objective act of killing 10 people at the mall remains an immoral act.
Let's use the American justice System as a metaphor for God's laws:
Murder is a crime in the US. (think of this as murder being inherently immoral in our universe)
However, there are varying degrees of responsibility we put on the murderer. There is guilty and there is innocent by reason of insanity. (think of this as the different levels of culpability of a person who has committed an immoral act)
So, if a person gets innocent by reason of insanity, does this change the fact that murder is a crime? No. Murder is still a crime. And that person has still committed a criminal act. But because of varying factors, this person's moral responsibility was lessened to innocent by reason of insanity verses a guilty.
This may not be the most perfect analogy, but I hope it helps you better understand what I mean by objective acts and personal culpability.
(June 22, 2015 at 12:44 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:(June 22, 2015 at 12:32 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: The act. Stealing is inherently wrong.
Because you say so? Because the Catholic church says so? You can't think of any situation in which it is morally right to steal?
Also, I replied to your short list of objective morals; will you respond to that, please?
No. Stealing from someone else, in and of itself, is an immoral act. What changes is the individual person's culpability.
I appreciate your response. I will get to it.
(June 22, 2015 at 12:53 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: So the Catholic Church runs into the inescapable fact that sometimes murder is less wrong (or not at all), and therefore invented this "subjective culpability." Nice.
No. Murder is always immoral. What changes is the person's culpability. For a better understanding see my reply to Parkers Tan where I make an analogy to the American justice system.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
