(July 27, 2013 at 1:56 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: In that situation, you incline people to do certain actions based on some aspect of their nature. If God's interference is akin to that, he becomes morally blameworthy doesn't he? He would then be part of the causal process of evil's creation, and then would be known to have been able to have determined a different outcome at the onset. And that's not something I see Christians or Muslims agreeing with.
Doe he? Assigning moral blame is not that easy, especially when the underlying concepts of morality remain undefined.
For example, I assume that in my given analogy, you would consider me morally blameworthy for what had happened, i.e., one guy putting another in the hospital. But why would you assign the moral blame to me?
My own actions, in and of themselves, were either morally correct (I told the truth all the way) or morally neutral (nothing wrong with putting a crowbar beside my desk). All the immoral choices were made by the other guys.
Is it because my intention was that such a beating should occur that makes me morally guilty? But my ultimate intention was that neither of them should get the job, which could be argued as moral thing.
Is it because I could foresee something immoral happening? In that case a woman who gets raped while walking down a dark alley shares the moral blame for it because she could've easily foreseen it.
Is it because I was the beneficiary of this immoral event and not the victim? Then that would mean that even the company, which ultimately benefits from having me as the manager, should be held morally guilty.
Or is it simply because I was part of the causal chain that culminated in that event? Then that causal chain would cover a lot of other people as well - who all should share the moral blame.
