(June 22, 2015 at 12:55 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 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.
And what you're saying here is that the morality of the act is dependent upon the mindset of the actor because -- in a point you elide -- there is no such thing as a moral act without an actor, or moral judge.
That, in and of itself, renders morality subjective. You're making my case for me, every time you bring up these instances where you say an objective moral claim is modifiable by certain extenuating circumstances. The is right, just, and normal. Why would you deny doing it?
