(June 22, 2015 at 2:07 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I am not asking you to agree with me. Just to understand what I am saying. Do you still not understand, or are you just saying you don't agree? What you just said above seems to indicate that you do not understand.
That may well be seletive reading then. I think I made my positive disagreement plain.
(June 22, 2015 at 2:07 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Let me try to explain it in the form of a question:
So, back to the American justice metaphor.
Murder is a crime. It is not lawful. It is not legal. It is a crime, period. This is American law.
If the insane person who murdered 10 shoppers at the mall got an innocent for reason of insanity verdict, does that mean that murder ceases to be a crime? Does the fact that some murderers get the innocent for reason of insanity verdict mean that murder stops being a crime?
(We'll ignore the fact that legal responsibility and moral responsibility are two different things.)
What you're saying is that the moral responsibility for a crime is relative to the state of mind of the criminal.
I will copypaste that sentence with the pertinent points emboldened:
What you're saying is that the moral responsibility for a crime is relative to the state of mind of the criminal.
Now, do you think the state of mind is irrelevant to culpability? Because it looks to me, from here, like you think that the moral responsibility for an event is distinctly tied to the mindset of the actor. Is that a fair statement to you?
Do you think your god was right to kill all but eight humans on Earth because he was disappointed with his own creation?
Do you think Charlie Manson was right to order the murder of seven humans?
Explain your answers, in detail.
