(June 22, 2015 at 12:01 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: So....basically you're saying whether someone did something wrong or not depends on the circumstances. Which means whether something is wrong depends on the circumstances.
Where does the objective part come in?
No, that is not what I am saying.
Please read carefully.
The mentally insane person who went into psychotics and killed 10 people at the mall, still did a wrong deed. This means that killing 10 people at the mall is still wrong. What he did was still bad. Walking into a mall and killing 10 innocent people is still bad.
The subjective part is this man's culpability. (Perhaps it is the word culpability that some people are struggling with here.)
This man should be pronounced innocent by reason of insanity. His culpability is lessened or eliminated because, even though his action was still immoral, he did not realize he was doing it and so cannot be held accountable the same way a sane person would.
"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
