What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Ravenshire]

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?

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.

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?

Since when are crime and morality equal? Just because something is a crime does not mean it's immoral. Just because something is immoral does not mean it's a crime.

Using criminal law to explain morality is a fools game.