This isn't from me
Are people able to control their behavior?
Doesn't the mere presence of civil law assume that man can choose other than evil? Self control is a virtue isn't it? The law demands self control. An insanity plea is not based on the idea that a particular criminal could not choose good from evil but that he did not know good from evil. If what we call morality is simply a matter of different genetic compositions then why would anybody be wrong in a moral sense if they were judging people for actions that they allegedly dictated by nature? Couldn't one argue for example that it's a Christian's nature to judge right from wrong? It's part of their genes! Because the knife cuts both ways doesn't it? A good illustration of this surfaced recently in the news. Apparently a judge has ruled that cigarette companies can be held liable for those who die of the effects of smoking even though they were adequately appraised of the risks from the beginning. Now think about this if people who smoke are not responsible for actions they chose do to with full knowledge of the risks, how could they argue that the cigarette company is responsible? Wouldn't they be off the hook too? If one person is not responsible for his actions why is the one who proceeds him responsible?
Doesn't the mere presence of civil law assume that man can choose other than evil? Self control is a virtue isn't it? The law demands self control. An insanity plea is not based on the idea that a particular criminal could not choose good from evil but that he did not know good from evil. If what we call morality is simply a matter of different genetic compositions then why would anybody be wrong in a moral sense if they were judging people for actions that they allegedly dictated by nature? Couldn't one argue for example that it's a Christian's nature to judge right from wrong? It's part of their genes! Because the knife cuts both ways doesn't it? A good illustration of this surfaced recently in the news. Apparently a judge has ruled that cigarette companies can be held liable for those who die of the effects of smoking even though they were adequately appraised of the risks from the beginning. Now think about this if people who smoke are not responsible for actions they chose do to with full knowledge of the risks, how could they argue that the cigarette company is responsible? Wouldn't they be off the hook too? If one person is not responsible for his actions why is the one who proceeds him responsible?