i mean, would they be liable for it in the 'final judgment'?
2006-12-12 04:00:22 · 5 answers · asked by bowen 6 in Social Science ➔ Psychology
Individuals that do not know right from wrong, should not be held morally liable as say someone who does differentiate between right and wrong, and still make the same action as said person.
That is why young children are tried differently as adults, because supposedly, children do not hold the same understanding of right and wrong, similar to an pyschotic as an adult.
Now to answer the quest would they be liable for the Final Judgment. That is difficult to answer, because that brings in the realm of Religion. In order to be liable for a final judgement does the said person also have to have faith in whatever particular religion that calls for it, or is it whether or not you have faith in that particular religion determins if you are liable for Final Judgement.
Example.
John1 doesnt believe in religion, god, heaven or hell. He is also a psychotic who is a serial Killer. It is clear that John1 doesn't know the difference between morally right and morally wrong due to a mental defect. Would he be Judged Like other individuals who have faith just like him or would he not be judged because he has no faith and no belief in that religion.
John2, believes in god, religion heaven and hell. He is a pyschotic killer who doesnt know right from wrong, and he truly believes that god is telling him who and when to kill a particular person, would he be Judged, and if so would he be morally responisble of his actions due to the fact that he was mentally handicap.....
So basically long story short people who do not know right from wrong (pyschotics) are not morally responsible for the actions they commit while under the the affect of any mental defect. And I believe it is whether or not they believe in a particular religion determines if they will be judged.
2006-12-12 04:59:15 · answer #1 · answered by steven c 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think someone should be held either morally or legally responsible for their actions when they have a mental defect that interferes with moral judgement and rational reflection.
That said, the state still has an interest in forcibly confining and imposing necessary treatment on someone who poses a risk to others and cannot themselves take responsibility for their thoughts and actions.
So short answer: if someone truly is not responsible for their harmful actions by reason of mental defect, then chances are they are also a candidate for paternalistic detention and treatment - they wouldn't simply "walk," as the expression goes.
2006-12-12 04:38:04 · answer #2 · answered by Disembodied Heretic 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no they wouldn't be. how can you be held respocible in any case when you were not in the right mind or possibly hallucinating and thought what you were doing was right?
now if you know you have these problems and don't stop maybe them you can be held accountable- morally and legally.
(I think you should post this question in religion and spirtuality)
2006-12-12 06:23:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Final judgement" and judicial judgement are two different things.
We are all responsible for our actions in the final one.
2006-12-12 04:08:36 · answer #4 · answered by saucylatina 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes I think so I don't buy that excuse. if you kill or hurt someone you should be held responsible
2006-12-12 04:04:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋