Moral Accountability

Thanks for the prompt reply. Ok, I'll drop the "hypothetical topic" part, since I see your logic. However, it does not mean that you win. My opponents case: 1. Yes, we all have a sense of morality, built upon by society. My argument is that we are born with no sense of morality. It is our experiences in life that give it to us. If one does not know about morality and does not know right from wrong, can we be justified in punishing them? That is the jist of my argument. You don't answer this part. My case: 1. Ok, so I dropped the hypothetical situation. But still, if that murderer had no idea that what he did was wrong, can we be justified in punishing them? I argue no, and my opponent doesn't answer this. Therefore, we can assume he agrees with me, since he spent his speech critiquing my hypothetical topic argument. 2. Ok, you ask for a reason, here is a reason: People should not be punished for crimes they did not know were crimes because when you punish someone, you must justify the punishment, or you yourself are committing a wrongful act. We cannot justify punishing this person because when you do an action, it is because we know that action is wrong and we still do it, that we are punished. It is because we defy previous rules that we are punished. But if you do not know there is a rule, can you break it knowingly? It is this absence of knowing that I argue that it is wrong to punish them. Ok, this is why I brought up the hypotheticality of the topic, because there is no way to prove that one does not know something is wrong. In all of the examples provided, we are given the information that the person involved does not know the action is wrong. Because of this insight, the situation is hypothetical. But to answer my opponents points, why should we restrict the rights of someone who did nothing wrong in their eyes, according to what they know? If they don't know what they did was wrong, how can we hold them accountable? We can't. <" This point still stands since my example has proven my point, so the point stands. " The example is (or at least I think it should be considered) valid, sure, but it doesn't hold weight against my example, that criminals would not be stopped. A child being punished for stealing a cookie from the cookie jar is much less of an issue than a person breaking into the child's room and abducting him or her. > Ok, fine. Here is something that does hold water. You examples do not tell us whether or not the person involved knows the action is wrong. You assume they do. However, my whole point is that if they don't, we can't be justified in punishing them. Again, that is why I brought up the hypotheticality (sorry, but I couldn't think of an actual word that describes it) of the topic. Again, you assume that the people who do these things know it is wrong. In that case, I would fully back you. However, in this topic, it discusses the possibility of someone NOT knowing the wrongful-ness of their action. I answered this. but even if society is protected, we cannot justify restricting ones rights, if one doesn't know why what he/she did was wrong. Its more than feelings. Its morality. Morality gets broken when we infringe upon other people's rights to protect others.