Talk:Culpability

message: Note: It is my understanding that "purposely" corresponds to specific intent and "knowingly" to general intent. However, I have no real authority that says this, only the descriptions of the two different kinds of intent (since there is no real authority for definitions). Thus I cannot state this with confidance. However, it does appear to be the case.
-- 69.162.34.100
Please vote. -- Sundar 05:10, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
The intro gives a sample of a non-culpable event (earthquake), stating explicitly that no person can be held responsible. Given the development of fracking and the suspected relation to some events lately (references please), this may not be a valid example anymore!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.243.6 (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think the new stuff is a good addition to the article.  I wikified and reorganized it a bit to make it more coherent. mmmbeerT / C 21:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While we do need a section on the moral/philosophical meaning of "culpability," it is not as straightforward as the article makes it seem.  In particular, some incompatibilists disagree with the assertion that free will is a necessary condition for culpability (e.g. Smilansky).  There may also be a distinction between culpability and moral responsibility (see e.g. Fischer).  Also, the distinction between "moral" and "natural" evil begs the question against those who do not believe in morality (e.g. Pereboom).  I'd try to fix it myself, but I think there are as many different conceptions of culpability as there are philosophers. LWizard @ 06:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned up the new stuff 

message: The article needs content from other perspectives than just US law.  Napoleonic code? English common law? Others?LeadSongDog 06:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US [[wp:Bias|bias] 

message: An illustration (below) is given in the first paragraph which is flawed in its presenting rudimentary elements of the issue at hand. It reads:
"Culpability therefore marks the dividing line between moral evil, like murder, for which someone may be held legally responsible and a randomly occurring event, like earthquakes, for which no human can be held responsible." 
How this illustration misses the main idea: Culpability" is when a wrong was done and a person was connected to the issue who both could bare some degree of responsibility even if not the "actor" of the evil action or the person may not share in the guilt of the action in any degree. Yet the illustration misses the point because the "randomly occurring event, like earthquakes" had no person involved who could have been either culpable or not culpable. 
A better illustration would be:
"The CFO was not a part of the embezzlement scheme but is still culpable for not doing "due diligence" in the areas of her oversight." 
Here you have an evil action that has been done by a person(s) (i.e. embezzlement) and an evaluation of one responsible for the businesses finances who had nothing to do with the scheme. While she is not guilty of being a part of the scheme, she is considered to be culpable as she had the ability to have prevented/stopped the embezzlement if she had done her job correctly. However, if she had properly performed her job but the scheme had been executed in such a way as to not be detected by her, then she would not be culpable.
Other elements of the article appear to not carefully articulate the issue as well.  
7quiver (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration fatally flawed