> If there can be no moral blame, then the moral classification of actions has no meaning. At the risk of mirroring Fricken's reply, this isn't so. Suppose a b

> If there can be no moral blame, then the moral classification of actions has no meaning. At the risk of mirroring Fricken's reply, this isn't so. Suppose a brain tumour drives someone to commit murder, as may have been the case with Charles Whitman. The act remains morally atrocious even if the individual's culpability is doubtful. Same goes for a killer animal, or natural disaster, or even disease. Moral blame is discounted entirely in pure utilitarianism (which is of course deeply flawed, but I think it's still illustrative here).