Intelligence with the will to act. The term is used often in naturalism, even though it has connotations in supernaturalism which include souls and other supernatural addons.
Moral culpability is something determined by other humans. We determine if our fellow man has acted wrongly. In the sense that someone acted as a result of the sum of all influence, culpability is when the person's selfish desires(influences) such as greed or pride were too strong, outweighing other influences. This condition(inability to quell greed/pride) is not acceptable, since it leads to behavior that degrades society.Flann wrote:What do you mean by the influencing desire Interbane?
If behaviour is determined by the comparative strength of various influences there can be no moral culpability.
With respect to adam and eve, the story really can't grant any wisdom on free will. For one, why wouldn't god have warned adam of the serpent who was going to manipulate him into eating the apple? Who is to blame? Adam, or the serpent? If god foresaw the serpent's argument, why would he not have reframed his original command? Is a serpent truly more persuasive than god? Was there "something" in adam's decision that overruled both the argument from the serpent and the commands from god, and that is what he must be blamed for? If so, it cannot be neither good nor evil, since that came after eating the fruit. The more the story is analyzed, the more it's painfully obvious as nothing but myth. Morality is best understood through the lens of science and philosophy, not religion.