PrepTest 40, Section 2, Question 3
Having lived through extraordinary childhood circumstances, Robin has no conception of the moral difference between right and wrong, only between what is legally permitted and what is not. When Robin committed an offense, Robin did not recognize the fact that it was a morally wrong act, despite knowing that it was illegal.
Having lived through extraordinary childhood circumstances, Robin has no conception of the moral difference between right and wrong, only between what is legally permitted and what is not. When Robin committed an offense, Robin did not recognize the fact that it was a morally wrong act, despite knowing that it was illegal.
Having lived through extraordinary childhood circumstances, Robin has no conception of the moral difference between right and wrong, only between what is legally permitted and what is not. When Robin committed an offense, Robin did not recognize the fact that it was a morally wrong act, despite knowing that it was illegal.
Having lived through extraordinary childhood circumstances, Robin has no conception of the moral difference between right and wrong, only between what is legally permitted and what is not. When Robin committed an offense, Robin did not recognize the fact that it was a morally wrong act, despite knowing that it was illegal.
From the statements above, which one of the following can be properly inferred?
Robin committed no offense that was not legally permissible.
Robin did something that was morally wrong.
Moral ignorance is never excusable in the eyes of the law.
Robin's childhood could have provided more adequate moral training even in the circumstances.
Robin could now be brought to see the moral difference between right and wrong.
0 Comments