Honest Answer Pls

[Rushmore]

We might need to agree to disagree on the semantics.

I believe a person must be tempted before he can give in to temptation, and that the mere fact that some will be tempted to cheat while others will not be tempted to cheat makes those in the former group (obviously) more likely to actually cheat. Therefore, I think it is not unreasonable to ascribe the value judgement upon their susceptibility to temptation (if you will).

I suppose one could make the argument that a person who is able to resist temptation is an even more moral subject than the person not tempted at all. We would need to consult Augustine on this, or maybe Schopenhauer.

Anyway, I'll give you some extremes: I have an aunt who is a nun. I am not a fan of the church at all, by the way.

Anyway, she is a truly Christian woman, and I can assure you, she would not consider cheating, ever. That's just her way, and I'm sure it fits into anyone's definition of "moral."

On the other hand, I had a acquaintence back in the day who seemed to have Ratso Rizzo as his role model. From the moment he woke up til the moment he went to sleep, he was hustling and angling. He was just hardwired that way. He once stole my leather jacket.

What can be said of this character, even if he had never acted on any of his angles?

By the way, he ended up beaten to death on the sidewalk. Nobody's really sure why, but the general consensus was that he "probably deserved it."

Anyway, there's that.