I said that moral culpability is better described by emotional intelligence than IQ.
Please explain why you would think this. A "psychopath" has a near zero EQ, do you believe a "psychopath" has no moral-culpability?
This was a comparison between two options and I selected an option that better fits.
If you can think of an even better criteria, please let me know. You're the one who thinks "moral" is "real".
If something is "real" then, axiomatically, it is measurable. If you insist that it is not measurable, then it can't be "real".
This does not mean that moral culpability is equal to your emotional intelligence.
Either "moral-culpability" correlates with EQ or it does not. Please choose one. If you can think of a better way of measuring "moral-culpability" please let me know, I'm trying to detect logical coherence in your "moral-intuition". Please feel free to modify or completely re-write any of your proposed statements at any time.
I've said previously that your moral culpability is based on your ability to be aware of how your actions affect others [YATBAOHYAAO].
This is the key point. Is YATBAOHYAAO IQ? Is YATBAOHYAAO EQ? Is YATBAOHYAAO some complex calculation of IQ and EQ?
Is YATBAOHYAAO something else entirely?
It seems to me that YATBAOHYAAO is what we need to be measuring.