Like I said you can take Christ's example and pretty much apply it to most kinds of explanations.
Take your example, someone is confronted with a moral dilemma and they choose one thing over another. You say they, 'simply don't care,' I'm not sure whether you mean they don't care in general or they don't care to choose the right option. They do care though, they care to choose whatever option it is they have chosen over the right option. This could be for any number of reasons, they are apatheitc, but they are apethetic towards the correct option, not their own selfish desires.
Let's just leave the theology out of it. I just don't think that parable applies, and that debate would distract from the point you are trying to make. We can leave this on the level of moral philosophy. I say moral philosophy (or, in Kantian terms--always dangerous--practical reason) because I recognize that apathy really is a moral issue. But I'll take that up in the next section.
As to apathetic people not caring, there is a sense in which you are correct. Everything we choose (I presume) is something we choose because we desire it. That's what I was getting at with my comments to gherkin above. I don't know that absolute indifference really means anything. But on second thought, maybe it does. Because if the will is free, then it undetermined. I think we need to be careful here about suggesting that on some
level, the apathetic person wants what he ended up choosing merely in view of the fact that he chose it. That sounds very close to saying that the person's will was determined by something they wanted. understand that there are cases in which the intellect perceives good imperfectly in a variety of situations and therefore the will is indeterminate. But here you are choosing between goods. When you talk about apathy, the problem seems to be that the intellect perceives a type of goodness, but not true goodness, since goodness speaks to desirability. The type of goodness they seem to perceive is what I might call functional goodness, or better, usefulness. I know a college degree would be useful, but I don't see the value in going through the effort to get it (even though I may be able to enumerate all the things that would make it valuable). I'm not saying you are wrong here (insofar as I have understood you), but I am saying that whatever we say, we need to be careful to preserve the freedom of the will.
Proper use of our faculties or talents is the morally correct thing to do, I would say use of our faculties is also a moral issue. The end goal towards the proper use of these faculties should be for the glory of God. Faith most likely plays a big part in how people use their faculties, that could also include the likes of furthering your education.
Again, I agree that apathy is a moral issue. I wonder if laziness doesn't enter into the picture here. If a person doesn't see the value in hard work, they may choose not to do it, not caring about the results. That type of apathy is clearly immoral since it makes the person a sloth.
But I still wonder about people who are otherwise hardworking but, perhaps having gotten burned out, they become depressed and just lose all sense of value generally. Some people go through the motions in that state. Some just give up. I'm not saying an apathetic person can't behave properly and make the correct choices. I am asking, though, what it is that makes a person unable to perceive the goodness or the desirability of a thing, particularly when they can enumerate the benefits of acting in a certain way. What is going on when a person ceases to care about cultivating the life that they have been given? I realize it is a terrible sin to not take care of this life. But what of people who take care of it out of habit or obligation but fail to see the value
in doing so? People can't survive long in that state . . . not and be remain sane, anyway.
Of course, here I'm assuming that apathy has something to do with depression and a loss of a sense of the value of life itself, but that seems to be a fair assumption. Yes, no?