Wait! Before you install that nonsensical password, here's a couple of questions that I was always curious to know your response to. You sure get a lot of morality questions on here, and I hate to bombard you with more of them but here goes:

When a rock falls on a mountain biker and kills him, is it morally condemned? Do we call the rock wicked and prosecute it? Of course we don't; that would be stupid.
But when another mountain biker goes up to his companion and kills him, we call HIM evil, and we prosecute him. Why is that?
Why is the killing of someone by a less complex formation of chemicals - a rock - morally neutral, while the killing of someone by a more complex formation of chemicals - a human - is a moral outrage?

How can people call us accidental bunches of self-replicating molecules and then stand there and say we have a moral obligation? By what right do they condemn God's "genocides" in the Old Testament?

It makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can clear it up? Thanks.
Asked by Anonymous

Uh, because a human that kills another human probably premeditated it? A rock can’t premeditate jack shit. And not all killings done by humans are condemned. If a woman kills a guy in self defense because he’s trying to kill HER, she’s not going to be condemned. Many killings are in fact highly celebrated.

I logged on because I’m done and am about to put on the nonsensical password, so this shall be the last nonsensical question.

If that was honestly a question you think requires any higher level of thinking you probably need to continue your education starting from grade 9.