Atheism, Gnosticism & the Problem of Evil

[Ferrocyanide]

Is it?  Let's run with it and see how you feel.

We consider two murders.  One is naturally advantageous to the murderer - the victim has something he wants and the crime will produce no adverse consequences.  The other is not.  It's impulsive and in full view of many witnesses who will punish him severely.

Is the one murder good because it is natural by your description, and the other murder evil because it is not?

Which sense of the word 'good' are you using here?  You seem to be emphasizing good in the sense of utility over that of morals.

As a general principle, mens rea is considered to make the offense worse.

May I step into this conversation?
So, I am going to take the 2 murder example provided by The Grand Nudger. Actually, I only need the first one.
This line
"One is naturally advantageous to the murderer - the victim has something he wants and the crime will produce no adverse consequences."

I will now insert me and Grand Nudger into the sentence.
Version #1:
Ferrocyanide has something that the Grand Nudger has. Ferrocyanide murders Grand Nudger and the crime will produce no adverse consequences for Ferrocyanide.

Here is version #2
Grand Nudger has something that the Ferrocyanide has. Grand Nudger murders Ferrocyanide and the crime will produce no adverse consequences for Grand Nudger.

HERE ARE MY QUESTIONS:
Which version is good for Ferrocyanide?
Which version is good for Grand Nudger?
Which version is good for the rest of the people in the society?
You guys are talking about morals, right? How should we build our moral framework for our society?
Which version is moral for Ferrocyanide?
Which version is moral for Grand Nudger?
Which version is moral for the rest of the people in the society?


--Ferrocyanide