Why should they be punished? This kind of thing happens in real life all the time. If say, a hotel owner rented a room to a group of young students who engage in underage drinking, and the hotel owner is aware of it happening should he be punished?

It's against the law for him to not report it if he knows it is happening, but he has "plausible deniability" meaning he can claim he wasn't aware that it was happening and that is believable. The owner is not responsible for crimes someone else commits in his establishment.

@Happy_Killbot hey you made up the laws in this fake society. Don't blame me. You said gambling is illegal. Doesn't matter where it is. And what you're talking about is reckless indifference which makes the owner completely guilty. It's his establishment and he allows it to go on. It's called being an accomplice. Obviously you've heard the Shaggy song too often. Gets caught red-handed and his defense is "wasn't me." Sorry , not the way the world works or the law in normal society.

@lerlo Sounds like if you were in this situation that you would not take the deal. I'm not blaming you for anything, no need to feel that way. I only meant to clarify.

If someone knew they could take a calculated risk, and did or did not consider moral implications, how would that effect their decisions?

@Happy_Killbot for some the law is a moral obligation. Taking morality out of it, the law is still a legal obligation. Wanting to do your neighbor's hot wife isn't moral in my morality and it isn't legal in all States I believe. Would people do it anyway, of course, it happens every day.

This question is deliberately ambiguous. The question is supposed to make you consider morality from viewpoints other than your own, and how you answer says more about the person who answers than about the nature of morality itself.

You aren't supposed to ask: is gambling, or anything else for that matter right or wrong, you are supposed to think: how would someone behave differently if they thought something was wrong, assuming it didn't affect them?

@Happy_Killbot that was not the question's effect.

g

@Happy_Killbot agreed. There are behaviors that have been altered, over hundreds of thousands, millions of years, by evolution. Some for an individuals survival others for the survival of the species. This accounts for the similarity in customs and laws from totally disconnected societies. To recognize these behaviors as morals, or something else, is just a matter of semantics.

@Happy_Killbot i am suspicious of people who say i'm not supposed to ask something.

g

@Casey07 gambling takes advantage of our inability to calculate probability. We didn't evolve that ability, and people who run casinos know this and take advantage of players who think they can make a quick buck.

If our morals are based on evolution, then can we trust them in a world that is different than the world we didn't evolve in? So if that means abandoning some characteristics that are no longer beneficial to us in deliberate opposition to our moral principals, does that make it right?

I personally do not, but some people do. I chose this as an example because it is more realistic. suppose the method of gambling was Russian roulette? would that change things?

@Happy_Killbot religious people in some sects consider gambling evil.....interesting that you do......

@AnneWimsey I do not consider gambling immoral

@Happy_Killbot ?????? Then why is it your prime/only example????????? How about using drunkeness, rape, spousal/child abuse, stealing!? Something actually heinous & injurious to others?

@AnneWimsey Because it needs to be something that is in a morally grey area. The point is to see if someone can separate there own morals from those of someone else, and shows just how much ambiguity surrounds morality.

@Happy_Killbot no, sorry, I believe 99% of people know Exactly what is moral, whether they choose to ignore it or not. Like pornography, you know it when you see it (hear of it, commit it).
Very little is actually ambiguous, as is shown by your struggle to find a good example.

@AnneWimsey Is pornography moral or immoral? I think I could find a lot of people arguing both sides.

@Happy_Killbot it is neither, serves a need for some, bores the hell out of others. IMO If you can argue both sides, again, not a good example
Of course exploitation of the "actors" Could be an issue, but hey, they gotta eat too.....

@AnneWimsey What about the war, the death penalty, and abortion? Chances are you think at least one of those things is immoral, but if you pay taxes then you are paying for it. I can't use pay your taxes as an example though because choice is an important element.

@Happy_Killbot NO tax dollars have Ever been used for abortion! None, ever! I now mistrust everything you say, you have hidden agendas

@AnneWimsey [plannedparenthoodaction.org]

@Happy_Killbot yes, taxx dollars go to PP for healthcare, but Never elective abortions. PP is adamant about maintaining that separation, always has been. You are a nasty piece of work & about as truthful as drumpy!

@AnneWimsey Medicaid will cover abortions is Alaska, California, Connecticut, Hawaii Maryland, Massachusetts Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia.

@Happy_Killbot yes, in a medical situation, Not as an elective, which I already stated.

What would you do in this situation?

I guess it's little unclear in the post but the amoral twin isn't actually doing any gambling, just allowing it to happen under his roof. The only thing he has to lose is attracting unsavory members of society.

@Happy_Killbot My point is that atheist/agnostics will or will not be moral - without a "god" telling them what to do.

The huge, prolonged myth of the #religulous is that by being "faithful" you're more likely to be "morally upright" or have a conscience....

I think that's been proven false quite often.

@Robecology I agree with viewpoint, but you have to consider the deeper philosophical implications of that. If morality comes from human society, then a society that says it's okay to say, kill a minority for whatever reason is justified if enough people support it.

@Happy_Killbot This video of Penn will make the point better than I can...

@Robecology I understand and agree with the points he is making, but the question I am asking is a lot deeper than that. The question I am asking is "How do we decide what is and isn't moral if there is no objective standard for the determination of morality?"

For example, some cultures see rape as a form of punishment towards women for being weak, and the blame is entirely on them. How can we say we have the moral high ground here? Not saying I agree with it, just pointing out that if morality isn't absolute, then we can in fact justify anything as being moral. For example, you could say that by killing someone on the street and stealing their wallet is moral because they will never have any problems or suffering again, they are free from any and all pain, and some crook gets free money out of it.

What about Thanos killing half of all life in the universe to save everyone else? Can we say that is morally justified?

@Happy_Killbot Sorry, dude....no idea who Thanos is and what he did...you've gone too deep for me. Good luck with your quest.