The moral significance of a rock might be minor. It isn't most people's first choice for a murder weapon. If I saw someone carrying a weapon-sized rock, I might

The moral significance of a rock might be minor. It isn't most people's first choice for a murder weapon. If I saw someone carrying a weapon-sized rock, I might somewhat suspicious, but I wouldn't be seriously alarmed, like I would if they were holding a gun or knife. > Tools simply enhance a users ability to affect the world around them. Some tools are very general. It's hard to imagine faulting the tool, as it is so useful that it isn't an serious option to abandon it, even if some people use it for bad purposes. Other tools are not so general. A straight-forward example may be high-explosives. They can used for good, but those situations are very specific and easily recognizable. If high-explosives are found outside of those contexts, the moral significance is obvious. There is a decent chance that someone has bad intentions. A very clear and compelling explanation would be needed to resolve the matter. Most tools are fairly benign. Or the beneficial usage significantly outnumbers any malicious examples, especially in common contexts. But I don't think means that all tools are by default neutral. At risk of belaboring the point, here are two more examples: * Utility knife: (1) When camping: good (2) In an elementary school: bad * Cameras: (1) 99% of the time: good (2) In the public showers or changing room: bad In the above "bad" scenarios, I would say the tool itself takes on a negative moral significance. Obviously, there can be caveats -- e.g. you might be filming a movie -- but you get the idea. I'm curious what you think of this.