 So the question is whether these other moral theories are either arbitrary or independent. Let's first look with Sumner and Hume here. If you remember Hume claimed that your moral beliefs are justified by your passions, however you feel or what you want determines what is moral. Well in this sense, morality could just be about anything. If this is true, then morality is arbitrary. Whatever is moral is moral, simply could be different from one moment to the next. However, morality is not independent of human beings. You need human passions, human wants, human desires in order for there to be morality at all. If there are no humans, there is no morality. So if Hume is right, morality is not independent, but it is arbitrary. With Sumner's theory, what is more or less determined by cultural belief? And morality can change from culture to culture from time to time. There is no reason for what morality is other than what the culture decides, and the culture very literally could decide just about anything. So if Sumner's right, morality is arbitrary and could just be about anything. However, morality is not independent. You could not have morality without human beings without human culture. Morality without humanity is nonsense. Next we have Hobbes and Glaucon, and they're both asking the question whose interests are most important, and they each agree that one's own interest is most important. This is not something you get to change. This is not something you get to decide otherwise. In fact, for each of them, if you work against your own interests, you're something of a fool. And to be clear, that your own interests are most important does not mean that you can just do whatever you want. You must always work in your own interest. If you adopt a habit or an activity that is counter to your health, for example, each would say you should stop that. Hume might be forced to say that you can do it if you really want to, but Glaucon and Hobbes would say if you take on something that will eventually end your life, you should stop. So for each of them, there is something of what it is to be in your interest, and that is not something you get to decide, and it's really not something that's up to a whim. So morality is not arbitrary. There's a reason for what's moral independent of desire or whim. Neither is morality independent of the individuals involved. Morality is determined by interests. So without human beings, without something that has interests, there can't be any morality. So for Hobbes and Glaucon, morality is neither arbitrary nor independent of human beings. For Epicurus and Aristotle, they're both trying to answer the question, what is in your interest? What is the moral worth? What is good? Now they each have a different answer, but for each of them, what has moral worth is determined by what you are. This is not something you get to change or something you get to just make up yourself. Therefore, what is moral is moral for a reason, not a whim. Epicurus says that what has more worth is pleasure, and Aristotle says that what has more worth is fulfillment. Now for each of these, you need something that has pleasure. You need something that can have fulfillment. You probably also need something that can actually make decisions to pursue pleasure or fulfillment. So for each of these theories, you can't talk about morality without human beings. If human beings didn't exist, neither would morality. So morality for each of them is neither arbitrary nor independent. Locke is trying to tell us how to live our lives by telling us what rights we have. What rights we have are determined by sovereignty. As we are all responsible to and for ourselves, this determines what's moral. You do not get to say that you have more rights than another person or that another person has less rights than you. Morality is not up for a whim or a mere decision. What is moral is determined by whether you are responsible to or for it. Moreover, there needs to be something that is actually responsible for something else. This means at least something kind of like a human being, if not more capable. So if Locke is right, morality is neither arbitrary nor independent. According to John Stuart Mill, what is more or less determined by the consequences of the act and the consequences that matter is the greatest overall happiness produced. But we cannot just simply make something happy by a matter of a decision. Whether and to what degree happiness is produced, it's independent of a whim. So what is moral is not arbitrary. Moreover, you can't talk about morality without something that experiences happiness. And you probably can't talk about morality without something that can at least deliberate over what causes happiness or not. So you need at least something like a human being. So morality is neither arbitrary nor independent given John Stuart Mill's theory. Kant tells us that we must live and act according to that maxim which we can will into universal law. And whether that can be done is independent of the willing itself. So morality is not arbitrary and you need something that can at least make decisions that can at least will and can at least deliberate. So it's not independent of us either. So for each of these theories, what morality is, is dependent upon human beings. Now with the exception of Hume and Sumner, morality is also not arbitrary. So with the exception of those two, these moral theories avoid the consequences of the dilemma. Why don't I hear a question? Can we in some sense talk about these moral theories or do these moral theories make sense if a divinity is yet one more moral agent in the bunch?