 So Neil in Facebook, even though he's not using super chat, asked a question I just think is too important not to at least give an indication of an answer because I don't think we can answer it fully right now. But he asked the question that most religionists who are not that familiar with Objectivism ask and that is why be good without a higher moral code, right? If Morali doesn't come from God then where does it come from? Higher, I assume, Neil means from God rather than just a moral code, a good moral code. So you wanna take a stab at that condensed answer to that? Well, this is actually the the big question that everybody in the comment section on the Quillette article was asking because I didn't really say and I didn't have time to say it in the article itself. What I did do was I linked to an article that Ankar Gatte wrote for New Ideal which I encourage people to look up about how to have morality and happiness without religion. And I mean, in essence, what he illustrates is first the shortcomings of religious morality but then second what Ayn Rand's alternative to this is and her view that, look, just like you can make scientific discoveries and observations about what kind of food is good or bad for the body, philosophy can also make scientific observations and discoveries about what kinds of ways of life more generally are good, not just for the body but for the body and the mind. And morality is a code of values that helps guide the overall course of your life. And in her view, there's two basic facts about human beings that form the basis for a moral code. One is that as living creatures, we have to survive by a definite process of actions. The way that we survive is using our minds to figure things out about the world, to create values and to be happy. And then the second important fact is that we have to make a choice to use our minds and to pursue these values. And we need morality to help us guide our choices. And it helps us, if you look at Ayn Rand's book, The Virtue of Selflessness, especially essay, The Objectivist Ethics, she lays out a list of principles and virtues that she thinks aids us in this kind of life. And I should mention, I did a course at Ocon this past summer on Galt's speech from Atlas Shrugged and it'll go up on YouTube eventually, but the first part of that course was on her idea of the morality of life as laid out in Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged. Good, it might be worth putting that up as a separate video, just that portion of your course because it's such a common question. It comes up all the time and it's really the, if we can cook people in that, if people get that, then it's much easier to get the rest of the philosophy. And it's something that I've noticed there's this whole discussion of right now between Jordan Peterson and his critics about this issue. And it came up in the session that you did with Greg and Jordan Peterson at Ocon. How do you drive facts from values? And just one quick comment on that, which is that I think an underappreciated aspect of Inran's answer to that question is that one is the fact about life but second is the issue of choice and that you've got to choose to live. You've got to want to live for these facts to apply to you. I think that some of the things that Jordan Peterson has got his finger on are pointing us to the fact that one of those points is not enough. It's not just that there are things that biological entities require to stay in existence. It's also that for human beings, there's a choice you've got to make for any of those facts that have any force. I think people like Sam Harris, for example, will talk just about the one point and deny the other one, deny the relevance. He denies it, he doesn't just ignore it, he denies it, right? Because he says there is no choice. Yeah, and you can see why without both of them, both Sam and Jordan are both missing. If you put them together, but it doesn't work that way unfortunately, it doesn't sound quite that easy. Good, yes. I think for those of you interested more in this, read Ankar Gathe's essay in The New Ideal. A few weeks ago, a few months ago, I think, it was one of the first essays that went up in New Ideal, I think. Yeah, it's called Finding Morality and Happiness Without God. Finding Morality and Happiness Without God, it's excellent. And then of course, read The Virtue of Selfishness by Iron Man, the Objectivist Morality or Ethics, which is the first essay in the book. And you should definitely read that, but Objectivism has an objective, scientific-based moral code, right? That's, so it's not that life without morality, it's like with a morality, just a morality based on the facts of life and the fact that you choose to live. And if you don't choose to live, none of it applies. As opposed to edicts that you're supposed to accept on faith that have no bearing whatsoever on your choices, that you're supposed to do just cause. And it's not if you want to achieve anything else, it's a commandment and a categorical imperative. And I mean, we're starting to see the, well, we've been seeing for thousands of years the fruits of that, but it's particularly salient with this latest scandal. Yep.