 We're talking about morality, and we first need to identify what morality is and also what ethics is, because the two are intertwined. And the morality, as it states, is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions. Now, if we think about it logically, that implies that we've made a certain set of choices metaphysically and epistemologically first, which we'll then move into as well. They necessarily dictate the choices we'll make ethically and then politically as well. And ethics is essentially the process of learning what those values are and trying to set that code of values, what our morality is, and what we hold as valuable to our own lives. So you might think that primarily ethics deals with asking the question, what values are? What should those values be? But before that, that presupposes that there's an answer to the question of value to whom and why. And like I said, that draws on the earlier conflicts of existence versus non-existence and reason versus faith. So first then, why? Why does man need a code of values? Why does he need a moral compass to guide his life, to know what's good, what's evil? Is that arbitrary, or is it based in reality? If we accept that we've chosen reality as an absolute and existence exists, we can hopefully try and determine what a rational code of ethics is. So in the realm of ethics, we've got something called meta-ethics. And it's kind of like metaphysics, but it deals with the nature of where ethics come from, where our code of morals come from, where our code of values come from, and the ethics we choose. Now, historically and predominantly, most people would consider that ethics came from either God, some omniscient, omniscient being that could just dictate what we should do and what we shouldn't do, or from society, so-called normative ethics, the collective ethics, the ethics which society thinks you should do, the values which society determines you should have, not the values which you choose yourself. Now, I don't necessarily want to kind of like focus on the specific mysticism involved and faith involved with religion. I don't want to touch on any touchy areas like religion. If you want to come talk to me after about it, then that's fine, but I'm not going to stand here and talk about it now. But I will point out the arbitrariness of the construct society. If society is necessarily the source of ethics and therefore the source of values, that which is good is determined by what society wants to be good, or thinks is good, or votes is good, what the majority think is good. But the problem is society is only a collection of individuals. There's no collective mind, there's no collective person, there's no collective man. There's only you, me, him, her, whatever. There's no collective mind, there's only individual minds, there's only individual men. The problem with society as a source of ethics is that the majority are generally entitled to determine what is good, and it's moral for them to determine what is good, regardless of its content, and the minority are usually obliged to follow, and that's considered moral, that's considered valuable, regardless of the content, regardless of what the values chosen are, regardless of whether it conflicts with your existence. So if we want to change the predominant kind of pattern of thought, it's these issues that we need to tackle, but we need to base them in existence, we need to base them in metaphysics and epistemology. So we should start again by asking the question, well, what are values? You know, why does man need them? So what are values then? Another quote, I like quotes. Value is that which one acts to gain and or keep. The concept value is not a primary. It presupposes an answer to the question of value to whom and for what. It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative, where no alternative exists, no goals, and no values are possible. So Imran always used a good quote that an indestructible killer robot, not necessarily killer, but an indestructible robot is, never has to face the choice of whether it's going to live or die, it's indestructible. So therefore, it can't hold any values. Why should man even need values? Can everyone kind of read that? It's a bit small. I'll read it out anyway. There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe, and this is kind of coming back to the idea of the indestructible robot. Existence or non-existence, and it pertains to a single class of entities to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional. The existence of life is not. It depends upon a specific course of action. Matter isn't destructible, it changes forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative, the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generating action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies. Its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of life that makes the concept of value possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil. The indestructible robot can't die, you guys can. And that's the reason why man needs values, because man's values only come from the fact that you're alive. That is your highest value. It's the source of all your values, your life, man's life. Man's life is the ultimate standard of value. It's the goalpost, the measuring post by which you judge all other values. How we think, how we act.