 he makes the argument that science can be the thing that argues that our morality can be absolute, that you can have peaks and troughs in moral virtue and moral value, so that you can sort of rank behaviors and actions along a gradient of the least moral or evil to the most moral or virtuous and good and noble. I don't think we're capable of that because cultures are so important, our cultural upbringing is such an important predictor and input into our system of acquiring a sense of morality, moral belief and moral emotions. So I'll give a good example. This is work by John Height, this is a favorite. So here, this is what I always give to my students and family members and when I've had a few too many beers, I haven't had any beers yet, by the way, but I'm still gonna ask you. Not yet, not yet. Not yet, so there's this man or woman, but no, no, no, it has to be a man, it's a man. It's a man and he enjoys every Sunday, sort of his personal own tradition, doesn't have a family, just himself, picking up a roasted chicken from the grocery store, not cooked, it's raw. Not cooked raw, yeah. And he brings it home and before he roasts and has a beautiful dinner to himself, he has sex with the chicken. Got ya. With the chicken carcass. Yes. The chicken is dead. And so the question is, is that immoral? And I'll put that to you. Is that immoral? That action. No. Why? He bought the chicken, it's his property, he can do what he wants. I don't know. Okay, let me break it down. Yeah, no, no, no. Let me do something. Yeah, think about it. So the chicken has died already. Dead. All right, so the original purpose, if anyone's looking this from like a storytelling perspective, he went to buy the chicken to cook the chicken. So no matter what, the chicken's gonna be gone. Exactly, dead anyway. Eventually turned into electrons and protons in his body and into feces. Yes. All right, so it's not like he's killing the chicken. So the act of him having sex with the chicken is his own fetish. So for me, is that immoral? I would say no. The only question I would ask then is this a chronic behavior that perpetuates into not just chickens. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You know what I mean? That could lead to some other. Correct, but if I'm just looking at this one case example, it's just the dead chicken, I don't give a fuck. Exactly, he's not harming a chicken because the chicken's already dead. It's already dead. So what you've evoked there in your argument and your logic, which is the same as mine and most psychologists and most highly intelligent people, educated people, is you've evoked an argument or a logic of harm or harm reduction. So there was no harm done to himself. You can assume he doesn't get some weird penis disease. Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. He cleans up. Bacterial infection afterwards. He cleans up, exactly, which is probably possible. Not that I know. And then he did no harm to the chicken. So there's no harm being done whatsoever. So there's no violation of what is construed by many people, many human beings as the most important moral virtue, which is harm or the lack of causing harm, which we've seen all our religions by the way as well with important caveats. So it's not a moral then. That's some, there's two camps. There's the people who say there's no harm done therefore it's not a moral. And then there's the camp two, which is like even less in numbers, which is I don't believe in morality. That's just fucking weird behavior. It's a fetish. So I don't think it's a moral because there's no such thing as morality or a morality like you said. But if you ask that question to the majority of human beings, majority would say, yes, absolutely that's immoral. And then you go, why? Just as I prompted you, but you said no. And most people would be like, cause what do you think they would say? Imagine they're like, imagine you said, yes, that's immoral. And I said, why do you, why is that immoral in here? I don't think so. They can articulate the, because this is my thinking when it comes to anger. I want to say anger, but- Yeah, what is emotion? What emotion is going on there? I would say it's a hodgepodge of different emotions. The problem is, and this is why therapy is good. And I'm a fan of psychedelics and kind of makes you, you peel the onion layers to do, understand what you're feeling. Cause one thing to feel something, it's then the second thing to understand what you're feeling to articulate what you're feeling. So for me, I think people get round up with this emotion, but they don't have the necessary tools or systems or heuristics to articulate what they're feeling. So they just, it's reactive. Blur to that. Yeah, exactly. It's not good. Why? Yeah. Like a little child. Why, why, why, why, why? It's exactly it. But then that's what's weird thing is like children evolve to learn from adults and teachers and older kids that they model to always ask why, why, why, why, why? And then it seems like at a certain age, and I think education is probably part of the problem why this is the case. Yes. We stop asking why. We stop hypothesis testing our external surroundings. And I think that's such a tragedy. I think we should always be asking why. And this is a perfect example of, this doesn't come up, but it brings up other real world examples where we should be asking why constantly and to push it to its nth degree.