So one of the biggest challenges in philosophy, and I talk about this, of course, in my free book,

University Preferable Behavior, A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics, is the issue and challenge of

the is-aught dichotomy, the facts and values. So very briefly, the facts and values dichotomy

is that we cannot get an aught from an is.

We cannot say that it is wrong to murder just because if you kill someone, they die.

I mean, if you kill someone, they die.

If you deprive them of oxygen or cut off their head or something like that, then they die.

That is incontrovertible fact.

Now, where do you get the ought, the should? Now, of course, religion says, well, you get the

or the should from the, from God, right? God commands this in the, right? So, how does philosophy

answer that in the absence of the aught?

Now, one thing that's interesting is that you never see the is-aught dichotomy people.

We'll call them a humeons, since it was David Hume, the Scottish philosopher who first formulated this

in the way that we currently understand it, so we'll call them the Humians. So the Humians never say this except with regards to morality.

So the Humians don't organize big protests and marches saying,

all laws are immoral and unjust because you can't get an aught

from an ears or you you shouldn't have any laws because the laws of nature do not give rise to

the laws of man the fact of reality do not give rise to the ethics of morality you never see that that. Never do that. When someone says to someone

else, oh, you're a Nazi, the Humians never en masse say, well, you can't say that. It's bad,

because there's nothing in reality that says your slur is negative or bad.

If someone's a white supremacist or whatever it is, right, whatever negative term,

the Humians never say, well, you can't get an aught from an is,

...