WEBVTT 00:00:27.469 --> 00:00:31.089 So you might be wondering why I am doing a separate 00:00:31.089 --> 00:00:34.609 episode on applied ethics when I already have 00:00:34.609 --> 00:00:38.469 one on, you know, ethical theories. What exactly 00:00:38.469 --> 00:00:42.329 is applied ethics? It's putting ethics into practice, 00:00:42.450 --> 00:00:45.549 analyzing real life cases and finding answers 00:00:45.549 --> 00:00:49.270 about what is right or permissible or wrong to 00:00:49.270 --> 00:00:52.390 do in a given situation. It's, as the name suggests, 00:00:52.670 --> 00:00:55.390 it's application of ethics, which raises the 00:00:55.390 --> 00:00:58.789 question. If we have the correct ethical theory, 00:00:59.049 --> 00:01:01.909 then isn't applied ethics nothing more than consistently 00:01:01.909 --> 00:01:06.969 applying the correct theory to these cases? And 00:01:06.969 --> 00:01:09.689 the reason I have this separate episode is that 00:01:09.689 --> 00:01:12.890 I actually want to argue against that approach 00:01:12.890 --> 00:01:15.810 to applied ethics, right? There are several reasons, 00:01:16.010 --> 00:01:20.349 I think, to reject the process of just putting 00:01:20.349 --> 00:01:23.689 theory to practice in this direct way. And that 00:01:23.689 --> 00:01:27.349 theory in some ways... I think, should take a 00:01:27.349 --> 00:01:31.370 back seat when doing applied ethics, right? This 00:01:31.370 --> 00:01:33.849 might not be the opinion of all ethicists, but 00:01:33.849 --> 00:01:36.310 this is at least my opinion. And I want to kind 00:01:36.310 --> 00:01:39.209 of at least unpack why that is, right? First, 00:01:39.349 --> 00:01:42.810 there is no agreement on what the right ethical 00:01:42.810 --> 00:01:45.989 theory is, at least not in the public space, 00:01:46.090 --> 00:01:50.939 right? I don't think there's a consensus among 00:01:50.939 --> 00:01:55.480 ethicists, right? So the dependence on the acceptance 00:01:55.480 --> 00:01:57.980 of a theory means that the application hangs 00:01:57.980 --> 00:02:02.340 on accepting the theory itself, right? And if 00:02:02.340 --> 00:02:05.359 you don't have consensus on the theory, then 00:02:05.359 --> 00:02:08.039 appealing to theories is not going to be convincing 00:02:08.039 --> 00:02:11.280 for the majority of the people, right? The truth 00:02:11.280 --> 00:02:13.759 is that none of these ethical theories hold the 00:02:13.759 --> 00:02:19.509 crown to the, you know... to the truth, right? 00:02:20.370 --> 00:02:22.949 Philosophers, the public, there's disagreements 00:02:22.949 --> 00:02:26.289 about which theory is the correct one. If we 00:02:26.289 --> 00:02:28.250 can't come to an agreement on it, it's not going 00:02:28.250 --> 00:02:31.069 to be helpful to try to appeal to a particular 00:02:31.069 --> 00:02:34.490 ethical theory because then, you know, your entire 00:02:34.490 --> 00:02:37.569 argument, honestly, is, you know, its foundation 00:02:37.569 --> 00:02:40.830 is built on the theory being true, which again, 00:02:40.949 --> 00:02:43.030 if you reject, then everything else you have 00:02:43.030 --> 00:02:45.610 to say just comes crumbling down, okay? So I 00:02:45.610 --> 00:02:47.759 think this is just... As a pragmatic reason, 00:02:47.900 --> 00:02:49.860 not a good way to go in terms of doing applied 00:02:49.860 --> 00:02:52.580 ethics, especially if your goal is to try to 00:02:52.580 --> 00:02:57.300 provide meaningful input for people generally 00:02:57.300 --> 00:03:00.919 to do, regardless of whatever theoretical commitments 00:03:00.919 --> 00:03:05.860 they have. Two, if the goal is to engage in public 00:03:05.860 --> 00:03:10.439 discourse. which applied ethics usually is trying 00:03:10.439 --> 00:03:13.379 to do, since the problems are real -life problems, 00:03:13.520 --> 00:03:15.419 right, like real -life cases that people are 00:03:15.419 --> 00:03:19.819 seeking guidance on, right, then I don't think 00:03:19.819 --> 00:03:22.539 the theory discussion helps public discourse, 00:03:22.800 --> 00:03:27.020 right? Partly because you need then people to 00:03:27.020 --> 00:03:30.159 now explore and understand a bunch of theory 00:03:30.159 --> 00:03:34.340 stuff in order to make sense of whatever it is 00:03:34.340 --> 00:03:37.360 that you're trying to do in that particular case, 00:03:37.419 --> 00:03:40.180 right? It's like a construction worker trying 00:03:40.180 --> 00:03:42.659 to build a house, wondering whether to use one 00:03:42.659 --> 00:03:47.050 material or another. And the manager who's guiding 00:03:47.050 --> 00:03:48.710 the construction worker is trying to explain 00:03:48.710 --> 00:03:51.289 to the construction worker some principle in 00:03:51.289 --> 00:03:53.289 chemical engineering to try to figure out which 00:03:53.289 --> 00:03:55.969 material to use. It's not going to be helpful 00:03:55.969 --> 00:03:59.569 because, in essence, it's a wrong tool for what 00:03:59.569 --> 00:04:02.449 it is you're trying to accomplish. In the public 00:04:02.449 --> 00:04:04.550 space, a lot of times applied ethics is being 00:04:04.550 --> 00:04:09.590 done so that a company or an individual or a 00:04:09.590 --> 00:04:12.710 policymaker is trying to make the most ethical 00:04:12.710 --> 00:04:17.839 decision. in front of them and if you have to 00:04:17.839 --> 00:04:20.519 now do some background learning in order to make 00:04:20.519 --> 00:04:23.240 a decision about it it's not going to be like 00:04:23.240 --> 00:04:25.019 it's like you're using the wrong tools the tool 00:04:25.019 --> 00:04:27.300 that makes a lot more sense to use would just 00:04:27.300 --> 00:04:31.500 be to go directly to some core principles that 00:04:31.500 --> 00:04:33.740 may or may not align with a theory but some core 00:04:33.740 --> 00:04:36.860 principles that everybody in the public seems 00:04:36.860 --> 00:04:40.500 to be able to understand right things like it's 00:04:40.500 --> 00:04:43.079 generally not good to you know cause unnecessary 00:04:43.079 --> 00:04:46.720 harm That seems to be a pretty common sense sort 00:04:46.720 --> 00:04:50.600 of approach to doing ethics. Okay. Number three. 00:04:51.000 --> 00:04:53.439 The best reason, though, I think there is to 00:04:53.439 --> 00:04:56.060 veer away from a theory -dependent approach is 00:04:56.060 --> 00:04:59.060 that the truth is that we can actually do applied 00:04:59.060 --> 00:05:02.180 ethics without a complete and consistent theory. 00:05:02.920 --> 00:05:05.819 And we can do it in a way that is far more effective 00:05:05.819 --> 00:05:08.860 and far more enlightening. The reality is that 00:05:08.860 --> 00:05:11.620 people tend to already share some core principles, 00:05:11.899 --> 00:05:14.620 the exception being absolute sociopaths, but 00:05:14.620 --> 00:05:17.579 we generally care about the same things. Treat 00:05:17.579 --> 00:05:21.019 others as fellow humans, not as objects. Care 00:05:21.019 --> 00:05:24.100 for others insofar as you can. Be kind as much 00:05:24.100 --> 00:05:26.899 as possible. And don't be mean unless there's 00:05:26.899 --> 00:05:28.420 a good reason to, maybe. I don't know, maybe 00:05:28.420 --> 00:05:30.660 you make some exceptions. Don't cause unnecessary, 00:05:30.959 --> 00:05:33.889 unwarranted harm. Take responsibility for your 00:05:33.889 --> 00:05:35.629 decisions. I mean, these are just like general 00:05:35.629 --> 00:05:37.769 guiding principles that I think most people would 00:05:37.769 --> 00:05:40.250 agree. Oh, yeah, these are good moral principles 00:05:40.250 --> 00:05:47.189 to kind of live by. This matters because we are 00:05:47.189 --> 00:05:50.089 then starting more or less from a similar place. 00:05:50.689 --> 00:05:53.769 Theory is something that you need to study and 00:05:53.769 --> 00:05:57.350 learn. That's not what people do on a day -to 00:05:57.350 --> 00:05:59.370 -day basis. What people do on a day -to -day 00:05:59.370 --> 00:06:02.810 basis is start off with these. you know, more 00:06:02.810 --> 00:06:06.329 or less fairly shared principles about how to 00:06:06.329 --> 00:06:09.209 live your life, okay? Now, there'll be some disagreement 00:06:09.209 --> 00:06:11.310 about how to value each one of these against 00:06:11.310 --> 00:06:13.430 each other, which one should take precedence 00:06:13.430 --> 00:06:16.250 over others, which one matters more, yada, yada, 00:06:16.269 --> 00:06:18.529 right? Well, in life, we can't always get everything 00:06:18.529 --> 00:06:22.410 we want, but we can at least hope to start from 00:06:22.410 --> 00:06:26.930 a place of more or less, preferably more, agreement. 00:06:27.879 --> 00:06:30.740 And this will be critical for any kind of progress 00:06:30.740 --> 00:06:34.540 you want to make in an argument, right? You need 00:06:34.540 --> 00:06:37.639 to start from common grounds and build from there 00:06:37.639 --> 00:06:40.620 if you want to create an argument that's going 00:06:40.620 --> 00:06:42.959 to be convincing for somebody else. When you 00:06:42.959 --> 00:06:46.660 let go of theory and start with these more basic 00:06:46.660 --> 00:06:50.519 moral principles that everyone can agree to, 00:06:50.639 --> 00:06:56.120 you are much more likely to engage in you know, 00:06:56.139 --> 00:06:58.759 meaningful discourse that will come to some sort 00:06:58.759 --> 00:07:02.699 of resolution. You'll be more likely to come 00:07:02.699 --> 00:07:06.300 to some sort of consensus, right? You can argue 00:07:06.300 --> 00:07:09.459 that there might be some inconsistencies that, 00:07:09.579 --> 00:07:13.139 you know, theory -dependent approaches don't 00:07:13.139 --> 00:07:15.339 face, right? So theory tends to be maybe a little 00:07:15.339 --> 00:07:18.819 bit more consistent, which might be true, but 00:07:18.819 --> 00:07:20.560 I think that misses a key difference between 00:07:20.560 --> 00:07:23.060 the nature of applied and theoretical ethics, 00:07:23.220 --> 00:07:25.860 right? Theoretical ethicists are like abstract 00:07:25.860 --> 00:07:28.240 physicists arguing about the true nature of the 00:07:28.240 --> 00:07:31.379 universe, and applied ethicists are more like 00:07:31.379 --> 00:07:34.110 the construction. workers building the bridge 00:07:34.110 --> 00:07:37.149 that millions of people are going to cross. At 00:07:37.149 --> 00:07:41.250 some point, you just need to get that thing done. 00:07:41.389 --> 00:07:43.029 You need to build something. You need to build 00:07:43.029 --> 00:07:45.670 it that needs to be good enough. It might not 00:07:45.670 --> 00:07:48.610 be perfect. It might not be the ideal bridge, 00:07:48.750 --> 00:07:50.930 let's say, you're building, but it'll be good 00:07:50.930 --> 00:07:53.029 enough to serve the purpose it's going to serve. 00:07:53.170 --> 00:07:55.550 And applied ethics, in some sense, is just like 00:07:55.550 --> 00:07:59.509 that. Application doesn't need perfect accuracy, 00:07:59.529 --> 00:08:01.970 doesn't need perfect consistency. Application 00:08:01.970 --> 00:08:05.470 is often muddy, tricky, confusing. We might not 00:08:05.470 --> 00:08:07.089 have all the information to make the right decision. 00:08:07.290 --> 00:08:09.850 A lot of times we don't, right? But we still 00:08:09.850 --> 00:08:12.410 have to make a decision, right? You still have 00:08:12.410 --> 00:08:15.569 to decide on a policy, right? No policy is a 00:08:15.569 --> 00:08:18.410 kind of policy, right? So we need to make a decision 00:08:18.410 --> 00:08:20.970 at some point. You know, we could argue all we 00:08:20.970 --> 00:08:22.730 want, but at some point, certain things just 00:08:22.730 --> 00:08:24.709 need to get done, right? So given the difference 00:08:24.709 --> 00:08:29.870 in aims, right, for applied ethics, we need... 00:08:30.160 --> 00:08:33.460 different tool. And I think the tool that best 00:08:33.460 --> 00:08:38.960 fits for resolving real -life conflict is not 00:08:38.960 --> 00:08:42.299 theory, but rather it's going to be a hodgepodge 00:08:42.299 --> 00:08:45.320 of some core sets of moral beliefs that I think 00:08:45.320 --> 00:08:49.139 more or less everybody can at least agree to, 00:08:49.200 --> 00:08:51.679 maybe to varying degrees, but still agree to. 00:08:52.009 --> 00:08:54.470 Does that mean we should abandon theory altogether? 00:08:54.769 --> 00:08:57.710 No. Theory pushes us to ask deeper questions 00:08:57.710 --> 00:08:59.470 about what makes something right or wrong, and 00:08:59.470 --> 00:09:01.389 more importantly, pushes us to maintain consistency, 00:09:01.509 --> 00:09:04.110 as I've mentioned. In the ways that we form moral 00:09:04.110 --> 00:09:06.909 judgments and the judgments and how it's applied 00:09:06.909 --> 00:09:08.990 in our day -to -day lives, I think it's important 00:09:08.990 --> 00:09:12.169 to always be considering theory and to push for 00:09:12.169 --> 00:09:17.649 that level of consistency and structure. And 00:09:17.649 --> 00:09:19.330 as I've said, humans are creatures that love 00:09:19.330 --> 00:09:21.610 to justify their own beliefs in the moment that 00:09:21.610 --> 00:09:26.250 they hold it. So this is one of those ways in 00:09:26.250 --> 00:09:31.269 which we could combat that. However, I do think 00:09:31.269 --> 00:09:33.950 that it might not necessarily be the best tool 00:09:33.950 --> 00:09:36.769 when doing applied ethics. And especially when 00:09:36.769 --> 00:09:40.009 we get to unpacking real -life cases and the 00:09:40.009 --> 00:09:42.830 nuances and the range of consideration, I think 00:09:42.830 --> 00:09:46.919 we're going to be better served. in what it is 00:09:46.919 --> 00:09:50.679 that we're trying to do with, you know, the application 00:09:50.679 --> 00:09:53.580 that we kind of step away from the theory and 00:09:53.580 --> 00:09:55.899 kind of start from a much more commonsensical 00:09:55.899 --> 00:09:59.639 starting point of core moral principles that 00:09:59.639 --> 00:10:03.580 everybody seems to more or less value. Okay, 00:10:03.639 --> 00:10:06.320 I'll leave you with this thought. I'll leave 00:10:06.320 --> 00:10:08.480 you with this. I have coached the Ethics Bowl 00:10:08.480 --> 00:10:10.419 for many years. If you're not familiar with the 00:10:10.419 --> 00:10:12.480 Ethics Bowl, this is an intercollegiate competition 00:10:12.480 --> 00:10:15.299 in which groups of students from different colleges 00:10:15.299 --> 00:10:18.200 kind of come together and they argue some ethical 00:10:18.200 --> 00:10:20.320 stance on a real -life case. So it's applied 00:10:20.320 --> 00:10:23.460 ethics being done in a competitive format, although 00:10:23.460 --> 00:10:27.169 it's not really meant to be competitive. more 00:10:27.169 --> 00:10:29.850 meant to be like collective and building each 00:10:29.850 --> 00:10:32.269 other up, right? In any case, judges score the 00:10:32.269 --> 00:10:34.070 students based on the quality of the arguments 00:10:34.070 --> 00:10:37.029 and the responses to the critiques. There's also 00:10:37.029 --> 00:10:40.750 a high school level version of the ethics bowl, 00:10:40.889 --> 00:10:44.250 which I got to participate in as a judge or a 00:10:44.250 --> 00:10:47.370 moderator in my time at Villanova. And there's 00:10:47.370 --> 00:10:49.490 something that you notice quickly when you've 00:10:49.490 --> 00:10:51.629 been a part of these competitions at both the 00:10:51.629 --> 00:10:54.399 high school and the collegiate level. High school 00:10:54.399 --> 00:10:57.259 students tended to provide theory -based arguments, 00:10:57.500 --> 00:11:00.899 a very top -down approach from theory to application. 00:11:01.860 --> 00:11:05.480 Some of these continue in the collegiate level, 00:11:05.519 --> 00:11:08.139 but you see less of it. And I don't think it's 00:11:08.139 --> 00:11:11.659 an accident. When I coached my own teams, this 00:11:11.659 --> 00:11:15.299 was at UC Santa Barbara, at Villanova, and at 00:11:15.299 --> 00:11:17.779 Pasadena City College, I always stressed the 00:11:17.779 --> 00:11:21.019 importance of not being overly dependent on an 00:11:21.019 --> 00:11:23.259 ethical theory when arguing these cases. And 00:11:23.259 --> 00:11:25.919 the reasons were exactly the ones I laid out 00:11:25.919 --> 00:11:29.240 in this episode, right? But I share this story 00:11:29.240 --> 00:11:31.759 to make a broader claim about moral development 00:11:31.759 --> 00:11:35.720 in people. I'm specifically thinking about you 00:11:35.720 --> 00:11:39.100 as you think about your own kind of growth in 00:11:39.100 --> 00:11:41.460 terms of the way that you make moral judgments. 00:11:42.039 --> 00:11:45.039 When we're young, we're given rules to follow, 00:11:45.139 --> 00:11:49.519 like don't steal, don't harm, hurt people unnecessarily, 00:11:49.679 --> 00:11:53.220 right? Maybe only for self -defense. Do not... 00:11:53.470 --> 00:11:57.509 We do not know why these rules are there, nor 00:11:57.509 --> 00:11:59.710 do we even think to question them. We follow 00:11:59.710 --> 00:12:04.389 them because they're the rules that society or 00:12:04.389 --> 00:12:07.289 the school or whatever else authority laid out 00:12:07.289 --> 00:12:12.710 as a system of punishment and reward. You're 00:12:12.710 --> 00:12:17.129 going to be benefiting or be harmed by following 00:12:17.129 --> 00:12:21.490 these rules or not. As we grow. We find out that 00:12:21.490 --> 00:12:25.190 the rules serve a purpose and that we shouldn't 00:12:25.190 --> 00:12:27.470 steal not because it's against the rules, but 00:12:27.470 --> 00:12:30.570 rather because of some other reason, right? Like 00:12:30.570 --> 00:12:33.909 it causes instability. You can't trust other 00:12:33.909 --> 00:12:37.509 people if they lie regularly. It hurts others 00:12:37.509 --> 00:12:42.649 to lie, right? I don't know. You learn all kinds 00:12:42.649 --> 00:12:45.350 of stuff. Like when you steal, like it takes 00:12:45.350 --> 00:12:47.970 something away from somebody. Like there's some 00:12:47.970 --> 00:12:51.240 justification that's been given, right? Maybe 00:12:51.240 --> 00:12:53.120 we take a philosophy course and learn some ethical 00:12:53.120 --> 00:12:55.919 theories that give us some additional justifications 00:12:55.919 --> 00:12:58.419 for following the rules, right? Utilitarianism 00:12:58.419 --> 00:13:01.840 has a whole explanation of why rules are beneficial 00:13:01.840 --> 00:13:04.159 in the long run, create a better outcome in the 00:13:04.159 --> 00:13:09.240 long run. You know, Kant's principles fundamentally 00:13:09.240 --> 00:13:14.200 are kind of rule -based. Key is that at some 00:13:14.200 --> 00:13:18.139 point, we realize that the rules are not what's 00:13:18.139 --> 00:13:21.399 important. It's actually the underlying moral 00:13:21.399 --> 00:13:25.179 principles. The rules are just trying to capture 00:13:25.179 --> 00:13:29.799 something like a rule of thumb, right? It's trying 00:13:29.799 --> 00:13:32.299 to guide you in a certain direction, but the 00:13:32.299 --> 00:13:36.600 rules are imperfect. They're just rules, right? 00:13:37.740 --> 00:13:40.519 But moral development doesn't stop at the rules, 00:13:40.639 --> 00:13:44.850 right? gain clarity on the justification for 00:13:44.850 --> 00:13:51.330 what is right to do. And at some point, we don't 00:13:51.330 --> 00:13:53.809 seem to need a clear justification to do what 00:13:53.809 --> 00:13:57.110 is right. The fact that it's right to do is enough 00:13:57.110 --> 00:14:00.110 to do the right thing. It's not that we're not 00:14:00.110 --> 00:14:02.549 cognizant of the wrongness of causing harm or 00:14:02.549 --> 00:14:05.250 treating others as an object. Instead of as a 00:14:05.250 --> 00:14:07.710 rational person, we are aware, but we don't seem 00:14:07.710 --> 00:14:12.029 to rely on these justifications for doing what 00:14:12.029 --> 00:14:15.370 is right. We just acknowledge what is right and 00:14:15.370 --> 00:14:21.950 do it since justification has now kind of become 00:14:21.950 --> 00:14:25.009 a part of who you are and the way that you reason 00:14:25.009 --> 00:14:28.389 about it. In some ways, I'm being very Aristotelian 00:14:28.389 --> 00:14:32.740 about this, right? We become, ideally, if you 00:14:32.740 --> 00:14:34.639 develop all the way to becoming this, right, 00:14:34.700 --> 00:14:36.720 you become a virtuous person who does the right 00:14:36.720 --> 00:14:39.340 thing for the right reason at the right time 00:14:39.340 --> 00:14:41.399 and the right way, and you do it wholeheartedly. 00:14:41.440 --> 00:14:44.399 You just do it because it's kind of who you are. 00:14:45.740 --> 00:14:49.740 I understand that wholeheartedly as someone who 00:14:49.740 --> 00:14:52.879 does not strain to do the right thing, like who 00:14:52.879 --> 00:14:57.419 doesn't need some motivating justification to 00:14:57.419 --> 00:15:01.259 do the right thing, right? You don't, in essence, 00:15:01.480 --> 00:15:04.440 you don't need a theory to tell you what is right 00:15:04.440 --> 00:15:07.919 to do. You pick up on whatever it is that you 00:15:07.919 --> 00:15:11.500 need to pick up on in order to realize that something 00:15:11.500 --> 00:15:15.100 is the right thing to do. At the end of the day, 00:15:15.200 --> 00:15:18.539 ethics is our attempt as a humanity to better 00:15:18.539 --> 00:15:21.019 understand how to live a good life. Nothing more. 00:15:21.700 --> 00:15:24.340 By making good choices and by having a positive 00:15:24.340 --> 00:15:27.080 impact in our communities. Whether you want to 00:15:27.080 --> 00:15:29.960 acknowledge it or not, you are, in fact, engaging 00:15:29.960 --> 00:15:32.299 in applied ethics in your daily life when you 00:15:32.299 --> 00:15:35.159 are trying to figure out what you do with your 00:15:35.159 --> 00:15:40.600 time, money, heart, influence, so on. A study 00:15:40.600 --> 00:15:43.179 in applied ethics is nothing more than an attempt 00:15:43.179 --> 00:15:46.679 to just slow down, reflect on what it is that 00:15:46.679 --> 00:15:50.080 we're thinking, feeling, what values are guiding 00:15:50.080 --> 00:15:53.559 us, what decisions we're considering. and just 00:15:53.559 --> 00:15:57.639 talking it out on how we can do it better. And 00:15:57.639 --> 00:16:01.919 if that doesn't matter to you, well, let me know 00:16:01.919 --> 00:16:04.360 where you live. I can call the cops because I'm 00:16:04.360 --> 00:16:08.480 going to assume you're a sociopath. But the point 00:16:08.480 --> 00:16:11.480 is this, right? At the end of the day, what it 00:16:11.480 --> 00:16:13.659 is I think that all of us are wanting from applied 00:16:13.659 --> 00:16:18.039 ethics is real -life guidance on living a better 00:16:18.039 --> 00:16:21.019 life. And I can't think of a better way of doing 00:16:21.019 --> 00:16:24.320 that. than to employ every tool in our tool belt 00:16:24.320 --> 00:16:29.419 to make such an important decision. And so that's 00:16:29.419 --> 00:16:32.000 why I wanted to talk about applied ethics separately, 00:16:32.080 --> 00:16:36.500 because if you chain yourself to a theory, in 00:16:36.500 --> 00:16:38.759 some sense you're not allowing yourself to use 00:16:38.759 --> 00:16:42.720 all the tools available. And I hope that in using 00:16:42.720 --> 00:16:46.879 all the tools that you can use in applied ethics, 00:16:47.000 --> 00:16:50.799 that I hope that that means that you, me, we, 00:16:51.720 --> 00:16:54.379 end up just becoming better decision makers. 00:16:55.279 --> 00:16:58.000 And that ideally we become like this virtuous 00:16:58.000 --> 00:17:03.360 person that just knows and is motivated and wants 00:17:03.360 --> 00:17:05.599 to and has a clear sense of the right thing to 00:17:05.599 --> 00:17:08.579 do for the right reasons, with the right feelings, 00:17:08.579 --> 00:17:10.359 at the right time, in the right way.