There is an idea today that to be moral is to cause no harm. To please yourself, I suppose, and do not harm to others. Now, whether or not those two goals are actually compatible in a complex society is a question for another time. But the essential argument, that agreeability, pleasantness, causing no distress to others, being harmless, is what being moral consists in, doesn’t square with much of history. It certainly wouldn’t have made the list of essential values for most societies that preceded our own, that loves with the wealth of security and protection that the efforts and indeed dangerousness of our predecessors secured. On both a personal and historical level, I don’t think it’s a sure recipe for morality. It’s wrong, I think, because it is incomplete. And it lies about both the nature of the world, that it is the sort of place that at times demands us to be dangerous and disagreeable, and lies about the nature of humanity, that our dangerousness and disagreeability have no natural or important function.