But it, it kind of worked in my argument, but it's very difficult to term, like, what is evil in itself.

I think it's true that there's a certain amount of contingency and historical specificity about those things that we do identify as being, uh, evils in themselves.

That said, there are some good grounds for picking out a certain set of weapon systems.

So there's an idea of, for instance, inflicting more suffering than is justified by military necessity.

It's been used to suggest that fragmenting munitions that produce fragments that are invisible on X-rays shouldn't be used because they, you know, make it impossible to heal the wounded soldier if they've been taken out of battle.

There's also, say, mistreatment of the corpses of the enemies is a really interesting case.

So the taking of trophies or the desecration of corpses, it's very hard to explain what's wrong with that except by using a notion either of sort of intuitive repugnance or expressive content.

Yeah, so the deliberation of reasons back and forth and arguments are, are shortcutted.

But there is a sort of expectation that w- when something is about really partic- uh, depicting humanity and how a human might react in a situation, that the actor, there is an assumption that the actor would be a human.

Uh, look, already some [laughs] of the actors aren't human.

Uh, I think we need to understand this as essentially cartoons.

This is an animation, uh, technology, and it can, uh, it's getting to the point now where it can represent anything that a human being, uh, can represent.

And so what I think we're seeing is a shift in, uh, the artistry from the actor to the character designer and the editor and the director.

Um, so I think those people will be capable of expressing emotions and experiences for an audience through the computer-generated actors, uh, that they bring to the screen.

I don't think it... [laughs] Uh, you know, often the actors actually don't have the experience, uh, that they're portraying.

[laughs]