4/6 I think Bertrand Russell provides a roadmap for a more advanced society based on knowledge, which was similarly proposed by Jacques Monod in the chapter ‘The Kingdom and the Darkness’ in his book, Chance and Necessity where he wrote: “To establish the norm for knowledge, the objectivity principle defines a value: that value is objective knowledge itself. To assent to the principle of objectivity is, thus, to state the basic proposition of an ethical system: the ethic of knowledge… Conversely, the animist systems have to one degree or another preferred to ignore, denigrate or bully biological man, and to make him fear or abhor certain traits inherent in his animal nature. The ethic of knowledge, on the other hand, encourages him to honour and assume this heritage, while knowing how to dominate it when necessary. As for the highest human qualities, courage, altruism, generosity, creative ambition, the ethic of knowledge both recognizes their sociobiological origin and affirms their transcendent value in the service of the ideal it defines.” So what should we do in law when there is no scientific consensus about what an advanced society should value? How about nothing? How about leaving conundrums to the conscience of individuals?