Rwy'n galw'r cyfrifio i'ch gweithio, maen nhw'n cael ei ffordd i'w ddechrau a gweithio, yn gweithio'r heddiw'r hyffordd o'r hyffordd dechrau. A'r ystafell o'u ddechrau, yn oed, yn hanffling o'r ffordd o'u ddechrau a'r oeddechrau ar y Llyfrgellol Felly. Llyfrgellwch, yn oed i'r cyfrifio i'r ysrwnghwyl, ac yn oed i'r fan hyffordd o'r llyfrgellol. Oeddaeth y cael ei gweld yn fwy o'r hoffi, a dyma'r cyfnodd, rydyn ni'n ddweud i'r cyfnodd a'r amser yn ei wneud yn rhan, ac yn dweud i mi i ddweud i ni ddim yn gweithio. Rydyn ni'n rhan o'r papurau i'r cyfnodd, rydyn ni'n dweud i'n dweud i ddweud i ddweud i gweithio. Rydyn ni'n dweud i ddweud i gweithio i'r cyfnodd. Rydyn ni'n dweud i ddweud i gweithio. Rhyw gydag, mae'n... Professor Stuart Brown bywnaeth yn yn bwysig o'r fly harmgydd yn bro� Therefore warned that it was perfect to be both an academic and a decent human being he was and it was a gentleman. I also heard his phaledictory lecture. The third, present this evening, is the person who got me here in the first place Professor Hugh Miller. Hugh, turned 81 earlier this month, took me on as a struggling graduate student a sefydlu i'r rydyn ni'n bwysig iaith iawn o'r blygu gymhysgol sicrhau eich ddisyniad yn bwysig iawn i'r ymwysig iawn i'r ddweud ac yn mynd i hefyd yn ôl, gallu ddyn nhw gweithio'r hyn ar gyfer a gallu'n deallol i'r g58 ar gyfer, ond, yn ddiweddar rydym wedi oedd maen nhw i'r wrthorffie ac mae'r tyn i'r ddechrau. Ac rwy'n gweithio atoent y sgol newydd yn euthes�au i fyni, yn oed i'r dlu sydd i ddiweddau a ddylgrif Gör, o ffedaith aethau. A'r fyddech chi'n gwneud i'r ffadwyr sy'n gweithio yma sy'n gyfnodd i'w ddwylo elisian o'r fan hyn o ffadwyr i'r byw gyda'n gwneud o fawr. Yn y gallai llwyaf, dyna ddim yn ymwyfodol a chynnyddol i'n gweithio ddod yn ei wneud yn y cynhyrch graffiol, ond yn gwybod i'r ffaith sy'n gweithio'r ffaith sy'n gweithio'r bwysig, rydyn ni'n gweithio'r ddweud. I am, along with my friend and colleague Helen Froe, who is director of the Stockholm Centre for the Ethics of War and Peace, running a project that is attempting to throw light on the vexed question of what should be done about what the United Nations calls cultural property in war zones. This is a three-year project funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council that has us working with politicians, heritage professionals, the British Museum, the military of various countries, lawyers and philosophers from a range of backgrounds. We are about nine months in and I have profited enormously from talking to Helen and other members of the group. This lecture would be very different had those conversations not taken place, a fact I gratefully acknowledge. Now international law in the form of various UN conventions places armies under various obligations not to damage cultural property. This raises issues of how important such obligations are, in particular when weighed against other obligations such as killing the enemy, protecting civilians and of course not getting killed oneself. Now views on the importance of cultural property in such circumstances cover the whole spectrum from very important to not at all important. The English diplomat Sir Harold Nicholson thought it was very important. In February 1944 at the height of the battles around Montecassino in the Allied invasion of Italy he wrote in the spectator, I would assuredly be prepared to be shot against a wall if I was certain that by such a sacrifice I could preserve the Giotto frescoes. Nor should I hesitate for an instant were such a decision ever open to me to save St Mark's even if I were aware that by doing so I would bring death to my sons. My attitude would be governed by a principle which is surely incontrovertible. The irreplaceable is more important than the replaceable and the loss of even the most valued human life is ultimately less disastrous than the loss of something which in no circumstances can be created again. His sons were serving in Italy at the time and apparently were just rather amused. This can be contrasted with the following from Th Ferenbach's classic account of the Korean War. To Americans flesh and blood and lives have always been more precious than sticks and stones, however assembled. An American commander faced with taking the louvre from a defending enemy unquestionably would blow it apart or burn it down without hesitation if such would save the life of one of his men. And he would be acting in complete accord with American ideals and ethics in doing so. So Nicholson is of the view that certain items of cultural property should be preserved even at the cost of human life. While Ferenbach at least reports the view that even a single life is worth more than sticks and stones, however assembled. Now discussion as to the fate of cultural property in war zones has gone on for hundreds of years. The most recent international convention was formulated in 1954 in the Hague with two important additional protocols added later, the most recent in 1999. As the past 20 years has seen wars fought in lands rich in cultural heritage, the Hague Convention has risen to the top of political agendas. The UK was rather late to the party only ratifying the convention in December last year. Now the issue is not merely academic. Peter Stone, who holds the position of UNESCO chair of cultural heritage and peace at the University of Newcastle, reports on occasion during NATO's actions against the Gaddafi regime in Libya, where the Libyans placed radar vehicles in the vicinity of the Roman fort of Ras el-Mageb. The vehicles were part of a credible threat to NATO, yet they could not easily be destroyed without damaging the fort. Hence NATO had a choice.  The increased threat, considering the scale of the operation, might well have resulted in people being killed who would not otherwise have been killed. Here is another case. One of the armed groups fighting the Syrian government occupied the great crusaders fortress of Crac de Chevalier so as to launch attacks on government troops. The government faced the choice as to whether to cause the opposing forces to vacate the fortress, by bombing it, or to live with a threat, which once again might well have resulted in Syrian soldiers being killed who would not otherwise have been killed. In short, those who command our armies are obliged to make choices between protecting cultural property and protecting human beings, including themselves. What makes us problematic is that it goes against a view that provides the background to our moral thought. Indeed, because it provides the background, it's seldom bought into the open and scrutinised. The philosopher Charles Taylor has put the view as follows. Quotes, first the demands of justice must be served, then the pursuit of the good life will be in order. In the sphere in particular justice has to do with the permissibility and impermissibility of causing harm to people. Paradigmatically a soldier who is defending their state against unjust aggression is permitted to harm an enemy soldier who constitutes a threat. Non-combatants who are not supporting any aggression are not permitted to be harmed. And between those two poles the branch of philosophy known as Just War Theory operates attempting to work out who is liable to be harmed and in what circumstances they are liable to be harmed. This view holds that issues of justice, that is issues regarding the permissibility or impermissibility of causing harm to people, need to be settled before we can move to issues of whether or not we damage old buildings, assuming that such issues do not belong to justice but to the good life. Now this has some claim to being the orthodox view. For example, the Blue Shield, which is the United Nations sponsored organisation mandated to protect cultural property in times of war, claims that the Hague Convention does not quotes place property above people. And the UNESCO chair mentioned earlier, Peter Stone, in the course of replying to some scurrilous attacks on his character has put on record that he does not suggest, nor has he ever suggested that protection of cultural property is worth the loss of a single life. However, settling the issue of a stark choice between damaging a building or taking a life does nothing to alter the fact that trade-offs between the value of cultural property and the value of human life do need to be made. The law as it currently stands makes such trade-offs inevitable. Commanders not only have to make decisions that balance protection of cultural property against increased threat of harm to their soldiers, but they're also obliged, according to the Hague Convention, to prohibit, prevent and, if necessary, put a stop to any form of theft, pillage or misappropriation of and any acts of vandalism directed against cultural property. Given that wars are fought on limited resources, this obliges commanders to commit some of their troops to protecting cultural property when those troops could be engaged in other activities, including activities such as making themselves or making civilians more secure from harm. These are not the only circumstances where trade-offs will need to be made. The Hague Convention and its protocols establish special protection and enhanced protection for certain items of cultural property. So let's consider enhanced protection. Cultural property that enjoys enhanced protection must not be attacked even if it has, through its use by the enemy, become a military objective. An attack would only be justified if it were the only feasible means of terminating the use of property in that way. Now clearly what is a feasible means is up for discussion. However it is easy to envisage the choices might be between relatively risk-free options such as artillery or high-level bombing and relatively risky options such as precision strikes or even the use of ground forces. So in short being constrained by military necessity rather than military convenience will inevitably result in a higher risk of the loss of life. Furthermore it's also reasonable to have some trade-off that involves risk to others, even risk to non-combatants. For example imagine a commander needs to move some troops. Route A would take them over an ancient site which would inevitably be damaged by the tanks and heavy machinery. Route B takes them down a tarmacked road but through a civilian population. There is a small risk that the troops might be attacked by the enemy while in transit with a consequent risk of collateral damage. Nonetheless the route through the civilian population is still a feasible means and the risks involved small enough to justify taking this route. Once more protecting cultural property is being weighed against the possibility of human harm. Furthermore there are some who have the intuition and perhaps for some appropriate object we might all have the intuition that the preservation of cultural property is worth even the certain loss of life. There are those who have explicitly supported the position outlined by Harold Nicholson despite its rhetorical flourishes. So history gives us many instances of those who put their own lives before that of cultural property which of course is a different matter of putting others lives before cultural property. Now a recent case is that of Khaled Al-Assad who was murdered by ISIS on account of his refusing to reveal the location of valuable artifacts which had been removed from Palmyra for safe keeping. Indeed our day to day behaviour reveals most of us to be closer to Nicholson's position than we like to admit. The orthodox views an ideal which may not even be a desirable ideal. Most of us do not think that the claims of justice are always overriding. Indeed for all but the saintly life would be unlivable if they were always overriding. Thus the question does need to be faced. How does the value of cultural property measure up against human harm or the risk of human harm? Now there is an easy way in a difficult way to answer this question. I shall consider the easy way first. This incorporates the value of cultural property into the sphere of justice. That is our reflections on justice include an attention to the fate of cultural property. While putting the point less obscurely the value of cultural property is at bottom cashed out in terms of its benefits and harms to human beings. Thus the question how does the value of cultural property measure up against the value of human life is badly posed. It's merely one aspect of a myriad of aspects that are part of the value of human life. And here are some examples of how this discussion might go. Now fairly obviously were soldiers to damage or destroy things that are valued by a population. That would do nothing to endear those soldiers to the population. So in short protecting cultural property helps win hearts and minds. An army that has won hearts and minds will find its task a great deal easier and will almost certainly emerge with fewer casualties. Thus even if protecting cultural property temporarily put some combatants in greater danger than they would have been, a policy of protecting cultural property will result in reduced danger in the longer term. Thinking in the longer term also raises issues as to what is in place after the conflict has ended. The destruction of cultural property could have ruinous effects on cultural identity and social cohesion. It could deepen and intensify existing animosities that could make a permanent peace more difficult. There could be effects on the post-conflict economic situation. The loss of key sites in ancient townscape could severely affect potential earnings from tourism. The loss of such earnings could make post-conflict recovery more difficult and even make future conflict more likely. Furthermore, and history gives us many instances of this, the destruction of cultural property is frequently followed by killing people, sometimes even the genocidal killing of people. So stopping the first may well stop the second. It might be that such considerations are sufficient to sort the problem out and are all that needs to be said. However, I don't think it is all that needs to be said. While I'm sure that the value of cultural property does need to be thought about in a broader context, I'm not sure the debate makes much sense unless we think that cultural property has some value in itself. It is not simply one more of those things such as the roads or the water supply which need protecting in order to protect a population. It needs protecting because it matters to people and it matters to people because they take it to be special or valuable. Nicholson values St Mark's, the great 12th century Basilica in Venice, because it is a wonderful thing and it would be a terrible thing were it to be damaged or destroyed. It is St Mark's that concerns him, not any harms further down the line that would follow from the building being damaged. This is the difficult way to answer the question and this finally explains why a background in aesthetics helps with our project. In aesthetics we're used to dealing with values that are not directly at least, values attached to human goods and harms. That is we think about aesthetic values, cultural value and the value of art. But this way to answer the question is difficult because it runs counter to the background thoughts that we have that the demands of justice should be served before we can worry about aspects of the good life. That is Nicholson's view is that St Mark's has a value, the preservation of which justifies causing human harm or even death, where that value does not require that less harm or fewer deaths are caused in the long run. I shall call this the strong view. Now I should just enter a caveat here for the philosophers in the audience. It might look as if the strong view is committed to St Mark's having what some call intrinsic value, where intrinsic value is cashed out as value from the point of view of the universe or value in the sight of God. That is a value that would survive the permanent extinction of sentient life or a value that in a notorious thought experiment by G.E. Moore it would possess even if it were the only thing that existed. One of the more bizarre bits of philosophy. Unfortunately we do not need to postulate such a value in order to take the strong view. The claim that something has a value that cannot be cashed out in terms of benefits and harms to human beings is compatible with the claim that value only comes into the world by the thoughts and actions of human beings. Now the philosophy in this area is complex but having this caveat I will move on. Having made this caveat I will move on. The strong view then holds that we are sometimes right to act not for the sake of justice or more broadly morality but for the sake of something else, in this case preserving cultural property. Now what would we need to show to vindicate this view? Now the strong view holds that we are justified in aiming at a plurality of goods. We should not only aim at making life better for our fellow human beings or perhaps our fellow sentient beings but we should aim at other things as well. Our concern is that we should aim not to damage cultural property, sorry our concern is that we should aim not to damage cultural property but we could add some other candidates. So for example we could aim to preserve pristine nature or we could aim to reduce threats to other species or we could aim to preserve various art forms even if they appeal to very few people. The thought is that there are a variety of values that we could aim at. The problem to which pluralism gives rise is that it does not look as if we can have all these goods at once. The pursuit of one is at least some of the time incompatible with the pursuit of the other and this raises a difficult question. If we are faced with a choice between actions aimed at furthering two incompatible values both of which we have reason to pursue how do we make that choice? Now there seem to be two options. The first is that in any particular choice situation we can place the values on some kind of background scale of value, work out where they stand and aim to further the one that stands highest. However the problem only arises because the goods are apparently incompatible, that is there is no common scale of value. Thus that option seems close to us and the second option is to bite the bullet. We can either pursue this good or we can pursue that good. As we have no way of comparing them we simply have to plump for one or the other, we cannot pursue both. In effect we toss a coin. The American philosopher Ruth Chang has provided an argument which attempts to show that these difficult problems of choice can be satisfactorily resolved. First let me introduce some vocabulary. It wouldn't be a philosophy lecture unless there was some technical vocabulary to introduce. So two terms are incommensurable if they cannot be precisely measured by some common scale of units of value. I shall assume that the value of cultural property and the value of human life or some human lives are incommensurable. However as I shall explain in a moment, incommensibility is not the problem. Rather the problem is incomparability. Two items are incomparable if they cannot be compared. If the value of a piece of cultural property and the value of human life or some human lives are incomparable then there'd be no rational way of deciding between them. Chang's distinctive contribution is to argue that incomparability is never an issue. If she is right then we'd always be able to make rational comparisons between comparing protecting cultural property and causing human harm. Thus we could hold a strong view and not be reduced to deciding by the toss of a coin. Now incommensibility is not the problem because two things can be incommensurable and yet still be comparable. So there's no common scale for the measure of beauty but nonetheless objects can be compared in terms of their beauty. Actually somebody once did come up with a common scale for the measure of beauty and the unit was a milli-hellen. A milli-hellen is the quantum of beauty sufficient to launch one ship. So there's no common scale for the measure of beauty but nonetheless objects can be compared in terms of their beauty. Any reasonable money is more beautiful than even the best metravers and one would always be justified in choosing a money over a metravers in terms of beauty. Now note the qualification in terms of beauty. The instruction compared this object to that object is underspecified until what Chang calls a covering consideration is given in terms of which the comparison can be made. That's the V at the top there. If the covering consideration is beauty then as we have seen the money should be chosen. If the covering consideration is being a suitable present for your worst enemy, the metravers will win every time. Now our problem is not incommensibility but incomparability. If preserving cultural property and preserving human life are genuinely incomparable then there will be no rational way of deciding which to pursue. We will simply have to plump for one or the other. Now as I said Chang thinks that incomparability never arises. Her argument has the form of a dilemma. Either both items fall under a covering consideration or at least one item does not. If both do she has an argument to show that the items are comparable. Oh we need not worry about that here. If at least one item does not she thinks the items are not incomparable they are non-comparable. Now this does not seem to have got us very far. If two items are non-comparable deciding between them would still seem to be a problem. Well Chang agrees. However she thinks this is a harmless matter because as a matter of fact we are never faced with a choice between non-comparables. One can see why she thinks this by considering an example in fact her own example. So compare rotten eggs with a number nine in terms of tastiness. Clearly the number nine does not fall under the covering consideration of tastiness. Thus the two are non-comparable. However, and here is the rub, life would never throw up a situation in which we had to compare rotten eggs with a number nine in terms of tastiness. So here is what Chang says. As a quote from Chang. Non-comparability among alternatives for choices has little philosophical significance. This is because the distinction between formal and substantive failures of comparability tracks the distinction between genuine practical choice situations and gerrymanded or rosettes ones. Practical reason will never ask agents to compare rotten eggs and the number nine with respect to tastiness. There can never be a genuine choice situation in which one must choose between alternatives with respect to some consideration that fails to cover both of them in the context of comparison. Practical reason guarantees that once what matters in a choice is determined the alternatives will be bearers of what matters in the choice between them in that choice situation. Now I think this is a bit too quick. It's in danger of simply defining the problem out of existence. Chang thinks that something could only be a genuine practical choice situation if choosing is viable and that choosing is viable only if there's a covering consideration. However, if we think of genuine practical choice situations simply as situations we might encounter in which we're called to make a choice, it's an open question as to whether or not there will always be a covering consideration. Now Chang claims that situations in which there is not a covering consideration would only ever be a philosopher's thought experiment as he described it, gerrymanded or rosettes. However, as far as I can see, he provides no argument for this. Now certainly we'll never have to choose between rotten eggs and the number nine in terms of tastiness, but we do have to choose between preserving cultural property and not causing human harm. And in such cases it's moot, it's just an open question whether or not there's a helpful covering consideration. Now I say it's moot because I'm not sure that finding a consideration covers both options will help us much as it seems we face a dilemma of our own. So such a consideration will either be broad or narrow. Now a broad consideration will be something like choose between protecting cultural property or causing human harm with respect to what ought to be done. Or choose between protecting cultural property or causing human harm with respect to what is best overall. Now clearly this will not help us because what ought to be done or what is best overall is exactly what is at issue. So if we opt for a narrow consideration, the danger is that we will stack the deck in favour of one of the options over the other. So for example choose between protecting cultural property and causing human harm with respect to human well-being, or favour choosing to avoid human harm, and choose between protecting cultural property and causing human harm with respect to historical significance, or favour protecting cultural property. Now the clearest way to proceed I think is to face the issue directly. In order to choose between protecting cultural property and causing human harm we need to work out two things. First the nature of the value of cultural heritage, and second whether in any particular circumstance it stacks up against the value of preventing human harm. Now whether or not this amounts to coming up with a covering consideration is something I'll put to one side. Now more work has been done on discovering the nature of the value of cultural heritage than has been done on finding whether it stacks up against other values. And furthermore the issue of whether it stacks up reveals I think a certain failure to face facts. A failure that hampers the quality of our thinking about important matters, which in consequence undermine sensible decision making. Now the foundational work on the nature of cultural property, the nature of the value of cultural property was done by the 19th century art historian Allius Regal. He distinguished various sorts of value. Age value, the value an object has in virtue of bearing the marks of its usually significant age. Historical value, the value an object has in virtue of it being able to tell us about the past. And use value, the value an object has in virtue of its contemporary practical function. Now Regal, sorry, the value of knowledge, that's historical value, and the value of practical function, that is use value, are familiar and easy to understand. But what is distinctive about those values in this case is the relation they have to age value. So I'll focus on age value. And there has recently been a spate of work on the nature of age value. Caroline Korsmeyer thinks it's an aesthetic phenomenon, so it's a quote from Caroline Korsmeyer. When the Library of Congress put the original Gettysburg address on display, the line was blocks long, the queue in American.  People wanted to see the authentic document, the one that Lincoln touched. So what do we value about the authentic Gettysburg address? What is valuable about real old things, in particular those things that are, as the Americans say, real old? Korsmeyer argues that our encounter with these objects has an aesthetic dimension, in particular through the sense of touch. So quotation from Korsmeyer again. Underlying such encounters is the complex operation of the sense of touch, including the touch that brought the original object into being. The touch of those who lived with it in the past and the touch of those who continue to value its being and who desire its presence. For most such encounters, it's essential that one be physically near the object in question where the possibility of contact is implicit. Even though they themselves cannot touch the Gettysburg address, it is desire to visit the document whose works were inscribed by Lincoln's own fingers. Such behaviour suggests that direct proximal acquaintance with these objects is the event to savour, even though one rarely is permitted literal touch. And the philosopher Eric Matys has a similar view. LP Hartley famously wrote, the past is a foreign country, they do things differently there. As revealing as this metaphor can be, there's a crucial dimension of our relationship to the past that it fails to capture. While we might visit a foreign country, we cannot, at least not in the same way, visit the past, but the past can visit us. The historical properties of objects offer us a genuine connection to the past. Though we cannot go back in time, the objects and places that were present in the past travel forward in time with us. The enthusiast who exclaims, this is where Jefferson sat as he drafted the Declaration of Independence, is not mistaken in her excitement. She values a connection with the past that has an immediacy that is otherwise completely impossible. While she cannot visit 18th century America, the desk already has. So having sorted out the nature of the value of cultural property, we can move to the question as to whether this value stacks up against the value of presenting human harm. Now, the difficulty is that it does not seem to stack up very well. An experience of a connection with the past, whether it has an aesthetic tone or an excited one, might be valuable, but is it that valuable? That is, when we're weighing the preservation of cultural heritage against causing human harm, is this the best we can do in favour of the first? If these are, as they may well be, our best contemporary attempts to explicate the nature of age value, it does not look particularly weighty when compared to human harm. So what should we do in the face of this? We could take the finding at face value and respond as Helen Froe, my co-director on the project does, that the value of protecting cultural property will not outweigh the value of preventing human harm. So barring some exculpatory account in terms of justice, preventing damage to cultural property is not sufficient for causing grave harm to even one human being. Now I do not rule this out, might be the right answer, but I suspect that what we have here is an instance of a more general problem. Morality, as we've seen, thinks of itself as universal and overriding. On the orthodox, or justice first view, it will be impossible to compare a non-moral value with a moral value and that the first will outweigh the second. So philosophers such as Peter Singer and the Effective Altruist movement who think that we should devote more time to helping the global poor are in a strong rhetorical position. They can and do pointed starving children and ask us to defend spending our money on such things as building great art collections or caring about which wine we'll have with a steak. So why I describe this as a problem is that it leaves us stranded when we're confronted with the kinds of hard choices faced by anybody whose life is not simply a struggle for survival. The orthodox view encourages us not to think about much of what we do in fact care about, instead keeping such things in the dark or relegating them to guilty pleasures. When we're faced with choices that involve values such as age value, aesthetic value or even the value of a kind of life that includes drinking expensive wine with dinner, our thinking takes place in a vacuum. And it was perhaps this that caused my fellow aesthetician Richard Volheim to wonder quotes whether there really is such a thing as morality or whether it is a dream or perhaps a nightmare. Nonetheless, as these non-moral values cover much of what we care about, we will be faced with choices between those values and moral values. In the nature of the case, since choices will often be hard choices and would benefit by some rigorous thinking on the matter. So unless we do start to think about these values, what way to accord to them and whether these values stack up against moral values, they will continue to be an unsatisfactory gap between what we think, which includes a commitment to values that are not recognised by the orthodox position, and what we tend to think we think, which is nicely captured by the orthodox position. So in particular, to return to the topic of this lecture, we need to think seriously about the choices that follow from the law surrounding the protection of cultural property. The matter is not simply settled by declaring that human life is more valuable than cultural property. The matter is also not settled by clever philosophical work on incommensibility and incomparability. The matter might be settled by claiming that preventing human harm always outweighs preventing harm to cultural property. However, if we reject that claim, we need to find some way of thinking seriously about balancing various incompatible goods, all of which we are right to care about, and we need to take seriously the idea that moral claims should not be always and everywhere overriding.


All right, welcome back. This is why in the morning, my name is Ram Agucco. It's a pleasure being with you today on this fine Wednesday morning. If you're just joining us, you're just in time for the next conversation. Of the day it is Woman Crush Wednesday. And in this conversation, we want to talk about singlehood, okay? And because today it's all about women. And I want to find out from the perspective of the ladies, the importance of the advantages. And of course, if at all they are disadvantages, of being single. Okay, that's the conversation that we want to find out today to talk about. And of course, it's all about independent pushes. Are you somebody who advocates for independence as a lady? And what do you think about being single? There is a song that I mentioned earlier in Asama team. What is it? Niko Singona Enjoy. There is a song that goes like that. So, I want to talk about this particular issue here of being single. And to my far right, I am with Lillian Thomas. I made a prediction, you know, Caduceus and Lillian. How are you feeling? I'm well. You're well? Looking rubbish here. Thank you. And of course, I am next to me with Penina and Zomo, who is a journalism student at the University of Nairobi. Yes. Which year? First year, not memorizum. Dormaliza? Yeah. Memor second year, sasa. You're on a break? Yeah. Okay, right. And of course, we value feedback. The hashtag is why in the morning, at Ram Aguko, and at Y254 channel, that's where you can go to find us. That's the official station.  And that's www.kabc.co.ke. Okay, let's talk about this issue of being single. And let me start with you, Penina. Yes. What are the advantages of being single? Yes, sometimes, sometimes not. Sometimes, sometimes not. Yeah. But let's talk about sometimes and sometimes not as well. They're part of sometimes. Advantages, Gary? At first, we can't be single. We can't date. We can't record. We can't be single. We can't have a single person, with a single person. So, it's a problem that we can't have single. It's a piece of mind. And what's the problem? We can't have a single person. What's the problem? Sometimes it's not. That's not me I don't know how your day went Someone to tell you I love you Okay, I feel it tomorrow There is nobody to tell you I love you or how your day has been How many times have you been bored during the day? I don't know how to cheer up when you are low But your mom and dad My day has been bad There is nobody to tell you I love you I don't know how to cheer up when you are low I don't know how to cheer up when you are low But when you tell this person He will feel it, he will cheer up He will encourage you Do you have advantages of being single? Yes I think for me it's more of the flexibility That comes with being single You are not answerable to anyone So when I am making a decision Based on my own thoughts I don't really have to put into thought What will my partner think? How will he feel when I do these? Or... I don't know how to cheer up I don't know how to cheer up Everything I am doing is from a personal point of view But you are not accountable No, it's not being accountable You might find I have hobbies that I like to pursue I want things that I want to explore But when you have a partner Maybe they are not too comfortable with you doing that Or rather They have other plans You have other plans You are supposed to be doing this and this and this You see, it doesn't work for everyone So I think the flexibility Is the thing that I really go with With being single And then I think there's something that she has mentioned About you never have someone to talk to But again, we have friends So you have those BFFs Exactly, we have friends Every lady has a BFF Exactly, I can't really talk to my parents But I have a friend If I really want to share what went wrong with my day I don't think it has to be very specific It has to be I am talking to my partner Like it has to be very specific I am talking to my boyfriend And maybe text my BFF and tell her This and this is not happening This and this happened I think it can always be substituted though Who? What can be substituted? You can say Someone to tell you things to Are you substituting the person to tell Or the issue It's because people have made it So much Your partners Your source of emotional Emotional, what do I say? Emotional support The emotional well-being It's like you can't have other people That you can channel it to And I think we have A whole lot of people That you can really break down all those things too That exists But I am looking at the perspective Of a lady I don't like her Because she likes talking Is it a true assumption? It is like talking They want to express How they feel And They want to tell somebody What they want Where they want it How they want it With who they want it They want to talk And sometimes men don't understand it And to ask What you are hearing is So if you want to go to a salon And you are complaining about how The salonist was Salonist And we have no idea Is it that When you are no longer Engaged Or dating somebody Do you feel like You want to go back to that ex At least At least It's not like that So I think that's a personal Thing for We might have different perspectives For me I think I'd tell it to a friend If not, maybe I'll general it down But it wouldn't be a reason That I would go back to an ex for You can't Can you?  Hey When is it a bad thing? It is so sad I mean this is a lady Who is now independent We have broken up She is single And she has everything going on She has everything all planned Because she was saving her for the break up Not really So now when we are done She now starts to Explore I think you are freezing it in a very bad way So let me freeze it in a very good way If someone is kind enough To spend on you And sort out everything for you As a wise lady You save for the rainy days Wow You call them rainy days Now that he is very polite These ladies are very different Do you save For a rainy day So that when you are now independent At least now Who is she? From Okay In my own perspective She depends On you and me We kind of share Because I feel like I spend money on you and me I like doing it my way When we come to live together We have to split You do this I do that We share When you break up you start saying I was doing this for you And you spend it So When you are independent Do you always prepare for being single? Yeah of course You prepare I don't know this Does every lady prepare For being single Ladies Send messages like I never knew You know sometimes Relationships are not that smooth And then you are like You have to break up Now you start Sometimes you have to break up So I must Prepare myself mentally and Financially of course You You have to take care of yourself I know I know I will be single And it must be adventurous to me So I prepare for that I came but I am single I enjoy She knows what she is singing Alright But now What if you are single and They keep on calling you During that time of being single I block you You block Love will be fed Yeah it will be fed I want to break up Let's take a break Now you want us to be together The advantage of being single Is that they can look for you I will be single I will be single You are not including me Maybe I am But I will see you You thought What am I The advantage Of being single So from that aspect You can see several other people If you want to The X Yeah depending You know Sometimes I get angry If I be Meshaw by the way Meshaw There is nothing we are doing here We are headed nowhere So let's just end it So you just end it Whatever you want to pursue Whatever you want to pursue You guys are not on the same page So if you continue dating You decide to separate ways So it's not like you separated ways Because You really didn't do that So when they call And they want to meet up We will meet up We don't have any problem between us We don't have any issue between us So I don't have a problem with that The fact is we just cannot date But we can be friends Okay And now This time of singlehood There is a lot of fishing that goes So Let me use this analogy Some may agree with this, some may not agree with it As a woman you are in the fish You are the fish inside this pond And everybody Everyone is thrown in their hook So it is you To choose Which hook Which baits you will You will take There is this time When now women Now starts They say Who you To talk about that You date this person today You are single and you are weighing out your options Is that good? Is that right? I think it is very correct And I think it is actually What people are supposed to be doing Because the moment you narrow down To one person From the word go You will never know what the other person had to offer Okay So you interview several people And then you guys are vetted And then they pick the best That is exactly what happens My goodness My goodness So This is a parliamentary proceeding So Is not being a player No You are I think you guys are more players No, that is why I am single Now I got many options Yes I am not playing you I am just when you Now I will go with the best one How do you compare You are the person A, B, C and D All interested in you And they have all asked you Out Okay, first I look for You are single You are single That is my first Attraction to someone Then of course Surah How do you compare You are working You are getting a water Date I am not sure I will see Maybe I have a chance Let me try this one Now you are So you are getting a water Date You are 40 So I am going to do a schedule Yes I will go with the best one You are going to get a water Okay Okay Will they know that You are weighing out your options to choose Who is the best man I can tell you I am single I am single I can guide On what to do When I start dating I can do whatever I want You are not on that Do you agree Yeah, I do agree But again as long as I am not dating any of you You guys are free to know that you have competition here It is up to you to upgrade Okay Strong woman I see the aura coming out You are free to know So it is your business You definitely know I am seeing some other people With other identities But definitely you are not alone here You guys are not weighing scale So you guys have to upgrade your game Give your best During this time of single Let me give another example A lady is free To sleep anywhere she wants What do you mean by sleeping anywhere Yeah They do that Why They do that When they are dating with this guy They are having sleepovers Now that she is single She is free Anybody who says She can sleepover She can go there Whether it is Going to Kuala Lumpur Because she now no longer has anybody Who can tell her no I know I think that is now quite a little bit promise Because That is just a It is lack of morals Because why are you sleeping everywhere Because when you go for those sleepovers Everyone knows what you are painting a sleepover If I go to Ram's place today I go to Ken's place tomorrow I go to Craig's place the other day And I am sleeping with all these people It is not right Not at all Some of them don't sleep around with them They just go sleepovers They just go sleepovers I don't know I don't know I don't know how people were brought up But for me That doesn't sit right with me Does it sit right with you? Sleepovers? No Why should I go to a sleepover If I am not dating After I go to sleepover I don't feel good Because my parents are very strict They are not happy They don't like me They don't like me They don't like me Like I am brought up like that So if I go to a sleepover If I go to a sleepover Will my parents think about this one? Sleepovers Are not for me Another example Before that What would you tell a lady Right now When she is single When she is single She doesn't feel comfortable You know what This is my BFF BFF When she is single What would you tell a lady A BFF A boy A girl A boy When she is single A girl A boy A girl or a boy Which one is better We do sleepovers At our girlfriend's place It's never a big deal Like this weekend We are going to a witness place To pick a story That is okay But then again This joke is my bestie The way she says I am the bestie She is the bestie She is chill That's a lie Let's talk about something else During this time of singlehood Like I said No restrictions When you are dating And That guy calls you At a certain time of the night You talk for long hours And One day one time he calls And finds you on another call It could be someone who is Maybe your brother Someone who is Anashida And he will ask you Would you like to know It's very common Or it could be at any time Of the day or even in the night You have to explain yourself Now you are single You are released from such kind of things As a single lady Are you free to talk over the phone As long as you want Can I talk about myself I don't want to talk about people You really don't want to talk about people Talk about you First let me start by Questioning someone I know I think it's just rude It is just rude When I am with someone I am like If someone wants to tell you They will tell you When I call you back I will tell you sorry I have been talking to my mum But the moment you start by asking It comes out as some sort of insecurity Many men do that They do that and I think it is wrong So that is what I think Those are my thoughts I think it is wrong Now that you are single You are free from such ties Free from such ties Yes I can take late night calls But I am very specific to people To take late night calls I think it is more real It lies more towards the friend's side Because If you Are not intending To date someone You have no intention To have something with them If you really entertain them If they are not intending For some reason Especially men They just create this kind of impression Something can work out between us We have this vibe I really don't like giving that impression You are single and you have accepted a call Late in the night What presents you from assuming that? Exactly that is why I restrict myself From taking late night calls Especially from people Would you say it is late? I am not taking late What is it? It is 9.30 You are not taking late night calls You are not taking late night calls You are not taking late night calls Now you are single No restrictions I can pick them They are too sour They are not in the right time I love that I love that Because I am not taking late night calls If he assumes If he assumes That you are interested Will he be the wrong person? No But It is clear to me I am not I am I am not I am not I am not You get me? See I am not taking late night calls I don't want to date I am not taking late night calls I am not taking late night calls You are not taking late night calls That is complicated I see I have to explain to him I pick him Maybe we have to talk about other issues Maybe we have to talk about other issues You search for what you are learning If you are not taking late night calls Maybe we are done You are not taking late night calls I didn't mean to ask you How are you? He said something You are looking good Okay I will pick you I will pick you No two calls I just need two calls Then I don't pick Let me go to Facebook and of course let me take a look at what people are saying in a few as it loads Let me ask one more question and this one comes to you Olivia When it comes to timekeeping there is this notion when you are dating and somebody asks you a reminder What are you saying about me? When you go back home you will talk about me Now you are single, free to roam around the way you want and come back home the time that you feel like coming back home And you thought on that? It is the flexibility that is what you call the flexibility You can come home any time and it will be okay? If you had things to do as long as your safety is assured me I think it's okay Again when you are dating you know what you are signing up for When you are dating you know you are answerable It's not even a matter of being answerable You know like you need to give an explanation to someone like they need to be in the know You just can't live they don't know where you have gone They need to be in the know I think that is just right Like they need to know I have gone to I250 in the morning after that I will be doing this and this and this So my day will be free from this time and this time You know it makes things flow easily But you know we have people who like partying They like going to parties and you see now that they are single Yeah see party all the while as much as you can Because the moment you take a relationship most probably you will be restricted to do that So you can only do these things when you are single So why prohibit yourself then? If you can't find any other time to do them What is your story? You know when you are home and you are busy with your work And of course the activities that you are doing You will be able to find any other time to do them And when you are single You will be single Yes that is what I was thinking When you are in a form When you are going to parties and parties You will be able to find any other time to do them Obviously I am not the type of person to do them And I am the type of person So that is why you are single? Full blown?  He is giving reasons Atti is giving reasons? He is giving reasons to why someone would be single Brother Language barrier Antonio can tell us something There is no one to tell me Of how less of a human being I am Freedom to be me I can't afford to lose focus on my dreams Visions, ambitions and desires Yeah I love that I do agree You agree with that? I definitely do agree Because You have more time To explore every other thing you would like to explore If it is starting a business Whatever you want to do Even if it is going back to school You might probably do that very easily As compared to when you are in a relationship And then most of something like marriage You find you have a family into play You have children And you have to factor all these things Before you do anything So you are kind of restricted to what you can do So maybe if I wanted to go and pursue Something outside the country And my husband will be like The country is the children alone So maybe unless you just find Aakara University within here Of how I am But then again when you are single Then it is restricting you to that Definitely Alright I am very happy I am saying one I am happy to have you I am happy to have you And I am happy to have you Anything Two I am happy to have you Any time Alright Khat Khat King Simon Classic I am saying Let me skip that Rash Bashir I am watching live Out of Forty Jesus I am saying Ladies, welcome A lot of peace No one is No one to humiliate you Onajupanga Pua Kiviakor No one will tell you Blablabla Freedom Okay Ilaru Ilaru Ilaru Ilaru Ilaru Ilaru Ilaru Ilaru Ilaru Ilaru Ilaru Ilaru Ilaru Ilaru Ilaru Ilaru Ilaru Ilaru Very brief Being single is not a disability It is not I think it is the time to do the things you wanted to do It is the time to do the highest version The best version of yourself Because you have no... Outside interference So explore Explore While you are single Alright Explore while you're single I love Yes, build yourself Yeah Okay My point of view is do what you want to do. When you go to those parties and now on to the Rudiom time you want to attack, do whatever you want to that time. Yes, that's right. There is a guide. I mean it comes as you go to Rudiom time you want to attack. You don't have to complain. Alright. Thank you so much, Lian, for coming. Penina, thank you so much for coming. I appreciate it. Thank you so much. And of course I wanted to bring this conversation to a close right there on Y in the morning. And of course that is a wrap. Thank you so much for being part of this morning's conversation. We still have more of our program right here on Y254. My name is Ram Gukko. On behalf of everybody that ensured this show was a success. May God bless you. May God bless the work of the hands. Have a fantastic day.


This is a big hit high risk high rewards have a break guys Since there are only 33 cases produced Most spots will have few possibilities as hits We try to make the combos as even as possible for every spot, but please know some cards May get pulled early in the product run Again keep that in mind when buying 30 total spots every gets a random team combo from the list here So this dice roller we're gonna roll the dice We for the customer names in the break from Kevin down to Matt The list of combo teams and the list of cases to remaining we have 10 left guys case 3 all the way down to case 31 So let's roll the dice and it is a full 12 12 times one two three four five six seven eight nine ten eleven 12 Taylor down to Kevin 12 times one two three four five six seven eight nine ten eleven 12 Bears Bucks Grizzlies down to the raised pelicans Taylor with the Bears Bucks Grizzlies Kevin with the Blue Jays Colts Hornets down with the Red Sox Kings Nick with the Cowboys Jazz DJ with the White Sox Steelers Warriors Randy with the Giants Raiders Bulls a bulls are King with the Royals Patriots Hawks Ross with the A's Broncos as well as the Chargers Nets Sean with the Phillies Falcons Blazers as well as the National Dolphins and Clippers Kyle with the Pirates Lions and Bucks Nicholas with my eagles and braves Matt with the Cardinals and T-wolves Jacob You have the Dodgers Browns Suns Wade with the Indians Nat New York Giants and Nuggets Wesley with the Reds and Washington football team champ with the Chiefs in Thunder Taylor with the Mavs Orioles Jeremy with the Astros Jets Marissa with the Twins Ravens Knicks as well as the Mets around Cavs Christopher with the Bills Jags Padres Wade with the Marlins Panthers Lakers Kevin with the Rockies Packers Wizards Jacob with the Angels and Texans Brian with the 49ers Tigers Pistons Ryan C with the Bangles 76ers Pete with the Mariners Raptors Kings or Viking sorry Ross with the Hawks St. Louis Cardinals Celtics Kyle A with the Texas Rangers Titans Yankees and Kevin K with the Rays Pelicans Now if anybody wants to trade guys I'll give you guys about a minute. We rolled a 12. So let's see how many times What case numbers gonna be at the top one two three four five six seven eight nine ten eleven twelve Three case three is what we're gonna use here All right, let me go grab case three and I'll give you guys a quick minute Brian saying will you trade your Dodger spot for mine? Yeah, just remember you have to change you have to trade the whole combo list So Jacob you'd have to trade the Dodgers Brown Suns and then Brian Has the 49ers Tigers Pistons Because I Good luck I Case three was generated guys Again, we stop plenty of time if you guys want to try to get another one rolling I think if we get a rally started we can easily get number 25 rolling I've got a graded card and it's a 10 looks like a thicker card PSA 10 Wow Someone graded a glass from absolute and you can easily see the surface scratches on this That's just by the way we bought it, but someone graded the absolute memorabilia glass. That's pretty cool Man, how the hell is even greater 10? You wouldn't be able to see any I guess there was no surface scratches in the glass right? That's cool That's RJ Barrett and the New York Knicks That's pretty I mean the only thing that sucks about this would be my pet peeve is just or I would hate this is the surface scratches on this mag But that's it's pretty heavy too actually That's pretty awesome. Actually that's pretty cool Never seen that before Nice find right there Nick. All right, so who has the Knicks? Marissa with the twins Raven's Knicks combo My hand was going out of the mood just after 12 30 this morning Dion Sanders That is uh reds edition right since nanny reds three out of 10 Very nice Wesley with the reds Washington football team combo And Out of 10 Rob Gronkowski golden gloves two out of 10 Bucks Taylor with the Bucks bears combo What's you just did the pull it it's on Whoa Allen and Ginter dual autograph relic book card reggie jackson and ricky henderson Both for the oakland athletics. Oh, that's nice five out of 10 Both for the oakland athletics And ross with the a's broncos combo there you go ross The nine five One out of two randy moss This is a piece of a helmet right one of the stickers on the helmet one out of two And it's a nine five It's crazy. Some of these sticker cards can never upgrade nine fives in a day one out of two Um, I think it's acetate to be honest. I don't think they'd be done to make a glass card. Excuse me excuse me But um, I pulled those glass cards live from football breaks. I don't think they're glass though I think it's like really really thick acetate Yes, these are case hits for sure All right, so vikings p With the mariners raptors vikings combo Pete was one of the few people that said hey, I'll get a spot to get it started and Got rewarded man All right last one here guys Also, Pete's art.  There you go blazers Sean with the fillies falcons blazers combo and there you go guys another nice case here on this one damien lilor one out of two brandy moss alan and ginter book rob grunkowski Deon sanders and a little uh glass 10 as well right there So appreciate it guys. That was a break. This was number 24 number 25 is in the store Let's get that going tonight guys.  I appreciate you guys Like i said, number 25 in the store. Let's get it done tonight