We're not arguing it's usefulness, we're arguing it's foundation. There is a difference between both sides playing it cautious in a tense situation and compromising for ensured personal gain, over actual &quot;righteousness&quot;. Grug and Ugg are both hungry. Grug has just caught a turkey, when Ugg stumbles upon Grug. Grug and Ugg can both fight over the turkey, winner takes all. This has great reward, a whole turkey, but also has great risk, getting injured in the fight. As such, Grug and Ugg decide to cut their losses and split the turkey in two. This way, both get less, but there is no risk of injury. But is this &quot;morality&quot;? It was a decision based upon personal gain and personal loss. It's not necessarily that Grug split his turkey out of the goodness of his heart, out of compassion for Ugg, he just didn't want to get hurt himself. Compare that to say, walking down the street and seeing a homeless man on the corner, asking for a enough money for a meal. &quot;The moral&quot; thing to do would be to help the man, however I stand to gain nothing from this interaction. Morality is not personally useful in such a situation, and that's why hundreds, if not thousands of people will drive right past the man for every one that gives him a dollar. <|endoftext|> Are men moaning like a Grug when cumming attractive to women? <|endoftext|> 