Well, it's taken me all night. But, after hours of reading drwhoguide.com, I've finally come to terms with the destruction of Gallifrey. Nevermind. Don't ask.

By the way, Chris Eccleston, you're dead to me. You hear? Dead.

Actually I need to go back a bit and explain. In the course of my geek indulgent Doctor Who study, I ran across a concept that was novel for me and has not insignificantly influenced my thinking about the world the past few hours.

Since the original Doctor Who Tv series ended in 1989, the stories have continued mainly in serialized novels to which I have paid no attention whatsoever, which is why I was trying to catch up a bit, with the new series going on now.

In one of those stories there is a not terribly original alien investigates the human mind scenario by subjecting human to various imagined life or death situations. In this case, the aliens are examining the human's assertion that her actions are guided by principles. She is placed in one situation in which she must sacrifice herself to save a planet. Another wherein she must destroy a planet to save a galaxy. And another in which she must kill an infant who will grow up to be terribly destructive.

After observing her, the alien concludes that her choices are guided by aesthetics. It is more difficult for her to kill a baby than destroy an entire planet because of the image it creates in her mind.

Now, I probably should have thought of this before. Or, at least, read it somewhere. But isn't it true? How many of the choices we make--decisions about right and wrong-- are aesthetic choices masquerading as morality?

I don't know. I have to think about this some more.
In other news, I'm eating with chopsticks.