Unlike us, Kahn is most likely doing something worthy of his time.
I know a little about him, so I'd say he is definitely doing something more productive.
The thing that I struggled with is trying to understand if I look at morals from an absolute or relative perspective. For example, I do not think that child molestation is okay in any context--no matter the context, child molestation is wrong. So, does that put me in line with moral absolutism? On the other hand, I am a moral relativist when it comes to MOST other things, e.g., killing another human being in self-defense. I have PMed Kahn for help
I am going to provide you with a good example from a book I have been reading about politics and morals ("The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion"). First off, we base most of our moral judgments on intuition, i.e., we have an initial reaction to a moral dilemma, then later on try to find evidence to back up our moral position (this has been demonstrated). Anyway, the author of the book discusses an experiment he conducted. He provided people with different scenarios and asked them to make a moral decision about it. When they made a moral decision, the researcher then challenged them on their decision. One of the moral dilemmas was that a brother and sister, who are both over the age of 18, had a one-night stand. The guy used a condom. It was 100% consensual. No one found out about it. It never happened again. And it didn't ruin their family or their relationship. Thus, there were no negative consequences related to the one night stand. Was this morally wrong? Every participant pretty much had the same response, "Ugh, that is gross and so wrong." But when challenged by the researcher WHY it was wrong, most participants did not have an adequate response--some said, "well, what if she got pregnant?" The researcher said, "The guy used a condom, and she didnt get pregnant." They then said, "Well, maybe it ruined their family or relationship." The researcher said, "nope, it didn't. It never happened again and no one was harmed." The participants kept scrambling for answers and could not really justify why it was morally wrong. They all said, "It just felt (intuition) wrong." If we equate morality with well-being (which Sam Harrison does), and if the brother and sisters well-being was not sacrificed or harmed (physically, emotionally, psychologically or spiritually), then why would it be an immoral act? Is it something I would do if I had a sister? 100% not. However, that doesn't mean it's morally wrong either. I don't know. Anyway, I think it represents a good scenario of how most actions cannot automatically be deemed immoral or moral (absolutism).