Interpretation or lessons based on secular fields of Torah as Talmud Torah

Peace be upon you.
I was asked by an author who presents psychological aspects of the character of Moses, whether he is allowed to do so in a Beit Midrash.
An example of this is explaining the fact that it was Moses who came to the aid of his brother – as in the case of the Egyptian – on the basis of the fact that he was not concerned with survival needs. In fact, this is a combination of facts that are considered Torah study – the case of the Egyptian – and psychological determinations.
The sides of the doubt are that, on the one hand, the content he deals with is Torah (verses that are obligatory for the learner according to the law of Talmud Torah as explained by Rambam Talmud Torah 1:11) and only the figurative thinking is secular, there is room to say that it is about studying Torah. On the other hand, the purpose he seeks to deduce is secular (confirmation of psychological assumptions) and even the motive for preparing the work is such (only the choice of the figure of Moses is personal on his part).
It occurred to me to draw conclusions from the verses that the Sages drew, such as "Let no one ever cast envy among his sons," and "Teach you a way of life that no one should leave his lodgings." Even though there is no binding law here, there is nevertheless good advice, a way of life, and sound reasoning here, and it does not detract from any Talmud Torah study in your opinion. Moreover, since the Sages understood that this is why the Torah bothered to write certain details for us in the stories, it must be concluded that there is a revelation here in the verses themselves that the Torah wants to convey to us that this is appropriate in the eyes of God (and according to this, it must be discussed as a Torah hafza and as an inference – in any case synthetic and intuitive – from the body of the Torah). And the truth of the matter is that extracting a principle that the Torah conveys to us in its stories will be considered at least a Torah component, and it will be discussed in the discussion whether the confirmation and use of the Torah stories as an illustration of principles from non-religious fields of knowledge also has the status of a Torah component.
So there are two discussions here – the weight of intention and the status of an argument that uses Torah stories as evidence.
Thanks in advance.