Different areas present us with possibilities to test different theories.

Utilitarianism condones killing of innocent human beings, even murder, if it makes the world a better place.

It is obvious, I think, that national democracy withers. This has to do with globalisation.

I am indeed a hedonistic utilitarian. I have defended hedonistic utilitarianism for quite a while.

Are there any good arguments in defence of moral nihilism? I think not.

It is of note that for a long time moral nihilism was a kind of unquestioned default position in analytic moral philosophy.

The possibility to go on indefinitely with our lives may become a reality and it will present us with a temptation.

It is obvious that humanity faces existential threats of a global nature. They are global in the sense that is not possible to deal with them unless we resort to global governance.

There are some particular moral truths that I believe we have access to (such as the one not to inflict pain on a sentient being for no reason).

What we need is legislation, not negotiation, for the entire globe.

To kill or not to kill, that was the question that haunted me.

The hardest thing in life to learn is which bridge to cross and which to burn.

A lot of my life is about will - having the will to prove what my body can do.

The only thing high-definition television will do is provide sharper images of the garbage.

I am principled against this kind of traffic in the human species . . . and to disperse the families I have an aversion.

You people sometimes are like those serial killers you see in films who cut out the words 'I am going to get you' or 'your wife is next'.

What is dark within me, illumine.

It's tough to say, exactly, what things will look like in three to five years, but there's a lot of work to do in just moving along the path that we've already set out.

I don't think you should limit what you read.

Never throw into double coverage.

The hardest thing was to give meaning to what appeared to have none.