What one generation finds ridiculous, the next accepts; and the third shudders when it looks back on what the first did.

Surely there will be some nonhuman animals whose lives, by any standards, are more valuable than the lives of some humans.

The hope of internet anarchists was that repressive governments would have only two options: accept the internet with its limitless possibilities of spreading information, or restrict internet access to the ruling elite and turn your back on the 21st century, as North Korea has done.

Somebody who eats twice as much factory-farmed products as he or she needs to is clearly doing twice as much damage to the planet. From a utilitarian point of view, that's twice as bad.

The idea that we can actually have an impact on places more or less instantly, too, by responding in some way or not responding, I think, also makes it true.

If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.

Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all.