If two norms conflict, if they are mutually inconsistent, then at least one of them must be false.

The kind of values for which I was supposed to kill, such as democracy and national independence, were better served, I thought, through non-violent action.

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

I wanted to know what it means to know something, whether we can know at all, and, if so, how.

The democratic thought is based on that 'ordinary people' are suitable to rule themselves.

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

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.