I am now a decided non-naturalist realist. And today we may even speak of a trend towards non-naturalist moral realism.

Actually, I defend the right to free abortion.

The Chinese are generally speaking much more reluctant than Westerners to killing as a means to the rescue of lives.

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

It is true (independently of our conceptualisation) that it is wrong to inflict pain on a sentient creature for no reason (she doesn't deserve it, I haven't promised to do it, it is not helpful to this creature or to anyone else if I do it, and so forth). But if this is a truth, existing independently of our conceptualisation, then at least one moral fact (this one) exists and moral realism is true. We have to accept this, I submit, unless we can find strong reasons to think otherwise.

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

I want to think that there are better ways of obviating murder than to resort to capital punishment, but I realise that this may be wishful thinking on my part.