How could it be that I had a legal obligation to kill people I did not know, and who did certainly not consent to it, while my father's doctor could not help my father to die when my farther asked for it? My consternation brought me to moral philosophy and a life-long search for an answer to the question when and why we should, and when we shouldn't, kill.

I do believe that what I have called populist democracy is to be preferred to what I have called elitist democracy.

I have now come to the conclusion (roughly) that capital punishment is defensible, if it can be shown to have a deterrent effect on murder. In that case, a few executions save not only some people from being murdered but also some people from becoming murders.

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

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

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

Global governance need not take a democratic form.