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.

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

According to deontology it is wrong to kill an innocent human being, period.

We should not accept moral nihilism unless we find strong arguments to do so.

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.

We can be certain that, if there are conflicting views in different cultures, some of these views must be false. This may help us to transcend our own narrow cultural horizon.

I believe that one basic question, what we ought to do, period (the moral question), is a genuine one. There exists a true answer to it, which is independent of our thought and conceptualisation.