I suppose what’s happened recently has confirmed suspicions I voiced in the book, and I think made clearer some of those things that I point out. For instance I have a section of the book where I talk about the possibility of torture.
It’s also much clearer how much damage the occupation of Iraq is doing to America’s reputation and prestige around the world; and that’s just starting now to hit home in the United States.
I exist only in the past.
My work is based on the assumption that clarity and consistency in our moral thinking is likely, in the long run, to lead us to hold better views on ethical issues.
As we realize that more and more things have global impact, I think we’re going to get people increasingly wanting to get away from a purely national interest.
I don’t think nationalism is alone holding the field; it’s in contention with a lot of different things.
In the sense that you’re not at the centre of power, like a president or prime minister of a major power, everyone is marginalised; my position doesn’t isn’t unique in that respect. I think there are different sorts of relevance in different contexts.
We need to learn how to capture and kill wild fish humanely – or, if that is not possible, to find less cruel and more sustainable alternatives to eating them.
When diamonds’ role in fuelling violent conflict in Africa gained worldwide attention, the diamond industry established the Kimberley process in order to keep “blood diamonds” out of international trade.
History is, in its essentials, the science of change. It knows and it teaches that it is impossible to find two events that are ever exactly alike, because the conditions from which they spring are never identical.