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.
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.
Google has withdrawn from China, arguing that it is no longer willing to design its search engine to block information that the Chinese government does not wish its citizens to have. In liberal democracies around the world, this decision has generally been greeted with enthusiasm.
Interest in business ethics courses has surged, and student activities at leading business schools are more focused than ever before on making business serve long-term social values.