What I Really Want For

My Argument Is Not That We Must Never Intervene In Nature. My Argument Is That There Is A Moral Difference Between Intervention For The Sake Of Health, To Cure Or Prevent Disease, And Intervention For The Sake Of Achieving A Competitive Edge For Our Kids In A Consumer Society.

I Almost Became A Political Journalist, Having Worked As A Reporter At The Time Of Watergate. The Proximity To Those Events Motivated Me, When I Wound Up Doing Philosophy, To Try To Use It To Move The Public Debate.

A Better Way To Mutual Respect Is To Engage Directly With The Moral Convictions Citizens Bring To Public Life, Rather Than To Require That People Leave Their Deepest Moral Convictions Outside Politics Before They Enter.

Human Beings Are Empowered To Exercise Dominion Over Nature And Even To Be Participants In Creation; And Yet, At The Same Time, There Are Strictures Against Idolatry, Which Is A Kind Of Overreaching And Confusing Human Beings' Role With God's.

The Majority Of American States Had Laws By The 1930s That Allowed For Forced Sterilization Of Socially Undesirable Categories Of People, So-called Feeble-minded, For Example, And With Hitler Culminating In Genocide.