Provides a unique political solution in the form of an enlightened global despotismIntroduces global despotism as the first step toward global democracyAddresses also what can be done if we fail to avert global heating and/or nuclear war 

Globala existentiella hot kan endast hanteras genom globala politiska institutioner, en världsregering. Kan en global demokrati etableras omedelbart? Nej, den globala demokrati är ett långsiktigt mål att sträva mot, när väl världsregeringen är på plats och kan avvärja de mest pressande existentiella globala hoten. Är det viktigt att mänskligheten överlever? Ja, är svaret i ett kapitel ägnat åt frågan. Tänk om vi misslyckas. Den moraliska betydelsen av detta utreds också.

We should distinguish between negative medical interventions (intended to cure disease), positive interventions (intended to improve, within the normal range, functioning) and enhancement (where a person is pushed beyond species normal functioning). It seems that, within medicine in general, even if these distinctions can make a difference with respect to who shall pay for the service, they make no principled difference as to whether the services can be provided. However, in sports medicine, they do make a difference. In this chapter, I investigate what kind of difference. Negative interventions seem to be unproblematic, positive interventions problematic, and enhancement forbidden.

All conservatives have something in common, a particular argument, even if they disagree about the rationale behind this argument. The conservative argument can be stated thus: Some orders ought to be maintained because they are existing and well established. The reason given by conservatives why orders that are existing and well established ought to be maintained is varied. Typically, it has to do with pessimism with regard to the human moral nature or human rationality, or it has to do with pessimism with regard to rational argumentation combined with optimism about what has evolved historically speaking. The reasoning, then, is instrumental and pragmatic. However, there are also conservatives who claim that an existing and well-established order, such as a nation, a Volk, a species, or some cherished institution, has final value.

From a legal point of view, the question about killing may seem straightforward. In all jurisdiction in well-ordered states murder is criminalized. The legal case is not so clearcut, however. It is true that murder is typically legally prohibited, but in certain circumstances you are legally required to kill other people (such as in war or when capital punishment is practiced). On the other hand, even if a person suffering in a terminal state requires help to die, it is in many countries forbidden for a physician even to help this person to commit suicide (physician assisted suicide), let alone actively and intentionally to kill this person at request (euthanasia). All this means that it is of interest to view the subject matter of killing from a moral point of view. In particular, it is of interest to try to find out what different moral theories tell us about when we should, and when we should not kill, and why. Both moral guidance and moral explanation are needed.