 Yn hyn mae'n mynd i gyd yn ddweud y cyflogol yma o'ch cyflogol, ac yn y gweithio dechrau ynghylch, mae'n amser. Mae'r cyflogol yn fwy o'ch ddweud ar eich eich ddweud. Ond oedd yn ddweud yma i'r tespwynt, a'r ddweud yn yr eich tespwynt, yn angen i'r ddweud, yn eich ddweud. On dyna ei ddweud i'n ddweud. A dyna'r cyflogol yma, yna mae'n ddweud yma i'r ddweud? Byddai ar y ddweud cyntaf llwyddiadol cyflogol? ond byddwn i'n gweld hynny'n ddyn nhw'n meddwl? Onw'n ddyn nhw'n meddwl. A dyna'r ffordd y ffordd yn cyffredinol y ddechrau o'r amlion maen nhw'n meddwl. Y ddechrau ymgyrch, o'r ddyn nhw'n meddwl, sy'n meddwl y cyffredinol. Mae'r ddyn nhw'n meddwl ysbryd yn lleol am ddyn nhw'n meddwl ac yn ddyn nhw'n meddwl mae'n meddwl yma'n meddwl. Ond yma, yma'r ddyn nhw'n meddwl yma'r ddyn nhw, mae'r cydwyddoedd y gallu cyfnodol efallai yn cael ei gael. If you want his project of his whole being, then I would want anything that diminishes, anything that becomes an obstacle, anything that detracts from this will begin then to acquire the face of what we don't want to call evil. Or something wrong or whatever type of thing. ac ydy'r cyfnod ydy'r cyfnod y cwynhau hyfyddon o'r cyfnod, mae'n gwertho'n gwybod sydd y cyfnod yw'r cyffredin yn llwyddoedd, yn llwyddoedd, yn llwyddoedd, yn llwyddoedd. Ac ydych chi'n cyfnod, mae'n cyfnod yw'r cyfnod yw'r cyfnod yw'r cyfnod, yn eich cyfrannu, yn ystod y bydd o'r dwy i'ch gael, a yn ystod y byddwyr hyn yn cael ei wneud gallu ei wneud gyda'r ddigonfod o'r gwahod, o'r gwahod, o'r gwahod ychydig yn y cyffredin gyda'r bod hynny'n hanes? Llynyddu i ddigonfod o'r ffordd. Yn ychydig o'r aelod, mae'n ddigonfod yw'n ddigonfod, eraill yna'n gwybod, mae'r ffordd wedi gweld ddigonfod, mae'n gweld ddigonfod y cyffredin gyda cyllidau efoolishyn. Mae chi'n gweld o'r fath o'r cyffredin ac yw'r cyffredin hwnnw, y llyfr, y llyfr, y tyfnod, y tawch, ac so ond, mae chi'n gweld o'r fath o'r cyffredin hwnnw, y bwysig yn ohol yn gyfnod y rhan. Mae gweithio ddim yn ei ffaith bod i'r cyffredin hwnnw sy'n cyffredin hwnnw bydd y cyffredin hwnnw o'r rhan o'r llyfr o'r cyffredin hwnnw, wiell y cyntaf, ychydigwch y cerdyn nhw ddwy αυτid y cyflawn i'r cyflawn a dwy'r cyd-pwynt o'r dweud. O'r cyd-dylchedd o'r gyflawn i ymwilio i'r fwrdd ein ysgol o'r cyflawn o'r parodydd, o'r hubauолодd ddisא�ckl, os yna ym mwyaf, os os os os os os os... Fydde cenedlaethau o'r cyngor fawr o'n cyfrifiadau o'r cyfrifiadau. Yna'r wybodaeth ei hun i gyfan ar gyfer ysgrifennu, gan rhai yn dromu. That's where I'm hoping we'll get away in this marvelous company with this huge metaphysical question of my existence, the evil. If we get to the definition of what evil is, and those who commit acts that would define as evil, I move them away from the status of human beings. I reduce my recognition of what is acceptable as membership of the human community. But then how do you define those acts of evil? You can't take that position unless you say this is evil and therefore establish the difference between good and evil, correct? That's why I say it can be codified. We can't say any human being who does this to another being has already put himself or herself out of that community of homo sapiens. You know that that is basically what has underlined some of the worst regimes in history as well, what you're arguing, that you are subhuman. We mustn't go this theological way because they are in trouble. Some of us are non-believers. But then what is this? You say if they do this then they have removed themselves. So then how do you treat them? We can list them. Kidnapping, torture, rape, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Why is it not possible to list it? Because it's the problems with the et cetera's, right? I don't think anybody here. Acceptance, oh yeah, we can propose it. The et cetera's. Oh et cetera, yes. So nobody I think here has a problem with rape, torture, imprisonment. I have a huge problem. We've got all the time in the world to do it. The amount of time which is used for instance for peacekeeping, peace enforcement, et cetera, et cetera, can simultaneously be used for making this list. And then proposing it for acceptance. Today you have religious extremists who believe that not merely non-believers, but luqwam believers should be put to the sword and practice it all the time. I think generally the major part of the world believes that this is pernicious, that this is wrongful thinking, it's disrespect for the other people, their thinking processes, their grasp of phenomena, et cetera, et cetera. So obviously this has to go on my shopping list, that you don't kill the next person, you don't slaughter children, you don't enslave school pupils simply because they believe something totally different. I think on that, and that's the issue of volition that I keep talking about, on that I think generally the world disagreed. And then those who insist on flouting that protocol, which the majority, just like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this took ages, we know it began, those professors who came with the warriors to fashion something out of the rubble of World War II, it took some time. And so we shouldn't imagine that everything is definitive, but it is possible to define the new human being. But that doesn't begin to address the real issue, and yes, we would all agree that killing, murdering, raping is bad. But dignity, it dies by a thousand cuts, it dies by all sorts of actions which are in your et cetera lists. And that's where the issue is. And you said the human being is a relational being, like Aristotle said, a political. I completely agree, but relational is two, but it's more than two. It's a society, and so when one talks about dignity, one talks about the dignity of a society, what kind of principle organizes a society? If one tries to answer the question just focusing on one individual, is that person killing or not killing? In a way, that's the easy issue. But ethics is about the uneasy issues. I think I find myself in the same position as when I'm asked, especially about my country and the continent, are you a pessimist or an optimist? And I say, neither. And I think of it the point where I look at issues of good and evil, and I say, all right, I know in me what defines a member of humanity. And what is acceptable in my definition of humanity is what seems to be the equivalent of good. What is not acceptable goes in the direction of evil. And if you want to be a member of my human community, please come on this side.