 I want to say, it's a pleasure to speak at the same time, because this answers me. I'd be even more actually glad to thank the panelists at Mrs O'Crow. for their extremely generous hospitality, which allows us to solve the problem of the world in perfect tranquility. At the moment, some of you may know what the scandal is in Britain. Mae'r lleiniad amdano'r ddafod drwy'r ystyried amdano, cof, a'r ddylon rhywbethau appearsb tyw. Mae'r llun oedd hybl ystodol yn cysteiniad a brydd deolchedd. Ond hynny'n gweithio rydw i'r diwrnod bob rhaid gyda'r cyfun i'r cyflwynig mawr ffyrddau, a'r hyfforddmu sewagol anghyfydig yn mynd i ddweud na ddymargell hefyd. ac yn y trofnodd, mae'n gwybod nesaf. Y dda'r gweithio ar y ddweud a'r lefwymyn ar gael yr olyg. Yn mynd i'r ddechrau i gyhoedd ymddangosio iddyn nhw, mae'n ddweud y 27,000 o ddolwg o'r gweithio ar y trofnodd. Mae'n ddod i'r ddweud yn y maen nhw i'n defnyddio'r ddod. Mae'n ddod i'n ddod i'r 12,000 o ddod i'r ddod. ond mae'n ddatblygu erbyn y cyd-dweud yr hynny a'r garfynu i gynnig o'r gymrydd yma i cyd-dweud yr archifol yma, ond yn dda i'r ddull yn ddechrau, a'i dŵr i'r byd fod yn ddod! Oni, mae'n ddechrau. Dyna bod yn gyllid, ond ond mae'n ddysgu symud efo i nhw yng Nghymbeithio hynny'n hynny. Nid ydych chi ddim yn invent i mewn mynd i bethau sy'n digwydd yr hyn, ond mae'n ddysgu sy'n ddysgu, ond mae'n ddysgu sydd i amserio chi, Ac rôl ydw i'w ddwy'n gyffing unol. Mae hwnna ei ma��do ddaf gan y fawr o'r holl y ddweud o'r ddweud o'r rôl hynny. Felly mae'n cael myfyrraeth i eu brwydau o bod wedi'u bwysig, o'r rhwng! Felly mae'n cael myfyrraeth i'ch bobl yma, ond what they've done in essence is a little different from what many of our public servants do every day. a'r edrych yn ei bod ynio'n meddwl i'r ddweud oedd yr ennill o'r cyfnod o'r newydd perthynag a'r holl tyfnod yn cael eu cyfrifoedd. Felly rwy'n meddwl i ni'n meddwl i'r ffordd i'r rwynt o'r llythoedd y bach i chi gwrs. Felly mae gennym i chyflodóon i'r llyffydd. Yn cael posibl i'r llyffydd, cyfrif ydych chi'n rhan o ganrym yn ddylau aru'n gwych mwyaf ymddangos o'r mewn. Rhawer, ydym yn gwirionedd ar gyfly, oherwydd y dweud o'r ysgol, ond yn gweithio i'r argyrchu yn y logau, yn y gweithio ar gyfer y cyhoedd, ond yn y bydd y gallwn ni'n ei ddweud, mae'n ddweud o'r ddweud o gyhoedd. Mae'r ddweud o'r ysgol, mae'n ddweud i'n credu o'r ddweud o'r ddweud, mae'n gweithio i'r credu o'r ddweud o'r yrthig, ..y nifer o gw comparing neu fyddai. Fi wnaeth nifer o ran hyn o hyn. Felly, mae'r hyn yn arweinio'r cythig yn falch hynny fel yr oedd y bydd yng Nghymru yn ffaint... ..di fyddai y hwnnw i'n mwy o'n fath yn ymddangos ychydig... ..er e'w hyfforddiol ygob, sy'n gallu oed Caen Llywodraeth, yna yn rhan i ei gyfnodol... ..dechrau yn ymgyrchwyr yn yr ymrhyw hyn o'r rhan i hyn yn ymgyrchwyr... Mae'r llyfer peirioneddau yn ymellio ddiddordeb o gallu llyfrgol i fynd i gyd yn ymwyl i'r aer yn amlunio'n gyd. Gallwch arifnodd bwysig i'r bod yn bod ynlleu â'r hyfforddiol. Felly gyda'r cyd-gwio'r hyfforddiol yn ceisio ei fod yn y cyd-gwio ar bod y gweithio â'r cyd-gwio ar y cyd-gwio â'r cyd-gwio'n cyd-gwio ar y cyd-gwio ar y cyd-gwio'r cyd-gwio ar yr hyfforddiol. but this view has an obvious and terrible glory, at least for anyone who values liberty to any degree. It gives the law makers both right and producing to lay down a whole extent of the boundaries of human behavior, moral, and moral. Hurd's Shelley once said, are the secret legislatures of the world, Roedd y dyfodol yn cael ei ddweud yn cyfnod arall, ac i'n ddweud o'r athafod, roedd y ddechrau'r dda, yn cael ei ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Fe oedd yn cael ei ddweud, roedd maen nhw'n fwyfyr sy'n rhaid i'n ymddangos, a'r dda'r dda'r ei ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Ac mae'n rhaid i'n mynd yn rhaid i'n ddweud i'n rhaid i'n ddweud. However, in Britain, which as often is in the vanmadal of bad developments, we live under a regime of what might be called permissive authoritarianism. On the one hand, we have a population that is increasingly uno麽 controlled, even in various small measures. On the other hand, a state of unprecedented surveillance by the state, by our statehood organizations and by private, o'r cydwys ystod, mae hynny'n hollwch i ddiogelion, yn gondol o'r awrgol o'r cydwys. Fydd o'n gweithio yma yw'r cydwys cydwys yn cydwys, o'r cydwys yma yw'n cydwys mewn gyda Lleolol Llywodraeth, y dyma hi o'r 13 mae yma, i ddwy'n gweld cydwys i ddweudio yma'r cydwys cydwys. Fyd o'r cydwys o'r cydwys yn cydwys yma, o'r cydwys i ddweudio'r cydwys o'r cydwys, about a third of all the videos about cameras in the world are now in store in Britain. The adorant Britain is said to be fit for off about 300 times today, as he goes about his daily business. You can only avoid becoming a film star by staying in the wards. dylu am storiwyr, y newydd yw'r cyllid Cyniwr. Cyniwr o syrwymyn deall, dîm yw'r cyllid Cymriadau Iglidau Cyngorlannau. Felly, mae'n rywbeth yn ddigonio'r morfyn ni'n bywdio, y troch fyll yn ei ffyrdd ac yn rhan o ffordd gyfwynedd cyrryd yn y Dogfyniaid. Mae'r bobl yw, i gydwellte i rhywbeth achos ymwysig, mynd i nadolwch chi'n rhan o'u cyfyng ymddangos ar yr angen, mae'r cyhoeddion hynny'n dweud, oedden nhw'n greu a mylionedd yn ymlaen. Mae'n dweud y hoffodd o'r tyfnol bydd yn gwyrddol, mae'n dweud nhw'n mylionedd i gyntaf y syniadumpu cafaf mwy'r newydd. Ond hefyd, mae'n dweud hynny'da'n meddwl i'r syniad amddangos i'r cyfгрun sydd ddychidigfo amser o wg. Mae'n gwybod cysylltu i gydweithio ymweld, rydych chi'n yn enw'r cyfgrun o'r teulu. ydyn ni'n oedd yn gweithio'r cyfryb, ond yw'r cyforau'r ddangosol yng Nghymru sydd yn biasio'r cyfryb hwn. Mae'r cyfryb yn gwybod, poeeddiaeth ac yn gwybod, gynnalu'r cyfrifes, rwy'n dod yn clywb ap gofion, ymddangosol, sydd wedi'u cyfrifesol i'r cyfrifesol, a'u swyddfaith sydd yn cael eu cyfrifesol, yn dbin polwmol y rhan o'r gwaith i'r gyrwgr yn cyfrifesol, ac ymddangosol yn cael eu cyfrifesol. Mae'r llyfr o'r rhwng yng Nghyrchu'r Gwyrdd yn ffwrdd y cymdeithas ymrwyaf, yn gwybod y gwirio deall gwybod, yn ddigwynt y cwrs, a, oherwydd, mae'n gweithio'r llyfr o'r rhywbeth yn deall ystod yw'r rhwng. Mae'n gwneud y byddwch hynny'n ei ddweud o'r gwirio'r llyfr o'r rhywbeth yn y cyfrifatigol o'r rhwng. Mae'n oes amser o'n gweithio'r llyfr o'r rhwng yn cyfrifatigol o'r rhwng yn cyfrifatigol o'r rhwng. Britain has become by far the most littered country in Western Europe, and in the course of the preparation of this book I happen to notice not very far from where I live, a large notice on a wall. No littering. Litterers will be fined £2,000, that's about $3,000. Well, it will come as no surprise to you to know, but student all about the vicinity to an extent not seen elsewhere was a huge quantity of litter. It is as if it had been brought there with specific satirical effect, or in defiance of what a top-field corporation would have. Instead, the litter bins in Britain often even might actually have large amounts of litter strewn around them, as if people knew that litter bins had something to do with it. In other words, the tutoring are in Britain friends, but most of its menaces are as yet empty. Of course, this one day could change. Now, let us consider for them a comparatively tiny matter of litter. I personally have a deep aversion to disposing of anything that which I might wish to disemparasize. I would like to ask myself, almost an opportunity to do so in a public place, and I dare say, I hope, that most people in this book probably have the same aversion. Now, the question is, where does this aversion come from? Why would I rather carry a screwed-up paper bag around with me all day and rather than just throw it on the ground wherever I am? And I think the answer is clear. It's because my father told me not to. She instilled in me at a very age that this is not what one does. Although I can't actually remember, I doubt very much whether in first head mean that I should not throw litter on the ground, she gave me a deep, detailed and deep explanation as to why I should not. Her injunction would have been painted far more, actually, on internal authority than on rational argument. Indeed, whether she could have provided such a rational argument, at least one that stood out to full philosophical investigation, is doubtful. And far from entirely sure that I could myself provide an absolutely foolproof argument that any rational man would be compelled to accept as to why I do not litter the streets or why somebody else should not litter the streets. When I have something unwanted mean that unwanted about me thing, I do not have this deep philosophical struggle within me as to whether I should or should not drop it where I step, and do not lay up the pros and cons of doing so. Nor do I have a deep philosophical dialogue within in an attempt to find the Cartesian point from which all moral judgments might properly and intuitively be derived. I do not, for example, conclude that utilitarianism is the only satisfactory counter moral judgment, and they go on from there to decide whether I believe in act or role utilitarianism. The question of throwing the litter on the ground doesn't even arise in the first place, thanks to my mother's training, thanks to the fact that she's totally not doing it. Now this surely is true of a great deal of behaviour that passes, if not for virtuous, at least to the least of the social. You are obliged to people you do not push in front of and so on and so forth, not because on every occasion you work out from first principles as it is best for you to behave in that fashion, but because you have a deep belief in the great and pre-rational disposition, a pre-disposition that does not derive from nature, for left to itself nature would probably have made you and certainly made me a little savage. Your realisation that there are rational, though perhaps not decisive arguments for politeness and not pushing your way in front of others and so on and so forth comes much later in your life. However, I think we live in an age with a profound suspicion of pre-rational dispositions or prejudices, if you like. The model of behaviour that is most prevalent is that each sovereign individual is trying to himself using what work called the stock of this rationality to decide how best to behave. Every single action is open to moral examination, and if no decisive and self-generated argument can be found against doing something, then that something, whatever it might be, is permissible according to the moral law. Let me, again, give you a small but concrete example from Britain. A very high percentage of young people in Britain now appear to believe, at least if their behaviour is anything to go by, that unoccupied seats in front of them on trains are, in effect, foot-stools to my idea for their ability to breathe. That is to say, they put their feet up on them, often when they notice a bathroom that says, please do not put your feet up on the seat, we're warning that they are under video surveillance. Now this is indeed curious because very old people, 80-year-olds weighed down with luggage and shopping, even those with swollen legs who must surely be quite tired, never put their feet up on the seats. What was it then? If you tackle a young person with his feet up on the seat, having first gone in, and has been made for a bit of the science of physion, deciding for the look of dignity is not carrying a knife, and then he has made the look of a feral malignancy, because you can't be sad if you address words and so on. You will soon be engaged on a deep, metaphysical discussion as to the basis of the moral judgement that people should not put on their feet on the train scenes opposite them. And as with any such judgement, it seems actually extremely difficult by a conclusive argument that all rational people must agree with. Metaphysics of this mind is always used in a permissive sense to render permissible what was previously immeasurable. However, I do not think it takes much effort of the imagination to understand that this metaphysical evidence is what it can easily lead to. No public agreement as to Wales of behaviour. Every last critical act is open to re-examination, and everyone is able and indeed joined as a responsible citizen and fully independent of the team to interpret the social code in his own way. Unfortunately, man being what he is, the interpretation is usually favourable to his desires of the moment, which may have also been life and horrible for others. Any other judgement that does not arise from deduction from first principles discovered by the person himself is given the name of prejudice, and there is of course a prejudice against prejudice. It is not difficult to see why certain prejudices have indeed been horrible and led to frightful persecutions. What is less appreciated, of course, is that these poor persecutions themselves have had to overcome contrary prejudices. They, for example, are called a great deal of what commonly passed for morality, is putting bushwire prejudice, that is to say, something mean-spirited, selfish-resisted without recognition of its own selfishness. You don't have to know much about life to know that this is sometimes an act description of what sometimes passes for morality, but the party is not allowed and should not be taken as such. If there are more powerful prejudices, everyone is willing and anxious to go to that of Nazi Germany. If, for example, Daniel Gohan, pardon, made out of a whole of German history more or less, was but a preparation for this acting out for prejudice. What is often forgotten, of course, is that the enactment itself required the destruction, or simply the self-conscious destruction of other prejudices. And similarly, the overcoming of pretty bushwire prejudice in Russia laid regularly and for many years to more violent state procured deaths in a day. Day after day, for decades, the Nazarist regime overthrown, apparently for moral reasons, procured in an entire century. Day after day, more people were killed in a single day, and the Nazarist regime had killed in one century. Now, with regard to other matters, the philosopher Peter Singer, who will be made known, his idea of morality is utterly universal. No person is supposed to consider those about his own child, Richard, as being more important than a child chosen in out of Mongolia. Similarly, the person in out of Mongolia is not supposed to consider his child more important than my child. It is not difficult to see what a world would be like in which such a lack of prejudice in favour of the people around one would actually be like. It is not horrible. With regard to countries like Britain, the disorder consequence upon the complete individualisation of the moral code, the refusal, which in my view is a statistical, to upset any restraining judgement that does not rise from a person's own reasoning from first principles and, of course, the first principles after his own discovery as well, results in what amounts to an invitation to the state to intervene and decide everything for us, for obvious reasons, where disorder comes, then there is a need for more public authority. More overtalk of rights exacerbates the problem for many people, suppose that the right is a metaphysical entity that can be neither circumscribed nor withdrawn. Any circumscription means that the right is not in fact a right, and since it is a right, it cannot be circumscribed. Let me take a very simple example from my technical experience I would have to support. People would sometimes be driven to destruction by a neighbour who played music very loudly at all times of the day at night, and this is a terrible thing for anyone who's had this experience. If asked to dissist, the offender would claim that his right to play is music as he liked it. The complainant then had two choices. First, he was ordered to public authority, for example, a place, and second, personal life. Usually he was ordered to both in that order, once the police, so intrusive in many ways, had failed to secure him the peace that he deserved. At the moment in Britain, which, as I said, I think is in the vanguard of these undesirable developments, we have a noxious combination of disorder and authoritarianism. Both arise from a refusal to recognise the socially constructive, uncapt, inevitable role of prejudice and an over-emphasis on its harmful role. I'll finish by posing Dr Johnson, who has in the short made observations which are simultaneously obvious and profound and comfortable with the force of revelation. In his life with Jonathan Swift, a man he didn't much like or admire, he said this. Whatever he, as Jonathan Swift did, he seemed willing to do in a manner peculiar to himself, without sufficiently considering that singularity, as it implies a contempt of the general practice, is a kind of defiance which justly prevents the hostility of ridicule. He, therefore, who indulges in peculiar habits, is worse than others if he be not better. Please note here that Dr Johnson does not claim that conventional prejudice is always and everywhere best. It's never to be challenged, thought about or over-threatened that there has never been an individual more individual than Dr Johnson. Alas, we have all too often forgotten the subsidiary additional clause of his statement, and the one that makes it profound is he be not better. In attacking prejudice, it is that conditionality that is disregarded. By disregarding it, we give longer standby to the state to become what the Marquis de Christine said that the Emperor Nicholas I was. Namely, eagle and insect.