 I'd like to talk about the notion of moral responsibility. It is something that human beings have been reflecting about for quite a long time. And sometimes we hear it said that there's been a lot of progress made in the sciences, for example. And yet very little progress has been made in morality itself. And sometimes this is justified in terms of pointing out that, well, there's still wars and conflicts between human beings up to now. I think far from suggesting that our knowledge of morality has been backward, I think what that really suggests is the difference between scientific thinking on the one hand and moral reflection. In a sense, you could have, well, not just in a sense, but definitely you could have experts in science, but you could properly raise the question of whether there really are experts in moral reflection. So perhaps science and ethics are really two very different areas of human thinking. One is concerned with reflecting the world to our minds. The other one is concerned with a certain type of action. So the possibilities of human action have changed so much in the last 100 years or so in terms of the growth in technology, especially in technologies of communication and biomedicine. And so perhaps these developments are responsible for the shift in the kinds of moral problems that we face. Moral reflection in the last 2,000 years or so has largely or can be characterized as a search for certain concepts that are of the nature of absolutes. And perhaps that is one reason why moral reflection can be said to lag behind our understanding of scientific concepts. And perhaps the very development of technology in our time is responsible for the perceived lag between moral reflection and scientific understanding. What is necessary, perhaps again, is a summing up of the central moral conceptions that we have worked on and a change in our critical perspective on what it is that we are looking for when we reflect about morality. Are we looking for absolutes? Are we looking for constants? And what are the proper sources of moral reflection? Many of our moral concepts, for example, are taken over from areas of human life like religion. Is it time to change this? Is it time to look at morality again and see, once and for all, get really very clear about what the basis of moral reflection is and why we are facing all the challenges that we have right now. Surely, some of it comes from technology, doesn't it, Peter? Technology does many things to different areas of our life. But I think we have to distinguish between moral reflection as such and moral conversation because what we are having, especially online and in many places, are pretty much about moral conversations. And technology does amplify the conversation. And it's not just amplification in terms of volume but also speed. And almost omnipresence in terms of reach, for instance, of technology. So, you see online discussions about what constitutes good behavior of precedent, for instance, what constitutes right action of policemen or ordinary citizens. So, more than ever, you have widespread concern for morality. Yes, but what many of these conversations, I think, often underscore is what to some moral philosophers at least seems like a lack of progress in the way people understand such moral concepts. Another, I think, factor that impinges on our moral conversations is the sheer number of human beings that live today. And it seems that population pressures exert a certain pull on our moral discourses. So, that's my basis for saying that perhaps it is more than ever time to reflect upon morality in a more decisive way. Like defining in a very clear and succinct way the notion of moral responsibility that we are morally responsible to. So far as philosophical reflection goes, it seems that we have reached a certain limit in our reflection. We have explored the idea that morality is all about human well-being, human happiness. We have explored the idea that morality is about duty or it's about the well-being of the self. Perhaps it's time to put an emphasis on morality as something like a concern for a pure and unconditional concern for the other, the neighbor. Perhaps our times are times in which we are in a position finally to clarify the basis of moral responsibility in the unconditional concern for the neighbor. There have been expressions of this in philosophy, in sociology, in the social sciences. As a result, most likely of the fact that the world has become, the boundaries, for example, between countries have become more porous. The nation-state is no longer anything defines human identity once and for all for a complete lifetime. Many human beings find themselves moving from one place of habitation to another in the course of their lives and changing cultures, changing identities. And so, well, there's a lot of emigration taking place, refugees all over the world mixing up of cultures. And so, in my view, one of the most important points to get clear about is the notion of who is the neighbor and what is the nature of our responsibility to the neighbor. Perhaps moral philosophy can bring us to the point where we can engage as many human beings as possible in a conversation, a serious conversation about this. I wonder if the internet can help provide the basis for starting a serious global conversation on these questions. Well, I think there's an argument to be made that overall, for a long time, we have already been mostly responsible to our neighbors. For instance, globally there is a downtrend of violence, for instance. And this is supported by empirical data that despite what we see in Syria these days or killings in our society overall, there is downtrend in violence, for instance. There is universal condemnation of slavery and there are efforts to address these things. So you can say morally we've been responsible. But on the other hand, I see your discomfort over technology, over the possibility or the prospect of technology being a platform for moral reflection. And I would say the internet is a collection of tools where there are serious people thinking about thinking through these concerns, these issues. And they've made some progress. But the internet is a mixed blessing, isn't it? Certainly, certainly. You can argue that it's a mixed blessing but on the other hand you can look for some kind of a net effect. And I would say it's probably net positive. It certainly seems to promote shorter tension spans. That seems to me to be, well, that doesn't count very much in favor of serious moral reflection. But on the other hand, you find very serious discussions of moral issues on YouTube, for example. You find serious blogs where people explore moral issues in a very, very detailed way. So where do we strike a balance between the casual nature of commenting in blogs and the need for serious moral reflection? Can anything be done in the culture or rather in the technology of communication to make this technology more susceptible to being used for serious moral reflection? There's no shortcut. I would say that it's also possible to use internet to have a good conversation about the internet as a moral platform or as a platform for moral reflection. For instance, we can encourage our students to tune in to certain channels because if anything that characterizes internet, it's really just this mirad of channels. And it takes some conscious deliberate effort to really tune in to the right channels. And that one would require a certain level of guidance from adults in the room, so to speak. And perhaps from the educational system as well. Of course, the internet does not function in an isolated way. It's part and parcel of a larger educational system. Perhaps it is the educational system that can make or that can get students to make use of the internet in a more responsible and intelligent way. But it's also a function of media literacy. Australia, for instance, offers media literacy to early age so that what you see online is not just taken at its face value. And I think that's somewhere just some deficit in our local setting on the way we use the internet. Because there's not much conscious effort to delineate between authoritative sources and, for instance, simply opinion without basis and facts, for instance. So I think the distinction has to be made. It's not just internet as such. No such thing as the internet. It's really more like networks of channels, of sources, of people talking to each other. And the conversation can crisscross. And it's really the beautiful thing about internet as a platform for moral conversations. Of course, you wanted really this to be a platform for moral reflection, a simply conversation. But they feed on each other. And the internet certainly has the advantage of presenting events around the world in a very dramatic way. Images of refugees, images of victims of terrorism. That certainly has something going for it. But on the other hand, there can be such a thing as, well, fatigue, compassion fatigue, for example, when you look at these images all the time. So I would say the internet is a powerful tool in the right hands and with the right guidance. So how would you say the prospects of improving the nature of moral reflection in the world stand today with the internet, with the availability of all this technology? I gather you're optimistic about it. I have guarded optimism. There's so much to do in the way we use technology in general. But for philosophers, we ask basic questions just the same regardless of platform. So we go to internet also in part to amplify the conversation and to recruit some more moral thinkers, so to speak, so that the conversation is not just monopolized by professors and students, but you have so-called silent college where you expand the nature of conversation. And it's really something that goes beyond classroom. For instance, there's this course in ethics with thousands, hundreds of thousands of followers. And there are just interlopers, so to speak, many of which of whom are really just participants, rather, are interlopers in the conversation. So there are massive online courses for ethics. And I would say these are great opportunities for moral philosophers to engage the world. And in the very participation in these conversations, human beings learn certain norms, norms of civility and rationality, always assuming, of course, that the people who lead the conversations are serious about the topics they introduce and these are matters of great personal concern to them. And they're not just using the internet to propagate certain views, partisan views. So, well, I'm inclined to agree with you that there is basis for optimism in today's world. Although there are dangers as well, don't you think? Certainly, the dangers, the perception of this is also a function of comfort, the level of comfort of facilitators of conversation. For instance, teachers need retooling to be able to marshal the conversation well because while the internet is a powerful tool for moral reflection and moral responsibility, moral conversation, it is also vulnerable to trolls, for instance, to a lot of noise so that how you skillfully navigate through this otherwise noisy environment is quite a challenge for moral philosophers. So we are confronted again with the paradoxes of choice. Because we have the choice, we can use the internet to trivialize our lives. We can also use it, on the other hand, to ennoble it through moral reflection. And perhaps we in the academy who study these things, who study ethics from a certain point of view, from a theoretical point of view, perhaps we can also perform a certain role in terms of conceptual guidance of where conversations should go, the directions into which conversations about moral issues in politics, in society and in the world generally can be taken. So, yeah, I think there is good reason to be optimistic about morals and the connection between moral reflection, moral conversation and technologies of communication. To go back to the question of what role, if any, academics have to play in this, I feel that they have a very important and pivotal role because academics can view the very nature of communication and the development of human values from a theoretical perspective that no one else can because it's their habit to think about these things from that point of view. And so, I think the role that they can perform, the essential role for them to perform is to remind people of the proper range of conversations that must take place so that the media, the technologies of communication are not used to manipulate human beings into making choices that they would not ordinarily make or into making choices that are really against their better reflections. So, I believe, however, that academics are not pure saviors in this respect. They also have something to do. It's incumbent upon them to become more familiar with technology and how do you suppose, Peter, they can do this? Especially the older generation of academics. We did not grow up with technologies of communication. Certainly, academics have a pivotal role in the moral conversations in the face of technological change but I think there is an added requirement for academics to be able to meaningfully engage people, for instance, online. Part of that requirement is really a retooling of academics to be able to be adept in the use of technologies, for instance. You have to overcome their reticence about using these technologies? Certainly. They have to be natural, so to speak. And the level of media literacy for academics should be higher than ordinary citizens because you have to be sensitive to cues that will enable you to engage in meaningful conversations. They have the capacity for setting the tones of moral conversations. And they can only do that if they are well versed in the media? That's correct. So I would like to end on the point that there's never been a time when mankind needs so much to reflect, to continue to reflect on the nature of his moral self. And we find ourselves having to use for better or for worse the technology that is available to us, the technologies of communication. And it is up to us to see that as nothing but a hindrance or as something that can potentially enhance that conversation. I choose to take the second course. Certainly. That's a good choice for me. But let me just add that the role of the moral philosopher has never been more important than ever, especially so that there is so much need for interdisciplinary commerce. The subject of morality has been participated in by various disciplines, psychology, sociology, anthropology. And to be able to traffic the conversation given what we do as philosophers looking at essential themes and inquiring to these themes via empirical work from psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists and even cognitive sciences on the nature of the good, on the nature of what constitutes moral behavior I think there is much to be done in this area being able to facilitate the conversation.