A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is the big unsupported assertion. Conscience helps us navigate socially as part and parcel of our worldview and values system. The function of it is to keep our actions in line with those values. I do not think conscience can develop at all in a world where we are not held responsible by others for the effects of our actions on others.

Well you are wrong LadyShea. Can you contemplate that?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If nobody expresses disappointment at an action of a child that hurt them, the child won't feel bad and therefore won't learn not to do that action again because it has negative internal consequences.

That is not true LadyShea. We all know what it feels like to be hurt, and we don't need other people to tell us what a (genuine) hurt feels like.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If children only knows an action is a hurt because someone told them it was, rather than learning for themselves via empathy with what the other person is feeling, they will have no need to develop a conscience at all.

It's quite the opposite. Conscience is an inherent trait; it does not need someone to be told except when children are very young and don't know yet what is truly hurtful to another. Once they have this knowledge, they would never think of hurting another because that's how conscience works, to protect others and ourselves from being responsible for an act that we could not justify and would have to live with.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And you still have yet to explain what this "capacity" of conscience is. You act as if it is some measurable thing, like we can measure the pressure per inch exerted by someone squeezing a device.

It actually is measurable but the paradox in all of this is that someone's behavior can only be measurable when we remove the measuring stick.

[Vivisectus]

Conscience is an inherent trait; it does not need someone to be told except when children are very young and don't know yet what is truly hurtful to another.

LOL it is inherent... but first they need to be told what is truly hurtful.

Then it is not inherent. Also, different people could be told different things are "truly hurtful", leaving us with different consciences.

As usual your ideas do not stand up to even casual inspection.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

LOL it is inherent... but first they need to be told what is truly hurtful.

Then it is not inherent. Also, different people could be told different things are "truly hurtful", leaving us with different consciences.

As usual your ideas do not stand up to even casual inspection.

Yes they do Vivisectus. If it is agreed by the majority of mankind that beating someone to death is a hurt, then we can make this a standard. You seem to think everything is relative and therefore there is meeting of the minds. That's where you are completely off base. Listen to Sam Harris.

Sam Harris: Can we ever be right about right and...

[Vivisectus]

You just relied on a majority sounding to find out what is morally right - while in your book morality and conscience are inherent. Only you then contradict yourself and say that small children need to be told what is a hurt, making conscience not inherent.

Be that as it may, there are parts of the world where "female circumcision" is considered to be a good thing by the majority, and not a hurt. So shall we accept that as a standard?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes they do Vivisectus. If it is agreed by the majority of mankind that beating someone to death is a hurt, then we can make this a standard. You seem to think everything is relative and therefore there is meeting of the minds. That's where you are completely off base. Listen to Sam Harris.

Did you even listen to or understand the video? You claim that morality can be codified in standards of behavior, but Sam Harris was stating that there could be a multitude of standards of what is moraly right and wrong. He does not support your position at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You just relied on a majority sounding to find out what is morally right - while in your book morality and conscience are inherent. Only you then contradict yourself and say that small children need to be told what is a hurt, making conscience not inherent.

You misunderstood what I said. Conscience can only work depending on what it is fed. If what is taught is a lie (e.g., homosexuals are lesser human beings than heterosexuals), then conscience will not think it is bad when homosexuals are not offered the same kind of protection as heterosexuals. When the truth is known that all people are inherently equal in value (regardless of their sexual orientation), then conscience would be bothered to see this kind of mistreatment.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Be that as it may, there are parts of the world where "female circumcision" is considered to be a good thing by the majority, and not a hurt. So shall we accept that as a standard?

Not at all. But as mankind develops, this kind of barbarism will not be accepted by conscience in any society. Listen to the video of Sam Harris, especially where he is speaking at 2:26.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Did you even listen to or understand the video? You claim that morality can be codified in standards of behavior, but Sam Harris was stating that there could be a multitude of standards of what is moraly right and wrong. He does not support your position at all.

Yes he does Vivisectus. I have to check to make sure this video is the one that supports exactly what I'm talking about. Go to 2:26 in the video and listen again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

LOL it is inherent... but first they need to be told what is truly hurtful.

Then it is not inherent. Also, different people could be told different things are "truly hurtful", leaving us with different consciences.

As usual your ideas do not stand up to even casual inspection.

Conscience is an inherent trait but it needs developing. It can only be developed when a child is brought up in a nurturing environment and taught empathy. It does not take long for children to learn what is and what is not a hurt, and once they do, their conscience will hold them to this standard of right and wrong.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once it is established that man's will is absolutely and positively not free, and once it is understood that by not blaming rather than blaming we can get the desired response which is greater responsibility, man will desire to do what it takes to create the conditions that allow this new understanding to manifest in the real world. Obviously, this will take a transition period. He is not advocating to suddenly stop blaming as I stated before. People would take advantage of this and have a field day stealing and doing other "bad" things to their heart's content with no remorse.

When I say they will be unable to blame, this only means they will be compelled not to blame in the direction of greater satisfaction because they know that by not blaming, this will prevent the very thing that blaming could never accomplish.

So was that the first or second answer? Or both?

Also, are you familiar with the Prisoner's Dilemma? Can you see how it might be relevant here?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It can only be developed when a child is brought up in a nurturing environment and taught what it means to hurt another. It does not take long for children to learn this if they are given the right tools

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, this is not unsupported. I was actually agreeing with you that you have to know what is a hurt (or what you consider a hurt to be) in order for your conscience to kick in, so to speak. These observations are not unsupported. How many times do I have to say that these observations came from very careful study and analysis. Just because he didn't start out with a hypothesis does not mean his observations were any less accurate. You may want more empirical proof, but you have to give him the benefit of the doubt instead of just asserting that this is an unsupported assertion. It's nervewracking.

When neither you or Lessans have supported them, that means they are unsupported. Saying that they can be supported, or that they eventually will be supported, does not make it the case that they actually are supported. Saying that they are observations that came from careful study does not make them supported either. The only way to make them supported is to actually provide some kind of evidence or argument in support of them.

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, you also stopped replying to me on whether or not the satisfaction principle is falsifiable. Is it a tautology, or can you tell me the possible counterfactual circumstances which would show it (i.e. the satisfaction principle in particular, and not just some aspect or other of Lessans' reasoning as a whole) to be false?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You misunderstood by what I said. Conscience can only work depending on what it is fed. If what is taught is a lie (e.g., homosexuals are lesser human beings than heterosexuals), then conscience will not think it is bad when homosexuals are not offered the same kind of protection as heterosexuals. When the truth is known that all people are inherently equal in value (regardless of their sexual orientation), then conscience would be bothered to see this kind of mistreatment.

Not at all. But as mankind develops, this kind of barbarism will not be accepted by conscience in any society. Listen to the video of Sam Harris, especially where he is speaking at 2:26.

You miss the point... as usual.

Either conscience is inherent, and there is such a thing as absolute morality - simply what we are born with.

Or it is not inherent and it is learned... in which case it is not homogeneous.

Your idea requires conscience to be inherent and homogeneous: you rely on a universal standard for hurt and wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right here: The question here is whether or not I will anticipate having a guilty conscience after performing the act.

You are implying that you have a choice in the matter of a guilty conscience. You don't have a choice because you will automatically anticipate a guilty conscience if you are striking a first blow and know beforehand that you will not be blamed.

By what you just said. You said "considering the harmful act of another person", as if the act has taken place at which time you have to determine whether that act is blameworthy.

Maybe I misunderstood. It is true that we will anticipate a guilty conscience with no way to rid ourselves of that guilt because there is no way to justify what we did.

This is getting ridiculous. Where did I say anything about conscience being about blame? You aren't actually addressing the words you are replying to.

You are accusing Lessans of creating a double standard by saying we will blame ourselves but not hold others blameworthy. Then you go off onto a tangent by saying that if others aren't held to account for the same action, how will conscience know that the action is "bad". Judging an action to be harmful has nothing to do with blame. It is a warning system, that's all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Here you are really confused. You won't anticipate a guilty conscience because you know you couldn't do otherwise. That doesn't even make sense. You will anticipate a guilty conscience because what you are contemplating cannot be justified, which prevents you from moving in this direction for greater satisfaction.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is insane. It's like you're completely incapable of comprehending anything you read. I didn't say you would anticipate a guilty conscience because you know you couldn't do otherwise. I said that (according to Lessans) you would still anticipate a guilty conscience because you know you cannot be compelled to do anything you do not want to do.

But that's not what causes a guilty conscience. What causes a guilty conscience is causing harm to someone without justification. If you are able to justify your actions, you will have no reason to feel guilty.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You could not feel guilty about something you were compelled to do against your will. Lessans says you would still anticipate feeling guilty because this is never the case - your will is not free, but you still are never compelled against your own will.

You're getting confused here. This principle doesn't come into play where you are using it in your logic. It only means that you can't blame something else as causing you to perform an action without giving that action your permission. That's all it means.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Lessans says you would still anticipate feeling guilty because this is never the case - your will is not free, but you still are never compelled against your own will.

You're getting confused with this principle that nothing can make you do anything against your will. This has nothing to do with why you would anticipate feelings of guilt.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Huh? You are so off into a ditch I don't know if there is a way to save this analysis from being scrapped altogether. "I do not want to be able to blame others?" You won't desire to blame others when you know their will is not free, not because nothing can make them do anything against their will. You are bringing this other principle in which has nothing to do with why we will not blame. We won't blame when we recognize that not blaming (once it is recognized that man's will is not free) will create the kind of world that blaming could never accomplish. And people don't have to agree to this if they don't want to, but why wouldn't they want to if they know that this is going to usher in a new world where everyone benefits?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Zero reading comprehension. A complete failure to comprehend what I wrote. I wasn't saying that knowing nothing can make us do anything against our will is what makes us not want to blame others. I was saying that (according to Lessans) this is knowledge is not enough to make us want to blame others. You are not disagreeing with anything I've actually said.

Of course it's not enough not to blame others because this principle has nothing to do with it. Again, you're factoring this principle into your reasoning where it doesn't belong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no inept oversight Spacemonkey. You have absolutely no grasp of these principles whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I just explained the inept oversight. Flat denial is not a reasoned response, and I just explained the principles perfectly clearly (though you have misread every single thing I wrote).

This is not a flat denial. I am listening to your reasoning, and I've given my reasons why you're judgment is wrong. There is no inept oversight. You did not explain the basic principle correctly which is why you got lost in a maze of inaccuracies.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that is not what happens. You will not be able to move in a direction that you would feel guilty about. Here's where your reasoning gets all screwy.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't say you could move in a direction you would feel guilty about. Where are you coming up with these bizarre things you are objecting to? All I said was that anticipating a guilty conscience entails judging that one would have done something bad that one should feel bad about.

That part is true, but you used the word "should". There are no shoulds. This is how you will feel, not how you should feel. What you said earlier is that if you are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, you would have no reason to think that your actions are bad. That's not true. You would have every reason to think that your actions are "bad" and therefore guilt producing if you know that by performing said action the result will be someone getting harmed, which prevents you from desiring to move in this direction for greater satisfaction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're assuming that these hurtful actions are going to take place, but that's just the point. They will not take place. Your reasoning doesn't follow.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again, I didn't say anything about hurtful actions being able to take place under his changed conditions. You have yet to raise a single point against anything I've actually said.

You said that you would have to judge someone else performing the same harmful actions as doing something bad that they should feel bad about, but we're starting out with the condition that we are not to judge other people's actions (good or bad) as we extend the principle that man's will is not free. It's not up to us to judge someone else blameworthy if we're following this line of reasoning. We have to begin here and see what happens. You are jumping ahead and trying to blame an action that hasn't even happened yet.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once again, you are doing the same thing. You are making an assumption that someone would desire to strike a first blow, which would then be excused. No one is saying a hurtful action is not hurtful, but if the action is never performed, how can anyone be hurt? Your reasoning is in a ditch again.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Once again, I didn't say anything about anyone desiring to strike a first blow. Are you sure you read this post before replying to it?

Not blaming someone does not remove the hurt at all. This principle just states that we are not going to blame anyone regardless of what they choose to do in the direction of greater satisfaction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because will is not free and you will not be blamed does not mean you can do whatever you want and justify it by saying your will is not free. He clarified this in the book. You can't rationalize your actions away when no one blames you because you cannot fool your conscience. Your assumption is wrong.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What assumption? To excuse the harmful actions of others from blame, I must judge that, given P1 and P2, a harmful action is not something bad that one should feel bad about.

But that's not true Spacemonkey. We're just removing the blame, we're not removing the hurt that comes from an action that was responsible for that hurt.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If this is true for others then it is equally true for myself. There is no 'fooling' of conscience at all. Unless I am simply refraining from blaming others when knowing that they really are blameworthy, I will know that my conscience really is wrong to suggest to me that I've done something bad that I should feel bad about. I would not be excusing my conscience - it would be my misguided conscience that is without excuse.

You are not judging others as blameworthy as a necessary prerequisite in judging whether something you are about to do is "bad". If it is a hurt your conscience will know it is bad. You are not judging anyone as blameworthy (including yourself) because man's will is not free. But judging what actions would make you feel guilty is not about blame. It's about feeling remorse over hurting someone. Blame is not the same thing as remorse. Conscience will not let you get into a situation where you would feel this remorse because you would know your actions are hurtful (you are getting confused with the word bad I think). Your conscience knows what actions are hurtful, and when you cannot justify this hurt, you cannot follow through with that behavior. You are right, there is no fooling of conscience and it won't let you get away with hurting someone without a justification. If no one has hurt you first, you won't have a justification.

to be cont...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This one is a real doozy. Just because you don't hold someone responsible for their actions does not make them zombies. They still know that their actions are either hurtful or not hurtful, and it is this knowledge that compels them to stay away from those actions that are hurtful because they could not stand hurting someone and being forgiven when there was no justification for what they did. If they had a justification (e.g., they stole because they were hungry) they would have nothing to feel guilty about and their conscience would be clear. But in the new world this justification is going to be removed because no one is going to be in poverty where he would have to steal as the lesser of two evils. Your logic has fallen deeper into a ditch.

I wasn't saying anything about how other people would regard their own actions. I said that if we judge another person's harmful action as not being blameworthy, then we are judging that they have not done anything bad that they should feel bad about. I didn't say we are thereby judging that they won't feel bad about it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't work that way Spacemonkey. If you know that the world is not going to blame you for anything you do, there will be a line of demarcation between what is a hurt and what is not a hurt, and your conscience would never be able to cross that line. Hurting someone under these conditions would be difficult to even think about because the pain of being responsible for hurting someone would be hard to bear knowing that they would never blame you (they know you couldn't help yourself since your will is not free...but you know you can help yourself before you take a risk that could lead to this type of situation.

I didn't say it works this way. I said only that it would if we were consistent in judging that P1 and P2 prevent blameworthiness for harmful actions by making those actions such that they are not anything bad that one should feel bad about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course you would be judging that you would be doing something bad (or harmful), which makes you think twice about doing it.

So you fully agree with me on this point, and there was no need to interject any response here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would never get to this point which is why the two-sided equation works. Again, you are assuming that the basic principle will still allow people to hurt others with impunity and be excused. You then reason this would give you the right to judge others as blameworthy. You are going in circles. Don't you see the inaccuracy of your reasoning yet?

Again, I'm not saying anything about things getting to this point or people under his changed conditions being able to harm others. All I'm talking about is basic consistency. If a given harmful action is something bad that one should feel bad about, then this holds no matter who performs the action. If it is me then I would feel guilty. If it is someone else then they would be blameworthy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

WRONG

WRONG

You haven't shown either point to be wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, it entails judging one's actions before the action is performed to determine if performing said action could cause someone to be hurt. It has nothing to do with shoulds. You would feel guilty if you carelessly hurt someone, which makes you think long and hard before taking any chances. Your conscience (not threats of punishment) will be your guide in determining which actions are safe to perform and which are not. One's conscience is a protective mechanism that will prevent you from doing anything that you could be sorry for later on.

So you agree with me here, and have no objection to this first assumption.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now you're way out in left field. We are not judging anyone in any way. We are relinquishing all blame, all criticism, all judgment, and all punishment.

This assumption is not about whether or not we are or will be judging anyone under his changed conditions. It is simply saying that it is impossible to judge another as having done something bad that they should feel bad about without considering them blameworthy. Are you saying that in the new world we will view others as blameworthy, but will simply restrain ourselves from expressing any blame for the sake of the greater good thereby achieved?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes it can. We are not judging anyone's actions but our own. You are again making the assumption that a bad action is going to take place which will require judgment and blame. This reasoning has now fallen into a bottomless pit.

I am not saying anything about what kind of actions will or could occur under the changed conditions of his new world. And if one can judge an action as bad and something one should feel bad about purely because it was himself and not someone else doing it, then the 'badness' involved cannot be a MORAL wrongness - which requires universality and the irrelevance of the mere identity of the actor - and therefore cannot motivate a guilty conscience, which requires one to judge that one has done something morally wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are talking about a hypothetical situation because in the new world no one would have committed the kind of act that warrants punishment and retaliation. We're back to square one.

You are indeed back to square one. You are completely ignoring the fact that this hypothetical situation is not and does not need to be set in Lessans' new world. Do you have any idea how many times I've already told you this? The example is NOT set in the new world, so you can't use the claim that it would never occur in the new world as an excuse for not answering it.


(BTW, this post is long because I have retained the original passages from my post that you were replying to. I could have cut them out and made it much shorter, but I wanted you to be able to compare what you have been objecting to with what I actually wrote and maybe come to see for yourself the massive disconnect between the two.)[/QUOTE]

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, there's absolutely no point in replying to the post you are above replying to. Every objection you raised before was against something other than what I was saying. So you need to go back and read post #22736 again and reply to it properly, this time objecting to and addressing only the things I actually wrote.

More importantly, you need to first properly answer post #22804 so we don't end up at cross-purposes over the removal of blame.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes he does Vivisectus. I have to check to make sure this video is the one that supports exactly what I'm talking about. Go to 2:26 in the video and listen again.

You need to listen again, he is saying that scientists do not make claims of general, universal moral standards.

[Awareness]

PEACEGIRL: You say we need evil to know good. You are right. We needed evil to learn from, but we don't need evil anymore for us to know truth. I understand you Awareness, I just hope you keep on listening because this is not in defiance of religion; it confirms what religion has espoused all along.

I said evil can not exist without good, there is a difference. They are each others opposite

Just like the color red can not exist without light, red does not exist in blackness

NO EVIL? THEN THERE IS NO GOOD. NO LIGHT? THEN THERE IS NO COLOUR RED

If you think you can beat the devil in your brain, and around you PeaceGirl, then be my guest, happy hunting!

A honest to GOD mind-fuck, means nothing if you can not reach his or her heart.


Do not tell people what to think or feel, but LET people find out for themselves.

EVILNESS is A FORCE PEACEGIRL, which only can be fought by only a single individual.

And where is the entrance for the devil? Only a window in your brain

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once it is established that man's will is absolutely and positively not free, and once it is understood that by not blaming rather than blaming we can get the desired response which is greater responsibility, man will desire to do what it takes to create the conditions that allow this new understanding to manifest in the real world. Obviously, this will take a transition period. He is not advocating to suddenly stop blaming as I stated before. People would take advantage of this and have a field day stealing and doing other "bad" things to their heart's content with no remorse.

When I say they will be unable to blame, this only means they will be compelled not to blame in the direction of greater satisfaction because they know that by not blaming, this will prevent the very thing that blaming could never accomplish.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So was that the first or second answer? Or both?

I just answered you, so why are you asking me the same question again?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Also, are you familiar with the Prisoner's Dilemma? Can you see how it might be relevant here?

No

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You need to listen again, he is saying that scientists do not make claims of general, universal moral standards.

He is offering support for moral objectivism.

Sam Harris on Moral Objectivism - YouTube

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, there's absolutely no point in replying to the post you are above replying to. Every objection you raised before was against something other than what I was saying. So you need to go back and read post #22736 again and reply to it properly, this time objecting to and addressing only the things I actually wrote.

More importantly, you need to first properly answer post #22804 so we don't end up at cross-purposes over the removal of blame.

Our posts keep getting longer and longer. Let's try to keep them shorter so that we can correct any misinterpretations along the way. How does that sound?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just answered you, so why are you asking me the same question again?

Because your answer was unclear. You didn't tell me whether it was the first, second, or both. Which is it?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Our posts keep getting longer and longer. Let's try to keep them shorter so that we can correct any misinterpretations along the way. How does that sound?

That sounds great. Please answer post #22804 and we can move on from there.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He is offering support for moral objectivism.

Sam Harris on Moral Objectivism - YouTube

You seem to think quite highly of Sam Harris. Have you tried sending him your book for him to review?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is the big unsupported assertion. Conscience helps us navigate socially as part and parcel of our worldview and values system. The function of it is to keep our actions in line with those values. I do not think conscience can develop at all in a world where we are not held responsible by others for the effects of our actions on others.

It's the exact opposite LadyShea. Conscience does not develop as a result of being held responsible. It develops naturally in a nurturing environment. Children begin to have empathy for others and feel a twinge of conscience if they do something that hurts someone, or they see someone else doing something that is hurtful.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If nobody expresses disappointment at an action of a child that hurt them, the child won't feel bad and therefore won't learn not to do that action again because it has negative internal consequences.

A child learns that doing certain things hurt people. As they begin to develop empathy their conscience begins to control their actions. They don't learn genuine empathy by someone's disapproval. Parents, for example, can explain that making fun of other children may cause sadness in the children who are being made fun of, so they can develop feelings of empathy. Disappointment is more about pleasing the parent or getting a positive reaction, which is a strong motivator. The child not wanting to disappoint would change his behavior for the parent, not because it is hurtful. Therefore, he isn't developing true empathy.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If children only knows an action is a hurt because someone told them it was, rather than learning for themselves via empathy with what the other person is feeling, they will have no need to develop a conscience at all.

Children learn empathy when they are given empathy. Children learn by what they see, so if they see you being empathic and compassionate, they will imitate what they see. Children do not have to see someone getting hurt in order to know what it means to be hurt. I don't have to see someone getting beaten to learn empathy.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And you still have yet to explain what this "capacity" of conscience is. You act as if it is some measurable thing, like we can measure the pressure per inch exerted by someone squeezing a device.

It just means that in today's world our conscience is not working at full throttle. People do many things that risk other people's safety for the satisfaction of certain desires. This occurs, for example, when people speed to get to a destination, not terribly concerned as to whether they are risking the safety of other drivers on the road. In the new world a person would be more concerned about others people's safety than his own. The thought of being responsible for an accident that could have been prevented had he been more careful would be on his conscience with no way to relieve feelings of remorse. The knowledge that there would be no consequences for a careless accident is what prevents him from ever getting himself into this kind of situation. That's what I mean by conscience reaching full capacity.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You seem to think quite highly of Sam Harris. Have you tried sending him your book for him to review?

I tried once. I got an automated message that he does not answer personal emails. He has too many. Something to that effect. That's the biggest hurdle of all; getting this book into the hands of people who are interested in this topic and have some influence.