History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)

Book Description

Recorded history is a finely-woven magic fabric of intricate lies about events predating the sixteenth century. There is not a single piece of evidence that can be reliably and independently traced back earlier than the eleventh century. This book details events that are substantiated by hard facts and logic, and validated by new astronomical research and statistical analysis of ancient sources.

Customer Reviews:

Calculations are only as good as your numbers.......2007-08-03

Yes, we can all agree that mainstream history is nearly 100% BS due to politics, economics, ego, problems with dating techniques, and various conspiracies. Agreed. But, I've been researching the distinct possibility that human history (in terms of civilizations) are much more ancient than we've been told, so coming across this book was very interesting to me. I wondered how Fomenko could be wrong (if at all) because he is very persuasive in his presentations. Then it dawned on me. If at previous times in prehistory, due to the various catastrophies that are well documented (comets, asteroids, planetary disruptions, plasma discharge, pole reversals, etc) the Earth was in a different position in relation to the sun, different tilt on its axis, different orbit, different rotation (in terms of velocity and DIRECTION), and the continents were in different positions, then would this not cause the ancients to see the sky (constellations) differently? In other words, is Fomenko making erronious assumptions about the physics of the Earth in pre-history, which then corrupt his data with regards to dating the relevant astrology? The last event to seriously disrupt our planet occured roughly 3500 years ago, according to other good researchers, so is it possible Fomenko has been confused by this? The vastly different physics of our planet in the not so distant past may explain this confusion, which is not to say the "mainstream" version of history is correct; on the contrary. I am not an expert in these fields, but wanted to see if this idea could spark discussion.

Pants on fire?.......2007-07-19

Will people ever read before spamming? Yes, Jesuits could not rewrite world history alone, they had help. Anyway, Dr Prof Acad A.Fomenko does not point to jesuits as the driving force of world wide history manipulation in published volumes 1,2,3;, actually he barely mentions the poor devils. Check it with 'Search inside' feature, please. China is rarely mentioned either, in fact, Dr Fomenko is completely eurocentric. Right, his theory contradicts all mainstream schools of history, because in their actual state they are all built on blatantly erroneus chronology. You don't need a mysterious cabal (conspiracy) to falsify history, the falsification is its modus operandi. It is inherent to history(ians) to falsify (distort) events, as it is inherent to humans to boast as it is inherent to power (authority) to legimize itself by referrring to glorious past made to its own order. Dr Prof Fomenko and team have identified scores of instances of such manipulation in Russian, European, etc.. history, and delivered valid statistical proof thereof. His own 'reconstruction' is completely another story. Forget c14 as a valid method of dating. W.Libby has initially discovered a brilliant method of INDEPENDENT dating. Too bad, c14 method has become a joke after a forced marrige with dendrochronology with consensual chronological scale inbuilt. Radiocarbon method can't stand blind tests, but is so very productive as a rubberstamp.

Accepted History & Chronology Must Be Changed. .......2007-04-09

There is no doubt that history as most know it is a sham, & institution's version of History both University & Church is fradulent & inaccurate. Everything was established with an agenda, The real "Dark Ages" are now when we have access to incredible amounts of information past authorities & more important 'common folk' didn't have but our institutions & educators are slow to evolve because of what has ignorantly & arrogantly been taught for too long. This is on many subjects not just Chronology.

For anyone to question "Why would a Mathematician have anything credible to say of History?" The answer is from Dr. Fomenko's preface in the book: "It would be worthwhile to remind the reader that in the XVI-XVII century Chronology was considered to be a subdivision of Mathematics." These volumes could possibly be some of the most important works to date & should be read by everyone with an interest in History, especially professors & educators who have a duty to the public. I have read both books & must say that 'Chronology 1' has some very eye opening & revolutionary information. Even if these volumes are part true the implications are profound & opens the doors to further investigations & questions which must be done. I speak several different lanquages & must say the logic Dr. Fomenko uses with "inflection" of words & words being read from left to right in one region & right to left in another then written backwards, the removal of vowels & get down to basics of words, or different cities & locations having the same name etc. is correct. Vowel usage has always been optional & varied, actually complicating linquistics & study. The first thing one has to understand is that words never had a fixed spelling in history like we do now, the spelling of words was mutable & regional, as well as names & titles of people were vast, varied & changed, NOTHING WAS FIXED or understood linear. Matters of Life & Death as well as financial profiteering yesterday & today were & are made with ignorant, illogical & conspiratorial views of history & reality, it's time people get closer to the Truth & society collectively grow up.

Very Interesting.......2007-03-07

It is a good proposal and I believe it will mature into something even better in the future. I think it deserves to be read.

History as Science Fiction.......2007-01-10

Anatoly Fomenko has written a very intriguing book, full of pictures, charts, and computer 'proof' of his thesis: backwards of AD900 we don't really know what happened or when. Between AD900 and AD1600 there is more certainty, but there is still a lot of fuzzy ground, and things don't get reliable until we get past the 1600's where the printing press made it very difficult for the perpetrators of this timeline manipulation to change anything that had been committed to print. The Dark Ages did not happen. Books were burned for a reason. One organization has doubled the actual length of its existence by expanding the real chronology. Read why.

I had always wondered why Christ died about AD33 and yet men waited until the 11th century to form the Knights Templar, the Cathars, etc and go after the Holy Land by force. Why the 1000 year gap? Turns out there wasn't more than a 10-12 year gap and he proves it using astronomy. This also implies that the planet is not as old as we have been told, and current Christian and other creationist scientists are already championing that idea without being aware of Fomenko's book. The two groups, creationist scientists and the Russian mathematical analysts corroborate each other. Fascinating.

Of course, all this flies in the face of what we have been told traditionally is the 'proper' chronology of western civilization, and most readers will experience 'cognitive dissonance' in reading this book. It means that our history going backwards from AD1600 becomes progressively more incorrect and unreliable until it cannot be trusted at all... in the space of 700-800 years.

Naturally, the curious, open-minded reader will want to know WHO did this, WHY, and did any of the events we think of as really ancient ever happen?
Dr. Fomenko is a respected scientist/mathematician at Moscow State University who has already answered these questions to the satisfaction of his initially skeptical colleagues. Most of them are now believers, a few still refuse to believe (the usual diehards), and of course the western press has ignored Fomenko's work -- for obvious reasons when you read the book. The ones who perpetrated this chronology ruse have a lot to answer for. They are still with us. That's why this book is a well-kept secret.

I gave the book a 4-star rating because I was unable to check out some of his claims; those I checked were as he said. But if even 1/3 of his claims are true, this punches a big hole in what we think is our history, the meaning of western civilization, our educational process (for repeating the ruse as gospel), and the trustworthiness of the organization that perpetrated this ruse, well-intentioned or not.

This book relates to current research into a Young Earth paradigm, to John Keel's discoveries about our planet, and Fr Malachi Martin's insights (in his now out-of-print books). We are indeed sheep who are manipulated and kept ignorant -- for a reason. While knowing what these men have to say may be the "booby prize" (as in: 'what can you do with this knowledge?'), it will provide interesting reading. Didn't someone say: "...and the Truth will set you free."?? For you to judge if this book contains the truth.

Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues (Paul Carus Lectures)

Average customer rating:

Philosophical account for the need of virtues as to animals and humans
Unflinching attempt to address fundamental questions
Okay, so I was wrong
Has MacIntyre gone soft?
MacIntyre's project is starting to produce results.

Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues (Paul Carus Lectures)
Alasdair MacIntyre
Manufacturer: Open Court
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Ethics & Morality | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Social Psychology & Interactions | Psychology & Counseling | Health, Mind & Body | Subjects | Books

ASIN: 081269452X

Book Description

To flourish, humans need to develop virtues of independent thought and acknowledged social dependence. In this book, a leading moral philosopher presents a comparison of humans to other animals and explores the impact of these virtues.

Customer Reviews:

Philosophical account for the need of virtues as to animals and humans.......2006-11-22

Alasdair Macintire, well known for several renowned philosophical books, for example "After virtue". He is an authority on the issue of virtues and Aristotelian philosophy, where virtue plays an inmportant role. What is striking about this book however, is that recent research done on dolphins, chimpanzees and other intelligent nonhuman animals, has been taken notice of by the author. This includes self consciousness and rationality. He, in an excellent way, made these insights philsophically relevant In his previous works he has never made much about animal existence. Now for the first time he meaningfully incorporated new scientific insights on intelligent and rational animals in his thinking on virtues. This indeed a gain in thinking on animal (and human) existence. He does not hesitate to put his views forward. For those who are interested in philosophy and animal issues,this book will be an great asset.

In the second half of the book he also addresses the issue of dependence on and the need for virtues in human social life. Amonst many other things , he explains why neither the state nor the family would be primarily normative, why virtues guide us, but are not rigid rules. While he regards emotions as as important, his wisdom namely "Sentiment , unguided by reason , becomes sentimentalism and sentimantality is a sign of moral failure" (p124)is most relevant today;This surely applies to our making sense of both human and nonhuman animal exsistence.

In a time where the killing and possible extinction of whales dolphins,chimpanzess orang utangs by human ignorance, arrogance and error as well as and certain environmental problems, and where people are looking for moral answers, this book indeed tells us why humans need virtues. The book itself fulfill in a contemporary need.

Unflinching attempt to address fundamental questions.......2003-03-07

Many virtue theorists seem to think it enough to say that "qua humans" we should flourish, and that figuring out how to flourish "just is" what practical reasoning is, and hence that virtue is intrinsic to being human in about the same way that having roots is intrinsic to being a tree, and that those of us who fail to "see" that are somehow irrational in wanting some further argument. They skip blithely over the obvious fact that much reasoning that seems quite practical and wildly successful seems rather less than virtuous. MacIntyre indulges in no such self-satisfied question-begging. Whatever else is to be said for MacIntyre's "Dependent Rational Animals," he displays the virtue of engaging directly and forthrightly the hard questions that unsympathetic or unconvinced souls would pose for his position.

The way he argues that we need the virtues is quite startling in originality. Generally, ethicists take as their standard the autonomous, self-sufficient reasoner--where "reason" means something like "able to give a logically defensible verbal justification," usually in terms of some sort of universal rule. MacIntyre sees this as a mistake. The question, he thinks, is how any of us ever come to be independent practical reasoners and what it means to be such. We must, he thinks, understand that "reasons to act" have little to do with our linguistic ability or capacity to display verbally a syllogism that concludes with the action in question. Rather, "reasons to act" are more concrete, pragmatic, and instrumental.
Thus, we can say that intelligent animals act with reasons, despite having no language, if their actions are clearly aimed at ends, especially if it is clear that they choose their instrumental acts on the basis of perceptions of the current environment.

*Human practical resoning* begins in this aspect of our animal nature--our ability to learn in practice what we need to do in order to accomplish the things we need to accomplish if we are to flourish. Note that the issue here is learning in practice, and identifying correctly through our practice what we find to be needful for our flourishing. Reason, then, is grounded in the practice of flourishing.

And rather than look at "autonomous" adults, MacIntyre points out the obvious fact, usually overlooked by ethical theorists, that we are actually always dependent on each other in myriad ways. Our mutual dependency dictates that we need communities of giving and receiving various things--including education, formal and otherwise--not only to flourish but to be able to know, and reason, about flourishing. Without the virtues, the conditions for practical reasoning *at all* cannot exist.

The argument, then, is that our animality and dependency dictate what constitutes both flourishing and practical reason about flourishing, and that we can demonstrate that the virtues are necessary for being independent practical reasoners who flourish.

Rather, that's the strategy of the argument. The argument itself is, of course, much more involved. In its entirety, does it work? I'm not sure. I don''t know that everyone would agree with his axiomatic/unargued starting point, that to flourish requires us to be independent rational thinkers, even in the sense of "rational" he's spelled out here. We of democratic mien see thing that way, of course--but so far as I know, MacIntyre doesn't provide an argument for the overriding necessity of independence.

A couple of things are troubling--his apparent reliance on D.W. Winnicott's psychoanalytic account of child development, for instance. I'm not sure whether it really matters--so long as one accepts the notion that persons cannot develop into independent rational thinkers without the support of others, MacIntyre's affinity for Winnicott can be seen as a personal quirk, I think.

But that does lead to one perplexity: a lot of what MacIntyre says about the necessities of human life--matters of our dependence--is empirical, in a fairly straightforward sense, more than philosophical. Does this matter? It seems so to me. At least some of his argument turns on empirical claims about conditions for human flourishing for which he provides no argument or evidence.

Finally, MacIntyre sees current society as more or less beyond the pale ethically--according to him, neither our families nor our nation states promote virtue or independent practical rationality of the sort he has spelled out. One could conclude, of course, that we live in vicious ands heathen times, so to speak--and perhaps we do. Or one could wonder whether MacIntyre's empirical claims, and the philosophical argument he bases upon them, may not have more to do with his tastes than with the conditions of human flourishing. Is it really so obvious that in our culture we fail to flourish? Taken from the perspective of human history, our developed nation states have a few things going for them that resemble flourishing: the highest levels of material welfare, more equitably spread (in spite of the great distance we have to go in achieving equality); the most widespread education and highest rates of literacy; the lowest rates of infant mortality; the longest life spans; the greatest emphasis on human rights, including for women and minoeriites; the easiest access by non-elites to the arts; the cheapest books (relative to per capita income); the most efficient (if not yet ideal) institutions for international consultation and cooperation, and . . .

I like MacIntyre''s version of how life ought to be. I recommend reading the book. But I suggest that one not fail to note that his empirical claims are less than obviously true, while some empirical facts about our flourishing seem to have escaped his notice--or at least been given less weight than many folks would give them.

One other thing: This book is badly written. Never mind the needlessly poor sentence structure in which he so often indulges (and he obviously knows better, since he often writes clearly). But the structure of the argument and its exposition is generally less than transparent. (The reviewer who thought first that MacIntyre had gone soft reflects this fact.) For instance, on page 107, he tells us there are two ways that a certain thing is important, then spends twelve pages discussing the first--without ever getting around to identifying the second, so far as I can discern. That sort of sloppiness is not unusual in the book. Do you think maybe one of the minor virtues, one of the small obligations owed by people who write books for which they ask our money, is that they not be lazy about how they express themselves?

Okay, so I was wrong.......2001-02-20

I take back my previous review, in which I speculated that MacIntyre had "gone soft." On second and third reading, this is just a wonderful book - a welcome return to ambitious Aristotelian naturalism in ethics. So much better than "After Virtue".

Has MacIntyre gone soft?.......2000-03-16

This book is more moving than it is carefully argued. There's lots of unsupported assertion, and the detailed account of our need for the virtues is full of holes. But the approach is an attractive one. And this is a book of philosophical ethics that betrays a real concern for our frailties. Unlike a lot of dry philosophy, you get the sense that ethics really matters.

MacIntyre's project is starting to produce results........1999-06-29

For years the knock on MacIntyre was that his devastating critique of modernity left nothing standing, with the unintended result that the central question of _After Virtue_ ("Nietzsche or Aristotle?") ultimately cut against Aristotle.

_Dependent Rational Animals_ presents a positive account of practical rationality against the background of an understanding of human nature on which we are first of all animals -- and thus always vulnerable -- and often (some of us always) disabled. This leads MacIntyre to distinguish what he calls the "virtues of acknowledged dependence" from the more widely recognized "virtues of independent practical reasoners".

This book, an expanded series of lectures, is quite easy to read, especially when it focuses on such lively questions as whether dolphins and chimpanzees have beliefs and intentions, or why we have obligations to those thoroughly dependent human beings who will never develop into autonomous agents.

Book Description

An insightful guide to understanding and navigating the ethical issues faced by anyone affected by the ethical dilemmas associated with current and emerging technologies

Ethics of Emerging Technologies provides the background, insight, and tools for approaching and solving ethical dilemmas across a broad range of topics. The text discusses ethical problems, using examples and reasoning tools that will aid engineers, scientists, managers, administrators, and the public who wish to understand risks, benefits, and possible approaches to resolving conflicts associated with new technologies in the context of the global community.

Solutions we choose to ethical dilemmas accompanying new technologies will profoundly affect future generations. Scientific facts and guides to decision-making for all associated with emerging technologies are presented. Some of the topics are:
* Human health and environmental effects of alternative energy production methods
* Communications and privacy
* Plagiarism and authorship
* Genetic modification of organisms
* Human and animal experimentation
* Synthetic biology and bioterrorism
* Confidentiality in science, engineering, and business communications
* Risks and consequences of enhancing human beings through new technologies
* Cloning of human beings and stem cell research
* Brain modifications
* Space exploration

Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism (Oxford Paperbacks)

Average customer rating:

Back to square one
Darwin Sycophant
Created from Animals--or Evolved?
Interesting....
Created from Animals...and then some!

Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism (Oxford Paperbacks)
James Rachels
Manufacturer: Oxford University Press, USA
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Ethics & Morality | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Evolution | Science | Subjects | Books

Organic | Evolution | Science | Subjects | Books

General | Science | Subjects | Books

ASIN: 0192861298

Book Description

From Bishop Wilberforce in the 1860s to the advocates of "creation science" today, defenders of traditional mores have condemned Darwin's theory of evolution as a threat to society's values. Darwin's defenders, like Stephen Jay Gould, have usually replied that there is no conflict between science and religion--that values and biological facts occupy separate realms. But as James Rachels points out in this thought-provoking study, Darwin himself would disagree with Gould. Darwin, who had once planned on being a clergyman, was convinced that natural selection overthrew our age-old religious beliefs. Created from Animals offers a provocative look at how Darwinian evolution undermines many tenets of traditional philosophy and religion. James Rachels begins by examining Darwin's own life and work, presenting an astonishingly vivid and compressed biography. We see Darwin's studies of the psychological links in evolution (such as emotions in dogs, and the "mental powers" of worms), and how he addressed the moral implications of his work, especially in his concern for the welfare of animals. Rachels goes on to present a lively and accessible survey of the controversies that followed in Darwin's wake, ranging from Herbert Spencer's Social Darwinism to Edward O. Wilson's sociobiology, and discusses how the work of such influential intellects as Descartes, Hume, Kant, T.H. Huxley, Henri Bergson, B.F. Skinner, and Stephen Jay Gould has contributed to--or been overthrown by--evolutionary science. Western philosophy and religion, Rachels argues, have been shaken by the implications of Darwin's work, most notably the controversial idea that humans are simply a more complex kind of animal. Rachels assesses a number of studies that suggest how closely humans are linked to other primates in behavior, and then goes on to show how this idea undercuts the work of many prominent philosophers. Kant's famous argument that suicide reduces one to the level of an animal, for instance, is meaningless if humans are, in fact, animals. Indeed, humanity's membership in the animal kingdom calls into question the classic notions of human dignity and the sacredness of human life. What we need now, Rachels contends, is a philosophy that does not discriminate between different species, one that addresses each being on an individual basis. With this sweeping survey of the arguments, the philosophers, and the deep implications surrounding Darwinism, Rachels lays the foundations for a new view of morality. Vibrantly written and provocatively argued, Created from Animals offers a new perspective on issues ranging from suicide to euthanasia to animal rights.

Customer Reviews:

Back to square one.......2004-11-17

This is a deeply confused book. The author's intention is to assemble an animal liberation friendly moral philosophy using Darwinian evolution as a platform and Darwin's interpretation of moral sentiment as a guide to drawing out implications not actually present in the Great Man's writings. His is a commendable effort from which much may be learned, but alas he's on Mission Impossible: an evolution platform, whose core teaching is survival of the fittest in the midst of extinction carnage, replaces morality by the brutal doctrine that might makes right.

Rachels is aware of this liability. He correctly observes that moral philosophers have largely by-passed Darwinism, or, when they did take note, contrived philosophical arguments to dismiss it (the classic case being G E Moore's proclamation of the `naturalistic fallacy'). This they do because the struggle for existence slaughterhouse, which devalues our species' privileged position by reducing it to animal existence of no intrinsic value, dissipates the sense of the sacred. Rachels accepts that Darwinism indeed cancels the sense of human life's sanctity (called `speciesism'), but would use it positively as an opening to morally valuing all animal life according to its merits. (This is the signature animal lib teaching that human life, in some conditions, is of less value, or of no value, than animal life in contrasting conditions). But what value other than valorization of armed survival can be salvaged? Rachels would extricate himself from this predicament by fancy footwork that offloads social Darwinism to the hapless Herbert Spencer while leaving Darwin untouched (pp. 63f) Alas, the feint will work only you don't know Darwin's colorful social Darwinist pronouncements. Here are a few:

** `There is one general law [natural selection] leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die'.

** `The advance of civilization depends on the struggle for existence severe to an extreme degree'.

** `The inhabitants of each successive period in the world's history have beaten their predecessors in the race for life, and are, in so far, higher in the scale of nature'.

** `The more civilized Causasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world in no more distant date, what an endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.'

** 'At some future period ... the civilized races will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. ... The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian [Aborigine] and the gorilla'.

I have found that when students are introduced to these statements, they recognize them straight away as patriotic promos for Her Britannic Majesty's colonial dominions and superpower dominance in Europe. No Ifs, Ands, or Buts. They justify shooting savages, not liberating animals. Indeed, the distance between Homo sapiens and the highest apes will increase because those intervening creatures, the `lower races', will be eliminated.

This is sufficient to show that the author's mission is impossible, but let me touch on another point. Rachels tours Darwin's most extensive discussion of morality, in the Descent of Man, to consolidate his argument that our kinship with animals, from whom we differ only in degree, opens the path to animal liberation and euthanasia for humans of no value. The ground is the theory of moral sentiment and its key moral phenomenon, instinctive sympathy with kindred creatures. Rachels notes, rightly, Darwin's personal sympathy with animals and his strong reprobation of animal cruelty. This he contrasts, rightly, with the sovereign moral dignity of the human species in Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy. But Darwin cuts the ground from under this line of argument by declaring himself a Kantian! Here's what he says:

After stating that the moral sense is man's noblest trait, he quotes with approval Kant's evocation: `Duty! Wonderous thought, that workest neither by fond insinuation, flattery, nor by any threat, but merely by holding up thy naked law in the soul, and so extorting for thyself always reverence...before whom all appetites are dumb...whence they original?' A few pages later he says that the moral person `may say, I am the supreme judge of my own conduct, and in the words of Kant, I will not in my own person violate the dignity of humanity'. Shortly thereafter he commends his interpretation of the social instincts as removing the reproach `of laying the foundation of the most noble part of our nature in the base principle of selfishness'. And the coup de grace to Rachels' interpretation is Darwin's express assertion of a difference in kind between our species and animals, for `we have no reason to suppose that any of the lower animals have [the moral faculty]'. Just as Rachels fails to note Darwin's social Darwinism, so he fails to note his Kantianism. Goodbye animal liberation.

This establishes my contention that Rachels' book is confused, but now readers might protest that Darwin was even more confused. How could he put his panegyrics to duty side-by-side with warm endorsement of murderous competition with `inferior races' and inferior social classes? To contemporary sensibility it is outrageous. I have no answer to this question, at least not one that can be briefly stated. I'll leave it at a hint. This inconsistency isn't unique. Nearly all of his major evolutionary theses are similarly afflicted. Which is one reason why the career of Darwinism is marked by fierce battles among his disciples about the true meaning of the doctrine.

Darwin Sycophant.......2004-04-16

The first part of this book is primarily a brief Darwin biography. From there the author proceeds to delve into deeper questions regarding morality, ethics, sociobiological ethics and the sacredness of human life.
The main thesis of this work is that 'Darwinism leads inevitably to the abandonment of the idea of human dignity and the substitution of a different sort of ethic.' In other words in former times our culture had a "traditionalist ethic". This states that God is the head honcho, created humans and other animals, endowed man with superior abilities and that animals are the subject of man who for the most part can choose to do whatever he wants to with animals. Rachels' point is that this ethic has been usurped by a Darwinian ethic which states that man and his capacities are no different than animals even if man has a superior level of rationality. In Rachels' view this is how we should look at the world 'post-Darwinian'. The idea that man is above and beyond animals is now moot since we are all related. This is an interesting point but regardless of whether you believe in God or Darwin's notion one still cannot escape that fact that man is significantly different from animals owing to his rational abilities. It's not just a minor difference, but rather a major difference. This is why man has certain standards of morality that you would never ascribe to animals. This is why it's okay for mankind to subject animals to his whims a bit as long as he's compassionate. The whole idea of evolution seems to show that we (or whoever objectively) value what has the greatest quality of life on an evolutionary scale. Therefore, man comes before monkeys and monkeys come before worms in order of importance. A rather simple concept. Rachels doesn't drive this point home convincingly enough but seems to continually harp upon the similarities of man and animals. Rachels is an advocate of moral individualism. This idea basically says that matters have to be evaluated individually to see if there is a relevant difference between them that would compel us to act a certain way. I think Rachels was trying to establish the concept of accepting this new morality of moral individualism over the older ideas of morality. However, I don't think he drives this point home well enough. There are some examples but not overwhelmingly crisp ones. Also he seems to regard Darwin as somewhat sacred. Obviously many objections are being raised to some of the Darwinian ideas contained in evolutionary theory as of today. This means in the mode of proper science we should tentatively accept theories that seem to be more true while reserving the right to change our minds in light of more solid evidence for something else. We shouldn't just bow down to Darwin because he somewhat originally published many of the ideas of our current frame of thought. Also, it is to be noted that this book seems to run through theoretical examples as if just for fun without getting to a clear point. Some ideas are repeated through the diff. chapters. This is okay if you have nothing better to do but I would have appreciated it if the book took a more serious approach to finding answers instead of fiddling around for mere amusement. (oh, let's speculate on this. We won't find any answers but it will be fun to just do it!). Lastly, while books like this do shed information on some areas they rarely ever change anyone's opinion. If you look at the world from a Darwinian point of view that's fine..In fact, it may even be more truthful than the traditionalist point of view but to say you cannot live if you accept the traditionalist point of view (even if it may be false) is simply incorrect. So eventually one is left with the nagging question...what difference does it make? Is it just to satisfy mere intellectual curiosity? Well Rachels is arguing that it may affect how we look at things morally speaking. This is true but I'm not so sure that the fundamental difference is great enough to affect great cultural change. Is looking at animals as humans' relatives going to change the way we act as opposed to looking at animals as distinctly different from humans? Not really. We can still behave with compassion towards all forms of life regardless of what viewpoint we take. This is very similar to Buddhist thought. Basically, I believe that the main difference is just how you perceive things individually and how you act with regard to this. I think this was what Rachels was getting at. You can accept any viewpoint of morality as long as it contributes to a greater good. You can have God or not have Him. If it improves the overall quality of your life and another being's life it's good. If not..probably best to reject it.

Created from Animals--or Evolved?.......2001-05-29

Comparable to Ruse's _Taking Darwin Seriously_, but written just before the high tide of the sociobiological rendering of ethical questions, this work cogently, though somewhat naively, attempts to assess the implications of Darwinism for morality and religion. Overconfidence in the mechanics of natural selection is the only word to describe the result of such efforts, given in every sense a 'bum steer' by the dogmatic mantras of Darwinian selectionism. Man could suffer hybris, take himself to be special, and certainly Darwinism is a slap to this disposition, but it does not follow that if we accept evolution, or the proposition that man morphs from the domain of animals, that we must renounce the deeper side of _homo sapiens_, a side truly visible in man, and man only, however latent or occasional early signs of this might be in the species cousins, the great apes. And this deeper side of man gives signs of being a potential that emerges, not as adaptation, but as a self-consciousness at first superfluous, and barely used, and seldom for purposes of survival. Perhaps that is a sign of an evolution we are unaware of. Here the other religion is the Buddhist, nor miracles here, only that potential that nature leaves alone, for man must 'evolve' it in freedom. Here Wallace himself became suspicious, and wondered how, as a more extreme selectionist than Darwin, one could account for this 'virtual man' behind the creature-hominid. Rachel's answer seems to be to simply eliminate the question through the prior given, which is not given at all, that natural selection is proven, when the example is the counterevidence! We should instead query the mysteries of time for deeper answers. One issue bedevils the debate, the so-called naturalistic fallacy. While it was certainly brilliant for G. Moore to pull the rug from under Spencer's ethical naturalism with his separation of ethics and nature, a strange contradiction arises in this tacit acknowledgement, it would seem, of the need for non-naturalistic explanations of values!! Surely, the trap is not in Moore's subtle argument, but in what he called it, the 'naturalistic' fallacy. This description was not present in Hume's first use of this argument, as he cleaved the 'is' from the 'ought' in his _Dialogues_. We may not derive the 'is' from the 'ought', but we cannot derive even the mere 'is' of man from string theory either! Let alone the 'ought'. The whole question rests on a quagmire of incomplete foundational physics and its tendency to suggest a given set of premises, themselves in motion. The question of reduction is altogether a dark pit, and we cannot assume the 'ought' has no emergent source in nature. The dilemma is that while the 'naturalistic' fallacy, so-called, may be indeed fallacious, it does not follow from its _name_ that nature cannot 'evolve' ethics in some other fashion that is a mystery to us. In fact, history gives us alternate suggestions. Indeed, the emergence of religions themselves become orphans in Darwinian accounts, when the scientific demand would be for a naturalistic evolutionism that includes values! We assume thus that evolution is univalent, never changes, and does all in one stop mechanics, natural selection. A naturalistic fallacy indeed! This only deals with a few strains of this clearly expounded book, that left me for one shadowboxing, and whose central perspective seems doomed to frustration, for the secularization of religion seemed better addressed before Darwin, than after, as the immense resistance his theory created suggests. For after Darwin, a traditionalist was handed a golden argument in the superficial character of selectionist explanation. Before, all parties knew the hard uphill of the philosopher was the lot of all, no gimmicks allowed. One should hope for a new theory that can produce a naturalistic account of the evolution of religion, and change the confusing description of the 'naturalistic' fallacy. Worth reading, although one begins to fear the lack of foundations for any Darwinian account of morality. But when all is said and done, one can only agree with Rachels that the unity of man and animals is a point of victory against pomposity for Darwinism and the idea of evolution, taken more generally.

Interesting...........2000-06-21

I had to read this book for a class in college. I must admit, I wasn't thrilled with the prospect. But once I started reading, I couldn't stop. Rachels explores Darwinism and its relation to morality; good book for animal rights, though a bit dry and obscure at times.

Created from Animals...and then some!.......2000-04-07

Rachels spends a good deal of time setting the intellectual and historical context in which Darwin's theory appears. He slowly but surely initiates the reader into the labyrinth of evolutionary theory with all the interesting characters such as Huxley and Wallace. The book is quite good, and lays out the argument of why one should look at non-human animals as of a different degree rather than of a different kind to human beings. He with Darwin's help answers the skeptics, religious dogmatists, and others on their own ground. The only problem with this book comes close to the end as Rachels presents his theory of moral individualism giving the reader a formula by which they can operate to treat animals with more respect. However, he does not explicate his theory thoroughly enough leaving it open to an enormous amount of criticism. The book can stand alone without the addition of such a theory. It is an excellent read for anyone pondering the questions of evolution, morality, and if we should change the way we view animals.

Kindness In A Cruel World: The Evolution Of Altruism

Average customer rating:

Behaviorism

Kindness In A Cruel World: The Evolution Of Altruism
Nigel Barber
Manufacturer: Prometheus Books
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

Ethics & Morality | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Psychology & Counseling | Health, Mind & Body | Subjects | Books

Physiological Aspects | Psychology & Counseling | Health, Mind & Body | Subjects | Books

Social Psychology & Interactions | Psychology & Counseling | Health, Mind & Body | Subjects | Books

General | Evolution | Science | Subjects | Books

History of Science | History & Philosophy | Science | Subjects | Books

General | Behavioral Sciences | Science | Subjects | Books

ASIN: 1591022282

Book Description

"Nigel Barber's KINDNESS IN A CRUEL WORLD provides a well-written, accessible, and much-welcomed discussion of moral beliefs and moral behavior from an evolutionary perspective. The insightful discussion of kindness and cruelty will stimulate debate, and provide an excellent introduction to these issues for the nonspecialist and an excellent review for students of evolutionary thinking. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in human morality." DAVID C. GEARY, Professor and Chair, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia

"Although altruistic and self-sacrificial behavior have been considered puzzling by psychologists and biologists looking for individual benefit in the acts, such behavior is perfectly consistent with current theories of evolution. Nigel Barber's fascinating book KINDNESS IN A CRUEL WORLD takes the reader on a guided tour of current research on the diverse ways in which altruistic motives shape both human and animal behavior. Written in a style that is accessible to the lay public, Barber's book will also be stimulating to professionals for its thoughtful integration of diverse findings and its provocative speculations." MICHAEL R. CUNNINGHAM, Psychologist; Professor of Communication, University of Louisville; Past President, International Network on Personal Relationships

"Nigel Barber provides a most memorable explanation of kindness and its ultimate origins. From birds and bees to bats in trees, this book reviews the classic theories and examples of prosociality in the natural world. Most important, it serves as a primer for human sharing and caring. From nuns and priests to guns and cheats, evolutionary explanations of human sociality provide the best chance for creating a world in which we all thrive at being alive." DAVID P. SCHMITT, Associate Professor of Psychology at Bradley University; Founding Director of the International Sexuality Description Project

"This is a well-written, highly informed discussion of the fundamental problem in evolutionary studies of humans-altruism and the delicate balance between self-interest and the demands of groups. It should attract a wide audience of professional and nonprofessional readers alike." KEVIN MACDONALD, Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach.

Customer Reviews:

Behaviorism.......2006-05-21

A disappointment. It's about behaviorism and how it tries to make sense of altruism.

I don't think I like behaviorism very much. Behaviorists study animals by way of painful experiments, and they believe that all emotions and actions of animals and humans are just these machine-like motivations for an end that benefits themselves and their species. We're all supposed to be cold selfish robots, and even love is just this glandular activity that exists for cold selfish robot reasons. It has a way of sucking all the joy out of how you view nature; not because it tries to supply answers, but because it's so ugly in the way that it does it.

The book says that behaviorists are all puzzled by altruism that benefits other species than that of the altruist (whether the altruist is an insect, dolphin, or human) since it goes against their whole philosophy, so the book admits, and so it tries to explore this very puzzling terrain by way of colorful descriptions of experiments that I don't even want to think about.

I admit that my review is partially a complaint about behaviorism, not the book itself. However, since the book's exterior didn't make clear that it was exclusively about behaviorism, and the cynical tone in which the text was written, I need to make it clear in this review.

If you're okay with behaviorism, you'll probably be okay with this book.

If you're not okay with behaviorism, and you're actually looking for a feel-good read about altruism, read the book Ordinary Grace instead.

Wolves and Human Communities: Biology, Politics, and Ethics

Average customer rating:

Thought provoking
Informative commentary by leading contributors and experts

Wolves and Human Communities: Biology, Politics, and Ethics

Manufacturer: Island Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Animal Rights | Nature & Ecology | Science | Subjects | Books

Conservation | Environment | Outdoors & Nature | Subjects | Books

General | Conservation | Outdoors & Nature | Subjects | Books

Reference | Outdoors & Nature | Subjects | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
ASIN: 155963829X

Book Description

Like wolf restoration activities in the West, the proposal to reintroduce wolves into the Adirondacks has generated intense public debate. The idea of returning top predators to settled landscapes raises complicated questions on issues ranging from property rights to wildlife management to obligations to present and future generations.

Wolves and Human Communities brings together leading thinkers and writers from diverse fields-including Timothy Clark, Daniel Kemmis, L. David Mech, Mary Midgley, Ernest Partridge, Steward T.A. Pickett, Joseph Sax, Rodger Schlickeisen, and others-to address the complex ethical, biological, legal, and political concerns surrounding wolf reintroduction. Contributors specifically explore the social, cultural, and ecological values that come into play in the debate, as they examine:

the views of stakeholders in the Adirondack decision
historical trends in public perception of restoration
the legal and policy context for species preservation, and the challenges to the current system of property law
biological and political lessons learned from Yellowstone, Isle Royale, and the Great Lakes states
the meaning of wildness, both in ourselves and the wolf

The final chapter by Niles Eldredge takes the point of view of evolutionary time and ecological scale, challenging us to develop a new consciousness regarding our position in the natural world.

Wolves and Human Communities offers a thought-provoking examination of interactions between human and wild communities, and represents an important contribution to debates over species reintroduction for policymakers, researchers, ecologists, sociologists, lawyers, ethicists, philosophers, and local residents.

Customer Reviews:

Thought provoking.......2003-04-20

An excellent book for those interested not only in wolf conservation, but for those interested in the ongoing debate over the role of humans in the natural community. The various authors each bring in uniqe perspectives and ideas about what should and should not be human responsibilites towards shaping the ecosystems we live in. I was impressed with the great variety of opinions and ideas that are in this book regarding wolf conservation. This book definitely made me think about my ethical, social, and political values and will no doubt continue to help shape these values in the future when I re-read the essays in here.

Informative commentary by leading contributors and experts.......2001-05-23

Wolves And Human Communities: Biology, Politics, And Ethics is a compendium of informative commentary by leading contributors and experts in the field of wolf restoration activities in the American west. These essays address complex ethical, biological, legal, and political concerns surrounding wolf reintroduction. The contributors specifically comment on the social, cultural, and ecological values that are a part of the on-going national debate. Specially addressed are the views of stakeholders in the Adirondack decision; historical trends in public perception of wolf restoration; the legal and policy context for species preservation; biological and political lessons gleaned from the Yellowstone, Isle Royal, and Great Lakes states wolf restoration experiments; and the meaning of wilderness in both humans the wolves. Wolves And Human Communities is a seminal, significant, highly recommended contribution that will be greatly appreciated by environmental and animal rights activists, ecologists, as well as wolf population and habitat restorationists.

Disciplining Reproduction: Modernity, American Life Sciences, and the Problems of Sex

Average customer rating:

Disciplining Reproduction: Modernity, American Life Sciences, and the Problems of Sex
Adele E. Clarke
Manufacturer: University of California Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Women's Studies | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Anatomy | Biological Sciences | Science | Subjects | Books

History of Technology | Technology | Science | Subjects | Books

Physiology | Basic Science | Medicine | Subjects | Books

History | Special Topics | Medicine | Subjects | Books

Medical Ethics | Physician & Patient | Medicine | Subjects | Books

Medicine & Technology | Reproductive & Sexual | Medicine | Subjects | Books

Reproduction | Reproductive & Sexual | Medicine | Subjects | Books

Obstetrics & Gynecology | Specialties | Medicine | Subjects | Books

Social History | Historical Study | History | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

Sexual Chemistry: A History of the Contraceptive Pill

ASIN: 0520207203

Book Description

Reproductive issues from sex and contraception to abortion and cloning have been controversial for centuries, and scientists who attempted to turn the study of reproduction into a discipline faced an uphill struggle. Adele Clarke's engrossing story of the search for reproductive knowledge across the twentieth century is colorful and fraught with conflict.
Modern scientific study of reproduction, human and animal, began in the United States in an overlapping triad of fields: biology, medicine, and agriculture. Clarke traces the complicated paths through which physiological approaches to reproduction led to endocrinological approaches, creating along the way new technoscientific products from contraceptives to hormone therapies to new modes of assisted conception--for both humans and animals. She focuses on the changing relations and often uneasy collaborations among scientists and the key social worlds most interested in their work--major philanthropists and a wide array of feminist and medical birth control and eugenics advocates--and recounts vividly how the reproductive sciences slowly acquired standing.
By the 1960s, reproduction was disciplined, and the young and contested scientific enterprise proved remarkably successful at attracting private funding and support. But the controversies continue as women--the targeted consumers--create their own reproductive agendas around the world. Elucidating the deep cultural tensions that have permeated reproductive topics historically and in the present, Disciplining Reproduction gets to the heart of the twentieth century's drive to rationalize reproduction, human and nonhuman, in order to control life itself.

The Scalpel and the Butterfly: The Conflict between Animal Research and Animal Protection

Average customer rating:

A Specious Endeavor
Informative Source on Animal Experimentation

The Scalpel and the Butterfly: The Conflict between Animal Research and Animal Protection
Deborah Rudacille
Manufacturer: University of California Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Ethics & Morality | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | History & Philosophy | Science | Subjects | Books

Animal Rights | Nature & Ecology | Science | Subjects | Books

Look Inside Outdoors & Nature Books | Trip | Specialty Stores | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0520231546

Amazon.com

Biological experimentation, writes science journalist Deborah Rudacille, has long been the province of a scientific elite that has not much cared to explain its work to the larger public. That public, she continues, has responded with a kind of don't-ask, don't-tell policy, "whereby society will permit animal experimentation--and certain types of research on human subjects--as long as it is protected from the details." With the rise of the Animal Liberation Movement and PETA, however, that unstated policy has increasingly come into question, and research scientists have found it increasingly difficult to employ animals (or humans, for that matter) in their work.

In her engaged and illuminating study of these clashing sensibilities, Rudacille ponders troubling questions. Does an elevation in the moral status of animals, she asks, necessarily mean degradation in the moral status of human beings? (Certainly, she responds, this appears to have been the case under Nazi Germany.) Is the killing of laboratory animals--nearly 10,000 in the case of the Salk vaccine against polio--justifiable in the face of the human lives that can be saved? Is it ethical to use the mentally ill as research subjects in studies that may yield cures for their illness? Philosophical landmines surround every attempt at an answer, and Rudacille takes pains to consider all sides of these and kindred issues. Her thoughtful work should provoke reflection and discussion. --Gregory McNamee

Book Description

In this sweeping history of animal research and the animal protection movement, Deborah Rudacille examines the ethical question of whether enhancement of human life justifies the use of animals for research. She shows how the question and the answers provided by both scientists and anti-vivisectionists over the past 150 years have shaped contemporary society. Rudacille anchors her narrative in events from the lives of key players in the history of the war between science and animal protection, describing the work of activists who work outside the law as well as those working to change the system from within.

Customer Reviews:

A Specious Endeavor.......2007-09-22

The folly of this book is that Ms. Rudacille paints it as a matter of Animal Research vs. Animal Protection, when the real dichotomy (not that animal research doesn't torture animals, because it does) is Animal Research vs. Good Science. This book presupposes that animal research helps people, which evidence shows is faulty at best. 92% of all new drugs that pass animal testing go on to fail in human clinical tests because they are too toxic or ineffective. Of the remaining 8% that pass the human tests, HALF are later withdrawn from the market because of side effects (sometimes lethal) that animal tests did not predict. That means FOUR PERCENT of drugs that pass animal tests stay on the market (and who knows how many humans they kill or maim in the process)!

If you want to read a more accurate work, check out "Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: The Human Cost of Experiments on Animals" by Dr. C. Ray Greek and Jean Swingle Greek, DVM.

Informative Source on Animal Experimentation.......2002-12-23

I read Rudacille's book at a time when I needed to make an important ethical decision about animal experimentation.

The book provides many historical references about the subject. It is not one-sided. Its shows both historical references pro-animal experimentation, for example in the chapter about the polio, as well as evidence against animal experimentation, for example in the chapter about the Nazi human experimentation. Moreover, the back of the book contains pointers to other resources (including the Internet) for further reference.

The book did not biased my decision. When I finished reading the book I was as confused as when I started but I was considering more elements in my decision.

Book Description

Among the more significant developments of the twentieth century, the widespread attention given to "rights issues" must surely justify ranking it somewhere near the top. Never before has the issue of rights attracted such a wide audience or stirred so much controversy. Until very recently "rights" were traditionally recognized as attributable only to humans. Today, we increasingly are hearing a call to extend "rights" to the nonhuman animal and, on occasion, to the environment.

In this book, James B. Reichmann, S.J., undertakes an investigation of the metaethical grounds of "rights" theory, with special focus on the controversial issue of whether creatures other than humans can and should be considered true subjects of "rights." He contends that before assigning rights to this or that individual or group, whether human or not, we need to be very clear about what it is we are assigning, to whom, and why.

The book argues forcefully that the various recent efforts to build a case supporting animal and environmental 'rights' fail in their quest, and that any such effort resting on a Darwinian evolutionary base is likewise condemned to fail. In furtherance of this claim the author first investigates life phenomena, followed by a detailed comparative study of knowing, communicating and doing, as these are observed in the human and the nonhuman animal. This in turn is followed by an overview of diverse views advanced by contemporary environmental ethicists and animal 'rights' advocates, including Peter Singer, Tom Regan, J. Baird Callicott, Laura Westra, and Don E. Marietta, Jr.

Customer Reviews:

A little one sided.......2004-04-15

I wanted a book that discussed the ethics behind captive animals, however this book was decidedly one sided. While I generally agree with animal rights ethics, I wanted to learn more about the reasons TO keep animals captive, and this book did not furnish that side. In fact, I felt most of the submitting authors displayed a hostile tendancy. It is a decent book on the history of zoos, as long as you're only interested in seeing this subject from one perspective. It left me feeling defensive.

Good material on history and future of zoos.......1999-06-25

This is an excellent resource for anyone interested in the history and future of zoos and animal parks, as well as offering an assessment of present day facilities. Pro and con essays on a variety of topics related to zoo management, aquisition of animals and captive breeding provide both sides of the controversial issue of maintaining animals in captivity. Slight bias toward the view of zoos as the only viable future situation for wildlife but still offers critical analysis of

issues involved.

Books:

Books Index

Books Home

Recommended Books