Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME FORUMS BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 12:33 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Is it better to suffer than to do wrong? 
Author Message
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
The Pope of Literature


Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2553
Location: decentralized
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post Is it better to suffer than to do wrong?
At the beginning of "Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship", Arendt talks about how writing "Eichmann in Jerusalem" upended some of her central notions of political action and morality.

Hannah Arendt wrote:
I had somehow taken it for granted that we all still believe with Socrates that it is better to suffer than to do wrong. This belief turned out to be a mistake.


What do you think? Is it better to suffer than to do wrong? Or is a little immoral behavior justifed if it spares you some personal suffering in the long run?


_________________
If this rule were always observed; if no man allowed any pursuit whatsoever to interfere with the tranquility of his domestic affections, Greece had not been enslaved, Caesar would have spared his country, America would have been discovered more gradually, and the empires of Mexico and Peru had not been destroyed. -- Mary Shelley, "Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus"


Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:48 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Master Debater


Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 22
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post degrees of immorality
...well when you put it that way... ;-)

A "little immorality" goes a long way.

I would choose the suffering over the wrongdoing in most if not all cases. Even to the extreme that if I were diagnosed with a certainly fatal illness that could perhaps be cured by heroic means (transplant, extended drug regimen, excision, etc) I would choose to pass. Of course to say that and to actually take that path in the face of death...I may just be kidding myself. Who knows. I am not one to choose my own comfort over another's suffering though, that much I do know about myself. But, I wouldn't give someone my kidney and I wouldn't choose to execute someone if I were called upon to make that decision.



Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:00 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Professor

Silver Contributor

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3542
Location: NJ
Thanks: 1
Thanked: 5 times in 5 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Is it better to suffer than to do wrong?
MadArchitect wrote:
At the beginning of "Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship", Arendt talks about how writing "Eichmann in Jerusalem" upended some of her central notions of political action and morality.

Hannah Arendt wrote:
I had somehow taken it for granted that we all still believe with Socrates that it is better to suffer than to do wrong. This belief turned out to be a mistake.


What do you think? Is it better to suffer than to do wrong? Or is a little immoral behavior justifed if it spares you some personal suffering in the long run?


Not to pester with semantics again...but who defines the 'wrong'?

Mr. P.


_________________
I will only hold you to the standards which you should hold yourself.


Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:15 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
The Pope of Literature


Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2553
Location: decentralized
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post 
For the sake of argument, let's just go with whatever you'd call wrong. Take, for example, any particular form of theft that you'd consider unambiguously wrong. Is it better to suffer than to engage in that particular kind of theft?



Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:51 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Professor

Silver Contributor

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3542
Location: NJ
Thanks: 1
Thanked: 5 times in 5 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
MadArchitect wrote:
For the sake of argument, let's just go with whatever you'd call wrong. Take, for example, any particular form of theft that you'd consider unambiguously wrong. Is it better to suffer than to engage in that particular kind of theft?


If my family were starving and no effort to procure work was proving fruitful...your damn right I would resort to theft. I, uh, guess that answers the question.

Is it different if we phrase the question: "Is it better to let others suffer than to do wrong? I mean, we kill in times of war, self defense and all that...but yet we consider killing wrong. Is it still wrong in the contexts mentioned or does it become not wrong?

Mr. P.


_________________
I will only hold you to the standards which you should hold yourself.


Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:42 am
Profile YIM WWW
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
The Pope of Literature


Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2553
Location: decentralized
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post 
Yeah, I would say that's a different question -- letting others suffer versus suffering yourself. That definitely changes the moral dynamic of the question.



Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:06 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Professor

Silver Contributor

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3542
Location: NJ
Thanks: 1
Thanked: 5 times in 5 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
MadArchitect wrote:
Yeah, I would say that's a different question -- letting others suffer versus suffering yourself. That definitely changes the moral dynamic of the question.


Which is very interesting to me. We seem to have this need to make the individual suffer...and that if an individual tries to assuage the suffering, it is somehow wrong. I wonder how much this is derived from the human need to form societies/civilizations...or is it a sympton of the formation of society/civilization?

Hmm...sorry, this may be getting off topic. I have the book btw, but have not cracked it yet...

Mr. P.


_________________
I will only hold you to the standards which you should hold yourself.


Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:16 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
The Pope of Literature


Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2553
Location: decentralized
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post 
misterpessimistic wrote:
We seem to have this need to make the individual suffer...and that if an individual tries to assuage the suffering, it is somehow wrong.


I'm not really sure what you mean by that. Can you elaborate, or maybe give a concrete example?

Incidentally, it might be relevent to note something said by Arendt later on in the same essay.

Quote:
Thus the Talmud holds, as I was told during a recent discussion of these matters: if they ask you to sacrifice one man for the sake of the community, don't surrender him; if they ask you to give one woman to be ravished for the sake of all women, don't let her be ravished.


What does everyone think of that? It seems like a principle that a lot of people would object to. If you could avoid some likely threat to everyone in your neighborhood by offering up one unwilling victim as a scapegoat, would you do it? Better yet: Would you feel morally justified in having done so?


_________________
If this rule were always observed; if no man allowed any pursuit whatsoever to interfere with the tranquility of his domestic affections, Greece had not been enslaved, Caesar would have spared his country, America would have been discovered more gradually, and the empires of Mexico and Peru had not been destroyed. -- Mary Shelley, "Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus"


Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:28 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Professor

Silver Contributor

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3542
Location: NJ
Thanks: 1
Thanked: 5 times in 5 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
MadArchitect wrote:
misterpessimistic wrote:
We seem to have this need to make the individual suffer...and that if an individual tries to assuage the suffering, it is somehow wrong.


I'm not really sure what you mean by that. Can you elaborate, or maybe give a concrete example?


No concrete examples...just a general feeling/observation. I mean, the fact that this thread is named for the question that it is points to what I said...and then when I rephrased the question to not benefit the individual, but a group, you even admitted it changed the dynamic. Why?

Take the issue of suicide. If a person commits suicide to escape pain only to the self, they are considered (for the most part) as cowards and charged with a crime in our society (specifically America). Yet if that person, and you will have to accept my poor example at face value, by killing themselves would save a group, they would be called heroes.

Again, I cannot point to any concrete examples that would help here except for stating that I have seen this theme in my life and it made enough of an impression in my mind that this thread brought it out. Maybe it is because I was raised Catholic. The character of Jesus and all the martyrs are poster boys for self sacrifice for a group, as opposed to the self.

As for the quote you posted:

Quote:
Thus the Talmud holds, as I was told during a recent discussion of these matters: if they ask you to sacrifice one man for the sake of the community, don't surrender him; if they ask you to give one woman to be ravished for the sake of all women, don't let her be ravished.


I think this is slightly different from what I am talking about, although I agree with Arendt on this. This thought speaks to others causing the surrender of a person for the good of the group...not the person choosing surrender themself for the good of the group. We should not be in the practice of offering sacrificial lambs for our own self preservation. Of course this, as with everything like this, can become muddled with situational variation.

Mr. P.


_________________
I will only hold you to the standards which you should hold yourself.


Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:09 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
The Pope of Literature


Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2553
Location: decentralized
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post 
misterpessimistic wrote:
... and then when I rephrased the question to not benefit the individual, but a group, you even admitted it changed the dynamic. Why?


Because so long as you're only talking about your own suffering or benefit, your choice is still a voluntary matter. But once you start making decisions for other people, then you draw in a slew of complications to the basic dynamic of whether or not it's better to suffer. For one thing, if you're deciding something on their behalf, their moral culpability is questionable, to say the least.

Quote:
We should not be in the practice of offering sacrificial lambs for our own self preservation.


I don't think Arendt is talking specifically about self-preservation on this one. Take her second example, offering up one woman to be ravished in order to prevent others from suffering the same fate. Now imagine that the person making the choice is male, and doesn't have anything in particular to gain from the decision one way or the other. He simply thinks that it would be moral to have one woman suffer than to expose all other women to the threat of suffering.

These are, of course, hypothetical extremes. You can make the principle a lot more specific if you apply it to the idea of the draft. If you assume that our country has, at times at least, fought wars in order to protect American citizens from the threat of worse violence, then the process of drafting non-volunteer armies is equivalent to the notion of sacrificing the few for the security of the many.


_________________
If this rule were always observed; if no man allowed any pursuit whatsoever to interfere with the tranquility of his domestic affections, Greece had not been enslaved, Caesar would have spared his country, America would have been discovered more gradually, and the empires of Mexico and Peru had not been destroyed. -- Mary Shelley, "Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus"


Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:28 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Professor

Silver Contributor

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3542
Location: NJ
Thanks: 1
Thanked: 5 times in 5 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
MadArchitect wrote:
misterpessimistic wrote:
... and then when I rephrased the question to not benefit the individual, but a group, you even admitted it changed the dynamic. Why?


Because so long as you're only talking about your own suffering or benefit, your choice is still a voluntary matter. But once you start making decisions for other people, then you draw in a slew of complications to the basic dynamic of whether or not it's better to suffer. For one thing, if you're deciding something on their behalf, their moral culpability is questionable, to say the least.



Just to make sure we are on the same page...I did not mean to imply that one person would make a decision for another to sacrifice. I meant that I a person, me for instance, would do something immoral to protect the group. That would seem to be more noble, since I would be the only one to suffer and others would benefit without breaking any moral code themselves. So is it better to let a group suffer, rather than to do a wrong.

Say I had a chance to murder Hitler and this would have prevented millions from being annihilated. Would people say that I should not have done that because it was immoral or wrong to kill another human being?

Mr. P.


_________________
I will only hold you to the standards which you should hold yourself.


Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:54 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
The Pope of Literature


Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2553
Location: decentralized
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post 
misterpessimistic wrote:
I meant that I a person, me for instance, would do something immoral to protect the group.


Even that would involve taking moral responsibility for others. Which, in itself, changes the dynamic. Before we get around to the question of whether or not it is moral to deprive others of the opportunity to act immorally, I think we should deal with the much simpler questions that arise from a personal responsibility divorced from the question of how our behavior effects the morality of others.

Quote:
Say I had a chance to murder Hitler and this would have prevented millions from being annihilated.


I'm not sure how that situation would differ from the first Talmudic situation. Hitler, in that instance, would be the scapegoat. But the Talmud, according to Arendt, would advise against sacrificing Hitler in order to preserve the community. Or am I interpreting that passage incorrectly?

Either way, the rest of the essay makes me think that making a scapegoat of Hitler would not necessarily save the millions killed during the holocaust. Hitler bears a certain amount of guilt, yes, but there's no way he could have annihilated millions on his own. He required the complicity of an entire nation to carry out the Final Solution, and as Arendt argues, the citizens of that nation still carry the guilt for having enacted plans laid down by the law of the land.

Quote:
Would people say that I should not have done that because it was immoral or wrong to kill another human being?


Would it matter what people said? Would majority opinion make it any less moral or immoral? If you participated in the annihilation of an entire people, and no one said anything about it, would that effect the morality of your action?


_________________
If this rule were always observed; if no man allowed any pursuit whatsoever to interfere with the tranquility of his domestic affections, Greece had not been enslaved, Caesar would have spared his country, America would have been discovered more gradually, and the empires of Mexico and Peru had not been destroyed. -- Mary Shelley, "Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus"


Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:04 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Intern


Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 154
Location: Northern Canada
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post 
MadArchitect wrote:
Quote:
What does everyone think of that? It seems like a principle that a lot of people would object to. If you could avoid some likely threat to everyone in your neighborhood by offering up one unwilling victim as a scapegoat, would you do it? Better yet: Would you feel morally justified in having done so?


The only way I could morally justify giving up one to save all is if I were offering to be the one being sacrificed - otherwise, I would not be making a moral decision, but a self-serving one.

However, would I jump up and say 'yeah, take me'? In all honesty, I think I'd be quivering at the back of the pack!



Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:24 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
I dumpster dive for books!

Bronze Contributor

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1796
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 14 times in 12 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
Quote:
H. Arendt: I had somehow taken it for granted that we all still believe with Socrates that it is better to suffer than to do wrong. This belief turned out to be a mistake.


I find it hard to believe that Arendt, after witnessing two world wars, the NAZI holocaust, and atomic devastation in Japan...would take anything for granted. It seems such depravity could diminish any sense of for granted in the human arena...save the possibility, probability, of further and worse depravity. It seems the granted course of events is: it's better to dominate than be dominated; not, its better to suffer than do wrong. Better be the hammer than the anvil. Being wrong would involve...well, what would it involve? In the world of might equals right, where does wrong fit in?

This Socratic alternative, as well as the Talmudic (see above), is similar to the Gospel notion of turning the other cheek, handing over one's cloak, going the extra mile, loving one's enemies and praying for them, as well as risking your found 99 sheep in order to return the one sheep that is lost. All of this is radically opposed to the world of power and dominance where suffering is rarely freely accepted and often brutally administered. This notion that a principle or value or vision or hope or (?) carries more legitimacy and demands more allegience than practical systems of greed and punishment...is peculiar beyond meaning. It's absurd.

Unless to do wrong here will be met with a greater suffering there , in the world where the Socratic/Talmudic/Gospel alternative operates? In other words, accepting suffering in this world only really makes sense if there is another world that threatens even greater suffering- as well as promising even greater reward- by avoiding what is wrong in this world.



Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:01 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
The Pope of Literature


Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2553
Location: decentralized
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post 
DH wrote:
In other words, accepting suffering in this world only really makes sense if there is another world that threatens even greater suffering- as well as promising even greater reward- by avoiding what is wrong in this world.


I don't think that's so. There is, at least, the alternative offered by Boethius, to the effect that moral action is justiable in terms of what it makes of you as a person. Suffering, in that sense, may not be a goal to strive for, but if the options presented force a choice between suffering or being an immoral person, suffering would still be a viable choice for the sheer fact that, in doing do, you would avoid having made something worse of yourself.


_________________
If this rule were always observed; if no man allowed any pursuit whatsoever to interfere with the tranquility of his domestic affections, Greece had not been enslaved, Caesar would have spared his country, America would have been discovered more gradually, and the empires of Mexico and Peru had not been destroyed. -- Mary Shelley, "Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus"


Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:39 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page 1, 2  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:


BookTalk.org Links 
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Info for Authors & Publishers
Featured Book Suggestions
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!
    

Love to talk about books but don't have time for our book discussion forums? For casual book talk join us on Facebook.

Featured Books

Books by New Authors



Booktalk.org on Facebook 



BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSBOOKSTRANSCRIPTSOLD FORUMSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICY

BOOK FORUMS FOR ALL BOOKS WE HAVE DISCUSSED
Sense and Goodness Without God - by Richard CarrierFrankenstein - by Mary ShelleyThe Big Questions - by Simon BlackburnScience Was Born of Christianity - by Stacy TrasancosThe Happiness Hypothesis - by Jonathan HaidtA Game of Thrones - by George R. R. MartinTempesta's Dream - by Vincent LoCocoWhy Nations Fail - by Daron Acemoglu and James RobinsonThe Drowning Girl - Caitlin R. KiernanThe Consolations of the Forest - by Sylvain TessonThe Complete Heretic's Guide to Western Religion: The Mormons - by David FitzgeraldA Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man - by James JoyceThe Divine Comedy - by Dante AlighieriThe Magic of Reality - by Richard DawkinsDubliners - by James JoyceMy Name Is Red - by Orhan PamukThe World Until Yesterday - by Jared DiamondThe Man Who Was Thursday - by by G. K. ChestertonThe Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven PinkerLord Jim by Joseph ConradThe Hobbit by J. R. R. TolkienThe Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas AdamsAtlas Shrugged by Ayn RandThinking, Fast and Slow - by Daniel KahnemanThe Righteous Mind - by Jonathan HaidtWorld War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War by Max BrooksMoby Dick: or, the Whale by Herman MelvilleA Visit from the Goon Squad by Jennifer EganLost Memory of Skin: A Novel by Russell BanksThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. KuhnHobbes: Leviathan by Thomas HobbesThe House of the Spirits - by Isabel AllendeArguably: Essays by Christopher HitchensThe Falls: A Novel (P.S.) by Joyce Carol OatesChrist in Egypt by D.M. MurdockThe Glass Bead Game: A Novel by Hermann HesseA Devil's Chaplain by Richard DawkinsThe Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph CampbellThe Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor DostoyevskyThe Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark TwainThe Moral Landscape by Sam HarrisThe Decameron by Giovanni BoccaccioThe Road by Cormac McCarthyThe Grand Design by Stephen HawkingThe Evolution of God by Robert WrightThe Tin Drum by Gunter GrassGood Omens by Neil GaimanPredictably Irrational by Dan ArielyThe Wind-Up Bird Chronicle: A Novel by Haruki MurakamiALONE: Orphaned on the Ocean by Richard Logan & Tere Duperrault FassbenderDon Quixote by Miguel De CervantesMusicophilia by Oliver SacksDiary of a Madman and Other Stories by Nikolai GogolThe Passion of the Western Mind by Richard TarnasThe Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le GuinThe Genius of the Beast by Howard BloomAlice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll Empire of Illusion by Chris HedgesThe Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner The Extended Phenotype by Richard DawkinsSmoke and Mirrors by Neil GaimanThe Selfish Gene by Richard DawkinsWhen Good Thinking Goes Bad by Todd C. RinioloHouse of Leaves by Mark Z. DanielewskiAmerican Gods: A Novel by Neil GaimanPrimates and Philosophers by Frans de WaalThe Enormous Room by E.E. CummingsThe Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar WildeGod Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher HitchensThe Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco Dreams From My Father by Barack Obama Paradise Lost by John Milton Bad Money by Kevin PhillipsThe Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson BurnettGodless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists by Dan BarkerThe Things They Carried by Tim O'BrienThe Limits of Power by Andrew BacevichLolita by Vladimir NabokovOrlando by Virginia Woolf On Being Certain by Robert A. Burton50 reasons people give for believing in a god by Guy P. HarrisonWalden: Or, Life in the Woods by Henry David ThoreauExile and the Kingdom by Albert CamusOur Inner Ape by Frans de WaalYour Inner Fish by Neil ShubinNo Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthyThe Age of American Unreason by Susan JacobyTen Theories of Human Nature by Leslie Stevenson & David HabermanHeart of Darkness by Joseph ConradThe Stuff of Thought by Stephen PinkerA Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled HosseiniThe Lucifer Effect by Philip ZimbardoResponsibility and Judgment by Hannah ArendtInterventions by Noam ChomskyGodless in America by George A. RickerReligious Expression and the American Constitution by Franklyn S. HaimanDeep Economy by Phil McKibbenThe God Delusion by Richard DawkinsThe Third Chimpanzee by Jared DiamondThe Woman in the Dunes by Abe KoboEvolution vs. Creationism by Eugenie C. ScottThe Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael PollanI, Claudius by Robert GravesBreaking The Spell by Daniel C. DennettA Peace to End All Peace by David FromkinThe Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey NiffeneggerThe End of Faith by Sam HarrisEnder's Game by Orson Scott CardThe Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark HaddonValue and Virtue in a Godless Universe by Erik J. WielenbergThe March by E. L DoctorowThe Ethical Brain by Michael GazzanigaFreethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan JacobyCollapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared DiamondThe Battle for God by Karen ArmstrongThe Future of Life by Edward O. WilsonWhat is Good? by A. C. GraylingCivilization and Its Enemies by Lee HarrisPale Blue Dot by Carl SaganHow We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God by Michael ShermerLooking for Spinoza by Antonio DamasioLies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al FrankenThe Red Queen by Matt RidleyThe Blank Slate by Stephen PinkerUnweaving the Rainbow by Richard DawkinsAtheism: A Reader edited by S.T. JoshiGlobal Brain by Howard BloomThe Lucifer Principle by Howard BloomGuns, Germs and Steel by Jared DiamondThe Demon-Haunted World by Carl SaganBury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee BrownFuture Shock by Alvin Toffler

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOur Amazon.com SalesMassimo Pigliucci Rationally SpeakingOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism BooksFACTS Book Selections

cron
Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2014. All rights reserved.
Website developed by MidnightCoder.ca
Display Pagerank