The Foundation of Ethics

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Ecurb »

Terrapin Station wrote: October 30th, 2020, 10:14 am

There's no moral stance that I hold that I hold due to being "taught" it. I can't be "taught to feel" one way or another about interpersonal behavior. I would be surprised if some people felt that they were "taught to feel" some way or other and wound up feeling that way, but maybe some people would say that.

I can't be taught preferences or tastes in general. I simply HAVE the preferences or tastes that I do. They're dispositions I have due to the physical facts of my brain--its particular structure and functioning.

This is not to say that my preferences or tastes can't be influenced by anything. They certainly can be. All sorts of experiences, different things that one becomes acclimated to, etc. can all have an influence on preferences and tastes, but this is a much different idea than having preferences and tastes transmitted to one or being "taught" them.
I don't buy it. If tastes can be learned, they can also be taught. Children don't have a taste for wine, adult literature, or abstract paintings. They are taught to acquire a taste for these things. Buddhists are taught a taste for meditation and enlightenment; it doesn't come naturally for the rest of us.

I can't appreciate Chinese literature if I don't learn to read Chinese, or English literature without being taught English.

Our preferences and tastes are enculturated. Our taste for romantic love is conditioned by societal norms, literary conventions, and popular songs. It is different from that of those who learned different cultural norms. Humans are social creatures. We learn at a young age to display and cultivate those tastes which lead us to be admired. loved and respected, We repress potential tastes that lead us to be despised, reviled, and isolated. Why should our tastes in ethics and morals be any different?

p.s. My circumcision post above was satirical.
Haicoway
Posts: 235
Joined: December 11th, 2014, 7:29 am

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Haicoway »

I think moral codes can be taught, but if they weren’t they would come about in much the same way because I believe they originally emanated from the collective unconscious mind as expressions of archetypes.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Gertie »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 27th, 2020, 11:27 pm
Gertie wrote: October 27th, 2020, 7:12 pm By trying to assess which better promotes the wellbeing of conscious creatures.
I generally agree. But the wellbeing of tigers may be promoted by killing antelopes. And the wellbeing of humans may be promoted by killing chickens, pigs, and cows. So I think that what is good for one species may be harmful to another.
True. But you asked how do we determine which rule is better in terms of ethiics. Tigers aren't moral agents, because they can't determine such things. We are. And we can determine which rules are morally appropriate in our own behaviour towards other species' wellbeing, as well as our own. (For example we can morally consider the killing and suffering involved by us eating meat, in a way a tiger can't).

In reality this foundation for moral decision-making often means trying to weigh competing/conflicting interests amongst experiencing Subjects, which is where it necessarily gets messy because wellbeing isn't objectively quantifiable or always universalisable.

But the principle of the wellbeing of conscious creatures is simple, and the appropriate foundation for moral decisions.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Terrapin Station wrote: October 30th, 2020, 10:14 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 27th, 2020, 8:25 am We don't see a lot of arguments that create or modify moral rules. Most rules are simply handed down to us by others. For example, we are taught that "stealing is bad" and we are scolded or we are told of others being punished for stealing, and we acquire that "feeling of badness" about the behavior of stealing.
There's no moral stance that I hold that I hold due to being "taught" it. I can't be "taught to feel" one way or another about interpersonal behavior. I would be surprised if some people felt that they were "taught to feel" some way or other and wound up feeling that way, but maybe some people would say that.

I can't be taught preferences or tastes in general. I simply HAVE the preferences or tastes that I do. They're dispositions I have due to the physical facts of my brain--its particular structure and functioning.

This is not to say that my preferences or tastes can't be influenced by anything. They certainly can be. All sorts of experiences, different things that one becomes acclimated to, etc. can all have an influence on preferences and tastes, but this is a much different idea than having preferences and tastes transmitted to one or being "taught" them.
I'm sure there are some preferences that are cultural norms. I think some Asian countries eat cats, for example. We would recoil at that thought. Those raised in the southern states during the time of slavery preferred to treat black people as an inferior species for a couple hundred years after emancipation. And we have plenty of white supremacist groups still today. Those raised in fundamentalist churches still hold prejudicial views toward LGBTQ people.

All of these preferences are subject to change by new experiences. And some moral positions can be modified by reasonable arguments.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Gertie wrote: October 30th, 2020, 12:16 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 27th, 2020, 11:27 pm

I generally agree. But the wellbeing of tigers may be promoted by killing antelopes. And the wellbeing of humans may be promoted by killing chickens, pigs, and cows. So I think that what is good for one species may be harmful to another.
True. But you asked how do we determine which rule is better in terms of ethiics. Tigers aren't moral agents, because they can't determine such things. We are. And we can determine which rules are morally appropriate in our own behaviour towards other species' wellbeing, as well as our own. (For example we can morally consider the killing and suffering involved by us eating meat, in a way a tiger can't).

In reality this foundation for moral decision-making often means trying to weigh competing/conflicting interests amongst experiencing Subjects, which is where it necessarily gets messy because wellbeing isn't objectively quantifiable or always universalisable.

But the principle of the wellbeing of conscious creatures is simple, and the appropriate foundation for moral decisions.
I'm not sure that tigers cannot be moral agents. It may be that their behavior is totally instinctual, but I suspect they do make judgements as to what is the best thing to do about their cubs and how best to capture their food. My guess is that the tiger is built to be a carnivore, and lacks the tools to be a farmer.

I remember as a child having the thought that if fish could scream then nobody would go fishing. I suspect that cows suffer less from a bolt in the head than if they were dragged around for a while with a hook in their mouth. Makes me shiver. On the other hand, our survival during an Ice Age would require eating fish, whales, and walruses like the Eskimos. Our Native Americans used buffalo hides for clothing and to cover their tents.

I think there is both subjective wellbeing and objective wellbeing. Subjective wellbeing is how well we feel. Objective wellbeing is how well we are.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Haicoway wrote: October 30th, 2020, 10:26 am I think it is about fitting into a community, which evolved for self-protection. It’s ok to steel from another community, but not from members of your own. Religions got involved somehow.
Yes, I think you're right that community is important for mutual support and protection.

As to how religion got involved, my theory is here:

https://marvinedwards.me/2013/09/07/whe ... come-from/
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Ecurb »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 30th, 2020, 1:01 pm

I'm not sure that tigers cannot be moral agents. It may be that their behavior is totally instinctual, but I suspect they do make judgements as to what is the best thing to do about their cubs and how best to capture their food. My guess is that the tiger is built to be a carnivore, and lacks the tools to be a farmer.

I remember as a child having the thought that if fish could scream then nobody would go fishing. I suspect that cows suffer less from a bolt in the head than if they were dragged around for a while with a hook in their mouth. Makes me shiver. On the other hand, our survival during an Ice Age would require eating fish, whales, and walruses like the Eskimos. Our Native Americans used buffalo hides for clothing and to cover their tents.

I think there is both subjective wellbeing and objective wellbeing. Subjective wellbeing is how well we feel. Objective wellbeing is how well we are.
I attended a lecture once about morality in non-human animals. The lecturer showed a movie in which a rhesus monkey was taught to perform a task and then was given a cucumber as a reward. The trainer then taught a monkey in the cage next-door to do the same task and rewarded it with a grape. Apparently, rhesus monkey's prefer grapes to cucumbers.

When the trainer returned to the monkey who had previously been glad to perform his task in exchange for a cucumber, and rewarded it with a cucumber for completing the task, the monkey, with a look of disgust, throw the cucumber at the trainer.

The idea, it appears, is that rhesus monkeys have a sense of "fairness".

Some moral positions are a luxury. It's hard to persuade a starving hunter-gatherer to give up hunting, or a Trojan who, if defeated, will be killed and will have his infant son hurled off the walls of Troy, and his wife, sisters, and mother sold into slavery to practice pacifism.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Ecurb wrote: October 30th, 2020, 1:30 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 30th, 2020, 1:01 pm

I'm not sure that tigers cannot be moral agents. It may be that their behavior is totally instinctual, but I suspect they do make judgements as to what is the best thing to do about their cubs and how best to capture their food. My guess is that the tiger is built to be a carnivore, and lacks the tools to be a farmer.

I remember as a child having the thought that if fish could scream then nobody would go fishing. I suspect that cows suffer less from a bolt in the head than if they were dragged around for a while with a hook in their mouth. Makes me shiver. On the other hand, our survival during an Ice Age would require eating fish, whales, and walruses like the Eskimos. Our Native Americans used buffalo hides for clothing and to cover their tents.

I think there is both subjective wellbeing and objective wellbeing. Subjective wellbeing is how well we feel. Objective wellbeing is how well we are.
I attended a lecture once about morality in non-human animals. The lecturer showed a movie in which a rhesus monkey was taught to perform a task and then was given a cucumber as a reward. The trainer then taught a monkey in the cage next-door to do the same task and rewarded it with a grape. Apparently, rhesus monkey's prefer grapes to cucumbers.

When the trainer returned to the monkey who had previously been glad to perform his task in exchange for a cucumber, and rewarded it with a cucumber for completing the task, the monkey, with a look of disgust, throw the cucumber at the trainer.

The idea, it appears, is that rhesus monkeys have a sense of "fairness".
One of my favorites too. The monkey experiment is on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg&t=3s
Ecurb wrote: October 30th, 2020, 1:30 pm Some moral positions are a luxury. It's hard to persuade a starving hunter-gatherer to give up hunting, or a Trojan who, if defeated, will be killed and will have his infant son hurled off the walls of Troy, and his wife, sisters, and mother sold into slavery to practice pacifism.
Old habits are hard to change. But they can be changed if we make a committed effort. I suspect it is even possible to give up revenge if out sense of justice can be had in a different way.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Terrapin Station »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 30th, 2020, 12:31 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: October 30th, 2020, 10:14 am

There's no moral stance that I hold that I hold due to being "taught" it. I can't be "taught to feel" one way or another about interpersonal behavior. I would be surprised if some people felt that they were "taught to feel" some way or other and wound up feeling that way, but maybe some people would say that.

I can't be taught preferences or tastes in general. I simply HAVE the preferences or tastes that I do. They're dispositions I have due to the physical facts of my brain--its particular structure and functioning.

This is not to say that my preferences or tastes can't be influenced by anything. They certainly can be. All sorts of experiences, different things that one becomes acclimated to, etc. can all have an influence on preferences and tastes, but this is a much different idea than having preferences and tastes transmitted to one or being "taught" them.
I'm sure there are some preferences that are cultural norms. I think some Asian countries eat cats, for example. We would recoil at that thought. Those raised in the southern states during the time of slavery preferred to treat black people as an inferior species for a couple hundred years after emancipation. And we have plenty of white supremacist groups still today. Those raised in fundamentalist churches still hold prejudicial views toward LGBTQ people.

All of these preferences are subject to change by new experiences. And some moral positions can be modified by reasonable arguments.
Were you thinking that my comment above somehow implied that I'd say that there are no cultural (statistical) norms re customs, mores, etc.?
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Terrapin Station wrote: October 31st, 2020, 11:13 am
Were you thinking that my comment above somehow implied that I'd say that there are no cultural (statistical) norms re customs, mores, etc.?
Yes I was. To me, cultural norms are essentially "taught" as opposed to being instinctive. But I understand now that you're not saying that.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Alias »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 30th, 2020, 7:28 am There is a civil view of punishment based on the notion that justice serves the practical purpose of helping to protect everyone's rights. ....
Another modern practice is "restorative justice" where a meeting is arranged between the offender and his victim.
Sounds good. Who is applying it, how honestly and with what success?
Rules are only taken seriously if they are enforced.
There must first exist an agency that has both the power and resources to do the enforcing.
UN enforcement is weak,
If the most powerful nations intend to break the rule they signed on to, they don't support it, and if they don't, their proteges don't have to, either.
the UN but multiple nations can agree to apply economic sanctions to nations that break the rules, like those upon Iran for their nuclear program or on Russia for meddling in elections.
yeah, right, whatever....
The notion of "codes of honor" is a bit scary, because they provide no guidance for limiting a penalty. In some cultures there are "honor killings" where a woman whose behavior dishonors her family is put to death. It is better to seek justice than to seek honor.
Convince the tough guys with machine guns.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 28th, 2020, 8:39 pm I think morality must be specific to each species. What is good for the tiger is bad for the antelope. But all human beings should be included in questions of human moral judgement.
That's an opinion you have in common with many people, but not enough to make it work.
Laws arise by agreement.
Or force of arms.
But how can the state expect a person to honor an agreement that threatens the survival his family? That's why states are morally obligated to provide the means to meet at least the most basic needs for every person.
And do they?

Your conviction may be sound, but you can't impose it on other people.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Alias wrote: October 31st, 2020, 11:32 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 30th, 2020, 7:28 am There is a civil view of punishment based on the notion that justice serves the practical purpose of helping to protect everyone's rights. ....
Another modern practice is "restorative justice" where a meeting is arranged between the offender and his victim.
Sounds good. Who is applying it, how honestly and with what success?
Wikipedia has an article on Restorative Justice here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice
Marvin wrote:Rules are only taken seriously if they are enforced.
Alias wrote:There must first exist an agency that has both the power and resources to do the enforcing.
That's what we do together through government.
Marvin wrote:Laws arise by agreement.
Alias wrote:Or force of arms.
A nation or state is constituted by an agreement like the Constitution for the United States of America. Within that agreement is defined an elected legislature which reaches further agreements between us as to what laws we will have at any point in time.
Marvin wrote:But how can the state expect a person to honor an agreement that threatens the survival his family? That's why states are morally obligated to provide the means to meet at least the most basic needs for every person.
Alias wrote: And do they?
Yes. There are many public assistance programs like food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, workman's compensation, etc.
hegel
Posts: 77
Joined: March 29th, 2020, 1:17 pm

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by hegel »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 27th, 2020, 8:25 am We don't see a lot of arguments that create or modify moral rules. Most rules are simply handed down to us by others. For example, we are taught that "stealing is bad" and we are scolded or we are told of others being punished for stealing, and we acquire that "feeling of badness" about the behavior of stealing.

But, have we considered what may have gone through the heads of our earliest ancestors who first had to decide whether stealing was a good or bad thing? We know, for example, that tribes like the Vikings routinely raided other towns to acquire the things they needed. So, the notion that stealing is universally wrong was not the accepted moral rule for everyone. Some people felt very good about stealing.

So, how would one go about deciding whether stealing was good or bad? Well, suppose we have two competing rules:
(A) Stealing is good and everyone can acquire new things for themselves by taking things from others.
Versus
(B) Stealing is bad, and no one should be permitted to take things from others without permission.

How would we determine which rule is morally better than the other? What is the criteria by which these two rules (or any two rules) can be morally compared?
Harm to society is a basic ethical standard. Aristotle argued suicide is no ethical because it harms others.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

hegel wrote: November 1st, 2020, 3:04 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 27th, 2020, 8:25 am We don't see a lot of arguments that create or modify moral rules. Most rules are simply handed down to us by others. For example, we are taught that "stealing is bad" and we are scolded or we are told of others being punished for stealing, and we acquire that "feeling of badness" about the behavior of stealing.

But, have we considered what may have gone through the heads of our earliest ancestors who first had to decide whether stealing was a good or bad thing? We know, for example, that tribes like the Vikings routinely raided other towns to acquire the things they needed. So, the notion that stealing is universally wrong was not the accepted moral rule for everyone. Some people felt very good about stealing.

So, how would one go about deciding whether stealing was good or bad? Well, suppose we have two competing rules:
(A) Stealing is good and everyone can acquire new things for themselves by taking things from others.
Versus
(B) Stealing is bad, and no one should be permitted to take things from others without permission.

How would we determine which rule is morally better than the other? What is the criteria by which these two rules (or any two rules) can be morally compared?
Harm to society is a basic ethical standard. Aristotle argued suicide is no ethical because it harms others.
Suicide does not necessarily harm others. But it objectively harms oneself. Unnecessary harm is immoral. (An example of "necessary" harm would be a vaccination).
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Alias »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: November 1st, 2020, 8:08 am [There must first exist an agency that has both the power and resources to do the enforcing.]

That's what we do together through government.
And you actually believe government consists of us, together, and does what we, collectively, want done? How old are you?
Marvin wrote:Laws arise by agreement.]
[A: Or force of arms.]
A nation or state is constituted by an agreement like the Constitution for the United States of America. Within that agreement is defined an elected legislature which reaches further agreements between us as to what laws we will have at any point in time.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :roll: Have you any frickin idea what-all your law enforcement agencies are up to, how they operate, what powers and indemnities they have, to whom, if anyone, they answer, what their operating budgets are --- or even, how many of them there are?
Marvin wrote:[ states are morally obligated to provide the means to meet at least the most basic needs for every person.]
[ And do they? ]

Yes. There are many public assistance programs like food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, workman's compensation, etc.
Aha. That'll keep a Black kid out of the gangs, and safe from being shot down in the street by a cop.
never mind your age... What planet do you live on?
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021