<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN""http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<title>Aspaqlaria</title>
</head>
<body>
<style type="text/css">
h1 a:hover {background-color:#888;color:#fff ! important;}
div#emailbody table#itemcontentlist tr td div ul {
list-style-type:square;
padding-left:1em;
}
div#emailbody table#itemcontentlist tr td div blockquote {
padding-left:6px;
border-left: 6px solid #dadada;
margin-left:1em;
}
div#emailbody table#itemcontentlist tr td div li {
margin-bottom:1em;
margin-left:1em;
}
table#itemcontentlist tr td a:link, table#itemcontentlist tr td a:visited, table#itemcontentlist tr td a:active {
color:#000099;
font-weight:bold;
text-decoration:none;
}
img {border:none;}
</style>
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" id="emailbody" style="margin:0 2em;font-family:Georgia,Helvetica,Arial,Sans-Serif;line-height:140%;font-size:13px;color:#000000;">
<table style="border:0;padding:0;margin:0;width:100%">
<tr>
<td width="99%" style="vertical-align:top">
<h1 style="margin:0;padding-bottom:6px;">
<a style="color:#888;font-size:22px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:none;" href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp" title="(http://www.aishdas.org/asp)">Aspaqlaria</a>
</h1>
</td><td width="1%"></td>
</tr>
</table>
<table id="itemcontentlist" style="clear:both;padding-top:.5em;border-top:1px solid #999;">
<tr>
<td style=" margin-bottom:0;line-height:1.4em;">
<p xmlns="" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif;font-size:18px;margin:1em 0 3px 0;line-height:115%;">
<a href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/05/ethics-and-morality.shtml">Ethics and Morality</a>
</p>
<p style="font-size:13px;color:#555;margin:9px 0 3px 0;font-family:Georgia,Helvetica,Arial,Sans-Serif;line-height:140%;font-size:13px;">
<span>Posted:</span> 15 May 2007 06:00 AM CDT</p>
<div style="margin:0;font-family:Georgia,Helvetica,Arial,Sans-Serif;line-height:140%;font-size:13px;color:#000000;"><div><font size="-2"><strong>(Post written 27-Jul-2006, updated 15-May-2007. Further explanation was added to the conclusion. Reference was made to the newly posted Introduction to Shaarei Yosher to further explain this entry’s thesis in light of others’.)</strong></font></div>
<div></div>
<div>Everyone else in the frum blogosphere is dealing with the questions Richard Dawkins raises in his book “The God Delusion”, and whether morality is possible without religion. So why shouldn’t I?</div>
<p>I want to introduce a few distinctions that in my humble opinion are necessary for having a clear conversation of the subject.</p>
<p><strong>Morality vs. Ethics<br />
</strong></p>
<p>Morality is defined in term of conduct. It’s from the Latin “moralis”, meaning custom or manner. It is therefore possible to be moral just because one is doing the right thing.</p>
<p>Ethics is from the Greek “ethos”, which describes a person’s character. A person can only be ethical if he believes he was created for a higher purpose, and aspires to live for that higher calling.</p>
<p>(An interesting tangent is what this says about Greek culture vs. Roman.)</p>
<p>The contemporary atheist, like Dawkins, believes their “higher calling” is merely that a particular kind of self-replicating molecule replicates well with all the baggage of producing a Dawkins to provide the right “soup”.</p>
<p>What then is the purpose of one’s life? To do anything possible to make your genes, those molecules, propagate. But if one tries to turn that purpose into a calling, the result is paradoxical: The higher calling, man’s attempt to do more than merely live is itself life, the thing it is supposed to be higher than!</p>
<p><strong>Is vs. Ought</strong></p>
<p>Hume introduced something called the “is-ought fallacy” which I think is unavoidable without the concept of a purposive creation of man. People tend to confuse the “is” with the “ought”. They are different in kind. How does one define what <em>ought</em> to be from observations of evidence of what <em>is</em>?</p>
<p>I suggested in an <a title="Hashem and Morality" href="/asp/2005/05/hashem-and-morality.shtml">earlier blog entry</a> that it takes the notion of our existence to have a purpose and a goal in order to avoid Euthyphro’s Paradox. (To convert the paradox to Jewish terms: Is being good an arbitrary choice of Hashem, and therefore of no inherent meaning? Or are we saying that Hashem is subject to an externally imposed morality?)</p>
<p>My resolution (which I recommend reading in full, rather than relying on this excerpt) was:</p>
<blockquote><p>I would argue that HQBH created the world with a <em>tachlis</em>, a purpose, He placed each of us in it with a <em>tachlis</em>, and what is righteous is righteous because it is in accordance with furthering that <em>tachlis</em>. This fits Rav Hirsch’s etymology for “<em>ra</em>“, being related to /רעע/, to shatter. It also explains why the word “tov” means both good in the moral sense (not evil) as well as in the functional sense (not ineffective, as in “a good toothpaste prevents cavities”). … Moral tov derives from the functional tov. Hashem chose “Do not steal” over “Take whatever makes you happy” because that’s what makes us better receptacles.</p>
<p>So yes, HQBH did choose good vs evil without being subject to external constraint, and yet still the choice was not arbitrary. Socrates gave Euthyphro a false dichotomy — there was a third choice. Hashem has a reason, but that reason wasn’t conforming to a preexisting morality.</p></blockquote>
<p>Here the same issue holds. Without asserting that man’s existence is for a purpose, one can not define an ethic.</p>
<p><strong>Being Ethical vs. Having a Reason for Being Ethical</strong>And yet… There have been atheists who died to defend their nation or their civilization. That requires a motivation for such extreme moral behavior; someone wouldn’t sacrifice so much without a noble motivation. Where would it come from?</p>
<p>Perhaps this question is only because everything above presumed that everything man does is reasoned. In other words, all I have argued is that man can not define an ethic, he can not explain why he would be moral. But many people do things they can not justify intellectually, or for which they have an imperfect line of reasoning. Someone could value freedom or democracy because they enjoy having them, not because they have a logical reason why their DNA should be provided one environment rather than the other, or even why replication of a particular variant of DNA has any value over any other chemical reaction (to refer back to the “is-ought fallacy”.</p>
<p>Where does this moral drive come from? Freud saw choice as being between the Id, the desires with which we are born, and the Super-Ego, recordings of all the rules our parents and society have placed upon us. But in Jewish thought, there is a soul. It’s not only repression of natural desire to conform to a higher calling, it’s also the satisfaction of an equally innate human need, the desires of the soul. Not believing in it doesn’t mean one can’t hear its call.</p>
<p><strong>Map vs. Terrain</strong> - Personal Ethical Guidelines vs. Hashem’s Objective Absolute Values</p>
<p>Perhaps this ties in to the answer Hillel gave one of the people who approached him to convert. In the post “<a href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/07/rest-is-commentary.shtml">… the Rest is Commentary</a>” I discuss his answer to the impatient convert (which again I recommend reading in full):</p>
<blockquote><p>“What you hate, do not do to your peer: that is the whole Torah, the rest is the commentary. Go and learn it.”</p>
<p>Is there a natural morality, an innate sense of right and wrong? Somehow all of humanity labels theft and murder as evil. Everyone has a yeitzer hatov calling him to good and yeitzer hara pulling the other way….</p>
<p>Natural morality is based on empathy. “What you hate, do not do to your peer.” In a somewhat flawed way, it drives the Notzri Golden Rule, as well as the Hindu concept of Karma…. I know something is wrong because I wouldn’t like it — and I am aware of another’s pain when I do it to them.</p>
<p>But that morality from empathy is limited…. It gives general guidelines, but no tools for navigating the grey areas and the questions that involve conflicting values and priorities. Therefore one needs commentary to explain further. And that commentary one must “go and learn”. It goes beyond the innate.</p></blockquote>
<p>The Torah is therefore in agreement with the general thrust of innate morality, even to those who deny the former and have no explanation for the existence of the latter. But the steps between the first principles innately known and the dictates of the Torah often make it impossible to deduce the terrain of morality without following the map Hashem gave us.</p>
<p>We therefore have two notions of morality: In this entry I am suggesting it means doing what we were made for. However, in that <a href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/05/hashem-and-morality.shtml">earlier entry</a> (which was also expanded moments before this one) I wrote that being moral is all an elaboration of “what is hateful to you, do not do to your peer” and that even <em>halakhah </em>is only necessary because of the complexity that arises from applying a simple rule to a complex universe.</p>
<p>As to why the two would refer to the same notion of morality, see the first paragraph of the <a href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf">introduction to Sha’arei Yosher</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>BLESSED SHALL BE the Creator, and exalted shall be the Maker, Who created us in His “Image” and in the likeness of His “Structure”, and planted eternal life within us, so that our greatest desire should be to do good to others, to individuals and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation of the Creator (as it were). For everything He created and formed was according to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the creations. So too His Will is that we walk in His ways. As it says “and you shall walk in His Ways” – that we, the select of what He made – should constantly hold as our purpose to sanctify our physical and spiritual powers for the good of the many, according to our abilities.</p></blockquote>
<p>Hashem created us only for our needs, not for His; He lacks nothing. We, being in His image, are therefore also designed to give to others. Thus we were designed to be able to share in His task, to give to others just as He provides for me.
</p>
<div class="feedflare"><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/Aspaqlaria?a=cjZkFuoq"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/Aspaqlaria?i=cjZkFuoq" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/Aspaqlaria?a=1LDIyvin"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/Aspaqlaria?i=1LDIyvin" border="0"></img></a></div><p>This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: <a href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf">Download Now</a>
</p>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style=" margin-bottom:0;line-height:1.4em;">
<p style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif;font-size:18px;margin:1em 0 3px 0;line-height:115%;">
<a href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/05/rest-is-commentary.shtml">… The rest is commentary</a>
</p>
<p style="font-size:13px;color:#555;margin:9px 0 3px 0;font-family:Georgia,Helvetica,Arial,Sans-Serif;line-height:140%;font-size:13px;">
<span>Posted:</span> 15 May 2007 05:40 AM CDT</p>
<div style="margin:0;font-family:Georgia,Helvetica,Arial,Sans-Serif;line-height:140%;font-size:13px;color:#000000;"><div><font size="-2"><strong>(Post written 27-Jul-2006, updated 15-May-2007. Further explanation was added.)</strong></font></div>
<div>There is a famous story in the <em>gemara </em>(Shabbos 31a) about three prospective converts who each came to Shammai saying that they want to convert but only if he meets some absurd condition. In all three cases, Shammai turns them away, they go to Hillel, who accepts them, they convert and they drop their requirement. The <em>gemara </em>describes the second one as follows:</div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote><p>Again it happened that a non-Jew came before Shammai and said to him, “Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.” Thereupon he pushed him away with the builder’s <em>ammah</em>-stick which was in his hand. When he went before Hillel, he said to him, “What you hate, do not do to your peer: that is the whole Torah, the rest is the commentary. Go and learn it.”</p></blockquote>
<p>There is much to be said about the story. For example, the prospective convert uses the idiom “while I stand on one leg”, rather than saying “summarize”. And Hillel’s reply is to establish the whole Torah on one leg, on one principle. Perhaps Shammai’s response is that Torah is about the measures and sizes, and can’t be explained without all the details of the <em>halakhah</em>. That the Torah is about the legal structure that Hashem and the Jewish people build in a redemptive partnership (to describe it in terminology from Ish haHalakhah).</p>
<p>But the point that hit me this morning that motivated this post was something else.</p>
<p>Is there a natural morality, an innate sense of right and wrong? Somehow all of humanity labels theft and murder as evil. Everyone has a <em>yeitzer hatov</em> calling him to good and yeitzer hara pulling the other way. And yet, a <em>tinoq shenishba</em>, a child raised in a home devoid of Torah values, is judged more leniently because of that experience. We do not assume it’s innate in him as well.</p>
<p>Rav Soloveitchik notes on a number of occasions that every <em>mitzvah </em>in the Torah has an element of choq, of incomprehensible law followed purely because G-d said so — the opposite of a natural morality. For example, without the revelation of <em>halakhah</em>, would we know whether the concept of murder should or shouldn’t include abortion? What about euthanasia? At what point is a person already dead? Do you endanger many to save one life? Halakhah gives us the tools to make determinations that innate morality is not equipped to answer.</p>
<p>However, in other cases the <em>halakhah </em>is simply to do what’s right. “Be holy, for I Am holy”, which the Ramban famously explains as a prohibition against being “disgusting with [what would otherwise be] the permission of the Torah”. How does one define <em>menuval</em>, someone who is disgusting? “And you shall do the good and the straight.” It is presumed we have an innate definition of holiness, good, and rectitude that the Torah is commanding us to follow that extends beyond the other, more legally styled, <em>mitzvos</em>.<br />
Natural morality is based on empathy. “What you hate, do not do to your peer.” In a somewhat flawed way, it drives the <em>Notzri </em>Golden Rule, as well as the Hindu concept of Karma. (The Golden Rule, by the way, would require my giving away all I own to the next person I meet, wait hand on foot on others, etc… Taken at its word, the creed is un-livable.) I know something is wrong because I wouldn’t like it — and I am aware of another’s pain when I do it to them.</p>
<p>But that morality from empathy is limited, as we pointed out above. Even though there is a simple underlying morality, it is being applied to a complex world. Results are often surprising and counterintuitive. And so, Hashem gave us a book and a process to help explicate the problem. Rather than trying to deduce behavior through that complex mapping of effects and side-effects, on impacts of things we can’t fully understand like our minds and souls, Hashem gives us a law, a set of applications.The relationship between halakhah and natural morality is that between quantum mechanics and endocrynology. It is theoretically possible to deduce endocrynology by studying the problem in terms of subatomic particles and the four basic fources. In practice, no one is up to the task, and an attempt to do is bound to occasionally lead to mistakes that are the direct opposite of reality. It is easier and more reliable to treat a diabetic by studying endocrynology directly.</p>
<p>Empathy gives general guidelines, but no tools for navigating the gray areas and the questions that involve conflicting values and priorities. Therefore one needs commentary to explain further. And that commentary one must “go and learn”. It goes beyond the innate.</div>
</div>
<div class="feedflare"><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/Aspaqlaria?a=HxyFp3Yd"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/Aspaqlaria?i=HxyFp3Yd" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/Aspaqlaria?a=0rThFEJ1"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/Aspaqlaria?i=0rThFEJ1" border="0"></img></a></div></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style=" margin-bottom:0;line-height:1.4em;">
<p style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif;font-size:18px;margin:1em 0 3px 0;line-height:115%;">
<a href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/05/hashem-and-morality.shtml">Hashem and Morality</a>
</p>
<p style="font-size:13px;color:#555;margin:9px 0 3px 0;font-family:Georgia,Helvetica,Arial,Sans-Serif;line-height:140%;font-size:13px;">
<span>Posted:</span> 15 May 2007 04:36 AM CDT</p>
<div style="margin:0;font-family:Georgia,Helvetica,Arial,Sans-Serif;line-height:140%;font-size:13px;color:#000000;"><div><font size="-2"><strong>(Post written 27-Jul-2006, updated 15-May-2007. Further explanation was added.)</strong></font></div>
<div />
<div>In his essay “Euthyphro”, Plato has Socrates ask a young student named Euthyphro, “Is what is righteous righteous because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is righteous?”The Jewish spin would be to ask: Is an act good because HQBH chose to make it a mitzvah, or did Hashem command us to do it because it is good? What is the Source of morality?</div>
<div>The problem is that if you say that an act is good solely because Hashem commanded it, then He had no moral reason to tell us to do one set of things and not another. Can mitzvos be the product of Divine whim, the decision between “Thou shalt murder” and “Thou shalt not” entirely without any reason on His part? On the other hand, if there is an overarching definition of good and evil that Hashem conformed to, then we placed something “over” Him, something that even He is subject to.I would argue that HQBH created the world with a <em>tachlis</em>, a purpose, He placed each of us in it with a <em>tachlis</em>, and what is righteous is righteous because it is in accordance with furthering that <em>tachlis</em>. This fits Rav Hirsch’s etymology for “<em>ra</em>“, being related to /רעע/, to shatter. It also explains why the word “<em>tov</em>” means both good in the moral sense (not evil) as well as in the functional sense (not ineffective, as in “a good toothpaste prevents cavities”). To prepare the menorah’s lamps is called “hatavas haneiros — causing the functional usability of the lamps.” Moral tov derives from the functional tov. Hashem chose “Do not steal” over “Take whatever makes you happy” because that’s what makes us better receptacles. We might have remained with two definitions of <em>tov</em> (and of “good”) — functional and moral. According to this line of reasoning, “good at its job” is the underlying meaning of <em>tov</em> in the moral sense of the word as well.<br />
So yes, HQBH did choose good vs evil without being subject to external constraint, and yet still the choice was not arbitrary. Socrates gave Euthyphro a false dichotomy — there was a third choice. Hashem has a reason, but that reason wasn’t conforming to a preexisting morality.G-d created us because He could only bestow good if there is someone to receive that good. That is our individual purpose, to make ourselves into utensils, receptacles for emanations of Divine Good. (I once suggested to <em>Avodah </em>that “<em>Qabbalah</em>” isn’t to be translated as “that which was received”, but rather “the art of reception”.) Given that personal purpose, the definition of “<em>tov</em>” feeds directly into a “spiritual health” model of reward and punishment. <em>Oneshim</em> are the product of not being proper <em>keilim </em>for <em>shefa</em>, and therefore one is incapable of receiving the <em>sechar</em>. It’s not that the <em>sechar </em>is being withheld — the problem is with the reception.</p>
<p>This makes following the <em>tzavah </em>(command) of the <em>Melech </em>a derivative — learning to be a good subject is part of what it takes to be a good <em>keli</em>. Perhaps this is why they are called <em>mitzvos </em>(that which were commanded) rather than <em>tzavos </em>(commands).</p>
<p>This means that of the Rambam’s <em>ikkarei emunah</em>, perhaps the last three are the most critical. Without an eschatology, without a final state, we have no way of defining which acts advance us to that goal, and which are ra, shattering that which was already built.</p>
<p>One last issue: Why should I follow the purpose for which I was created? What changes G-d’s motivation into my moral imperative?<br />
We can prove the two are identical logically. In order for my moral choice to have any meaning, I must assume my actions have value. Otherwise, what difference does it make which actions I choose to perform? If I believe my actions have value, I am assuming my existence has value, since it makes those actions possible. And thus, presumed in the very quest for morality is the notion that the purpose for which I was created imparts value.</p>
<p>See also <a href="http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/kiSeitzei.pdf">Bemachashavah Techilah for Ki Seitzei</a> for an essay on Euthyphro’s dilemma and the concept of “to’eivah”.</p>
<hr /><br />
R. Yitzchak Blau has an article in the <a href="http://www.yutorah.org/showShiur.cfm?shiurID=705187">Torah U-Madda Journal</a> titled “Ivan Karamazov Revisited: The Moral Argument for Religious Belief”.Much of his argument is phrased pragmatically, IOW, R’ Blau is more likely to speak of the problems the Moral Argument (MA) leads to more than whether it’s inherently valid. The moral argument is most often used in educating youth and kiruv projects, and RYB assesses them in that light.Rabbi Blau initially argues that MA is likely to lead to one of two opposite errors:1- It makes religion a handmaiden to ethics, as religion then become about being the Divinely given morality. Or<br />
2- By identifying religion with ethics, one makes the ethical merely an expression of religion, which which respect to Judaism means saying there is no ethic beyond the G-d-given din. Do we want to teach a Judaism that has no barrier to geneivas aku”m and the like?After proving that ge’onim and rishonim assert the existence of a natural ethic (citing R’ Nissim Gaon, Ramban, Chizquni and Rav Saadia) he ends up revamping MA to be about supplementing natural ethics with<br />
the more refined Divine ethic. For example, one can argue the need for a Divine ethic not on the grounds of “Thou shalt not murder” but on the impossibility of natural ethic dealing with abortion, euthanasia, and the other borderline cases in any deterministic way. (This ties back to an <a href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/05/reasons-for-mitzvos.shtml">entry</a> written earlier this week.)</p>
<p>I think the paper is fundamentally flawed by a lack of a basic distinction.</p>
<p>There are two distinct issues:<br />
- The source of morality. Can all human beings agree that there is a concept of morality (even if we disagree about much of what morality includes) if G-d didn’t create humans with the concept of morality?<br />
- The source of information about what morality consists of.</p>
<p>I would assert that MA is about the first, not the latter. Therefore, we could rely on the Torah to know what morality consists of, while still using the existence of morality as a concept to imply the existence of a religious world.</p>
<p>I find it interesting that RYB has a discussion of why we should obey G-d in the context of “If all ethic is from G-d, isn’t ethic arbitrary?” and using John Stuart Mill, Hobbes, Geach (the latter two saying “follow G-d or he’ll beat you up!” — far from moral imperative!), but not Plato’s Euthyphro which is this very dilemma!</div>
<div class="feedflare"><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/Aspaqlaria?a=m9HU9QDj"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/Aspaqlaria?i=m9HU9QDj" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/Aspaqlaria?a=UK0CiPWo"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~f/Aspaqlaria?i=UK0CiPWo" border="0"></img></a></div><p>This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: <a href="http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/kiSeitzei.pdf">Download Now</a>
</p>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<table id="footer" style="border-top:1px solid #999;padding-top:4px;margin-top:1.5em;width:100%" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<tr>
<td style="text-align:left;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,Sans-Serif;font-size:11px;margin:0 6px 1.2em 0;color:#333;">You are subscribed to email updates from <a href="http://www.aishdas.org/asp">Aspaqlaria</a>
<br>To stop receiving these emails, you may <a href="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailunsub?id=317024&key=izo%2Byu3%2FM71F48ktt9O6JA%3D%3D">unsubscribe now</a>.</td><td style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial,Sans-Serif;font-size:11px;margin:0 6px 1.2em 0;color:#333;text-align:right;vertical-align:top">Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner</td>
</tr>
<tr xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<td colspan="2" style="text-align:left;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,Sans-Serif;font-size:11px;margin:0 6px 1.2em 0;color:#333;">Inbox too full? <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/Aspaqlaria"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" style="vertical-align:middle" alt="(feed)"></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/Aspaqlaria">Subscribe</a> to the feed version of Aspaqlaria in a feed reader.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align:left;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,Sans-Serif;font-size:11px;margin:0 6px 1.2em 0;color:#333;" colspan="2">If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Aspaqlaria, c/o FeedBurner, 549 W Randolph, Chicago IL USA 60661</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
</body>
</html>