Learning Sexual Morality from Nature

In my book Confronting Sexual Nihilism, I defend traditional Catholic sexual morality. Actually the label “Catholic” is a misnomer. As recent as two hundred years ago it was the sexual morality taught by almost all the Christian churches and synagogues. Even if it was biblical it was not taught as being based on the bible alone. It was taught as the morality given by God to all people through His creation of human reason. Indeed the traditional sexual morality provided support to biblical teachings because it showed how, in this case, reason and scripture were in harmony.

In my book, I do not defend traditional sexual morality as Catholic, Christian, biblical or traditional. I defend traditional sexual morality using only human reason. But I do not use the traditional way of basing sexual morality on reason. The traditional defense relies on an erroneous assumption. The erroneous assumption holds: It is wrong to inhibit a natural system from fulfilling its natural end. Nature shows us the natural end of systems by showing us what, for the most part, the systems accomplish in nature. From such an assumption, arguments are easily given that sexual acts such as masturbation, homosexual acts and contraceptive acts inhibited the natural function of sperm dispersal which was conception.

For someone who is seriously trying to defend traditional sexual morality from reason, the above apparent oversimplification of the traditional use of reason to defend sexual morality is valuable. It highlights the problems confronting such an effort. The problems are hard to solve. My book is hard to follow.

How does nature, by showing us how systems function, ever tell us what is right or wrong?
Why is it wrong to inhibit the functions of some systems?
In particular, why is it wrong to inhibit the functions of sexual systems?

An effort to answer such questions without relying on any ideology assuming contempt for any type of human beings is an appeal to reason which deserves to be in the “market place of ideas” in a civilized society. It deserves this place even if a consequence of this line of reasoning leads to a conclusion “Homosexual acts are morally wrong.”

My book Confronting Sexual Nihilism: Traditional Sexual Morality as an Antidote to Nihilism was released by Tate Publishing on March 11, 2014. See Book Web Page for information about the book. The publisher’s listed price is $26.99. Printed copies can be purchased here by credit card for $12.99, plus $3.71 for shipping and handling.





To purchase the printed book by check, send check of $16.70 per copy. Send to:
Charles F. Kielkopf
45 W. Kenworth Rd.
Columbus, Ohio 43214
Include your shipping address.

Love requires moral rules to found the moral law

Jesus agreed, Lk 10:27 that the principles: “Love the Lord your God above all things and your neighbor as yourself” provides a foundation for all the laws of morality and religion. This agreement may suggest to Christians that love alone is sufficient foundation for morality. However, proper love is only a necessary condition for morality. There needs to be knowledge, or awareness, of rules on how we ought to act and how we ought to be. To modify an aphorism of Kant: “Love without rules is blind but rules without love are inoperative.”

Proper love is to choose the good for the beloved. But what is the good for God and for others? The good for God is what God wills. God wills what ought to be. So loving God is to choose what God wills, or what ought to be. Now, because the good is what God wills, loving ourselves and others is to choose what God wills for them and ourselves, or what ought to be for ourselves and others. So the problem of how to love our neighbors as ourselves becomes the problem of finding out what ought to be and developing the will to choose what we have found out what ought to be.

For humans, because we choose particular acts at particular times, what we ought to be is bipartite. We ought to choose those particular acts we ought to choose and become the kind of people who regularly choose the acts we ought to choose. So morality requires knowing the rules for the particular acts in particular circumstances we ought to choose and struggling to become people who keep those rules. If we are making that struggle we are loving. That struggle is building moral character. So, if we are struggling to form our moral character, we are loving God and our neighbor as ourselves. Perhaps grace of God is necessary to motivate us to start and persevere in the struggle to build moral character. By hard thinking throughout the ages humanity has uncovered the basic rules on how we ought to act in regard to controlling our basic passions and inclinations.

I wrote a book on sexual morality using the above notion of character morality.
Read more about character sexual morality in my book Confronting Sexual Nihilism: Traditional Sexual Morality as an Antidote to Nihilism was released by Tate Publishing on March 11, 2014. See Book Web Page for information about the book. The publisher’s listed price is $26.99. Printed copies can be purchased here by credit card for $12.99, plus $3.71 for shipping and handling.





To purchase the printed book by check, send check of $16.70 per copy. Send to:
Charles F. Kielkopf
45 W. Kenworth Rd.
Columbus, Ohio 43214
Include your shipping address.

Sexual Morality in Nature

In my book supporting traditional sexual morality I have a model of how sexual morality could have been a result of natural evolution. I’ll sketch out how this mode.

In our non-human predecessors there were emotional inhibitions against attaining orgasms –sperm dispersals- outside of intercourse with a female with whom there would be pair-bonding for her protection and off-spring protection. Call them chastity inhibitions. Of course, there would be inclinations to have orgasms through self-stimulation, contact with other males and in intercourse with just about any available female. The evolutionary function of chastity inhibitions is to hamper the wasteful dispersal of sperm. The chastity inhibitions would be strong negative feelings against the ways of wasting sperm. There would be feelings of disgust, shame and, yes, homophobia. Of course, the chastity inhibitions would not always successfully inhibit masturbation, homosexuality, promiscuity and rape. But they would stop enough useless and detrimental sperm dispersal to have survival of a pair bonding species.

As a non-scientist I am reluctant to suggest that I have any worthwhile knowledge of brain science. Nonetheless, let me suggest that the main brain regions operative in chastity inhibitions are in the amygdala.

As the various species of homo evolved some, viz. sapiens, developed brain regions giving them the capacity for thoughts which could be expressed in sentences both indicative and imperative. Let me say that the regions for these thinking capacities are in the pre-frontal cortex. Amongst these imperative thoughts are those with the semantics of moral thought. Here the significant semantic feature of moral imperatives is that they override all other imperatives and suggest that there is harm in the mere disobedience to them and a value in simply obeying them. These are categorical imperatives: Do this regardless of the consequences! Never do that regardless of any inclination to do otherwise! For instance: Never seek an organism exception with a woman with whom you have a commitment to care for her and your off-spring regardless of any inclination to do otherwise.

In my model of evolution of moral thought, I assume that the chastity inhibitions evolved to become expressible in moral imperatives. Assuming chastity inhibitions are helpful for survival, they would be strengthened by being expressible with moral thoughts. Also how moral thoughts can motivate action is explained by thinking of them as having evolved to, amongst other things, to express emotions.

So, in brief, moral rules are natures’, evolutions, way for us to commands acts we are naturally inclined, to some degree, to promote.

This model shows that it is not implausible for me to write of the moral code for which I argue as natural. I do not need to write of it as having a source in some supernatural or metaphysical realm. I do think that many who try to understand human beings as naturally developed beings would accept something like my model as an explanation of traditional morality or even what they call moral intuitions.

However, I am not entitled to claim that the morality I defend has originated in nature and is thereby justified. I cannot say that what is taken as right is right. I cannot go from “is” to “ought.”

On the other hand, the moral code I defend cannot be set aside by saying that it is a mere product of nature and rather primitive nature at that. It has to be taken seriously in our moral thinking whether we choose to defend it or argue to set it aside. Why? It is moral thinking and the moral thinking whereby we defend it or challenge it is of the same kind. At least those who believe that moral thinking is a result of natural development – evolution- have to accept that the moral thinking whereby they seek to set aside traditional morality is of the same kind as the moral thinking of traditional morality. They cannot regard their moral thinking as coming from some higher source outside of nature.

This line of thought supports one of the goals of my book which is that the moral thinking traditional sexual morality needs to be treated with respect in the current market place of ideas and not be dismissed as “hate speech” because it dares to condemn promiscuity, masturbation, homosexuality etc..

Read more about sexual morality in nature in my book Confronting Sexual Nihilism: Traditional Sexual Morality as an Antidote to Nihilism was released by Tate Publishing on March 11, 2014. See Book Web Page for information about the book. The publisher’s listed price is $26.99. Printed copies can be purchased here by credit card for $12.99, plus $3.71 for shipping and handling.





To purchase the printed book by check, send check of $16.70 per copy. Send to:
Charles F. Kielkopf
45 W. Kenworth Rd.
Columbus, Ohio 43214
Include your shipping address.

Complementarity of the Sexes vs. Harmony of the Sexes

I have recently published a book on sexual morality. It is a defense of traditional sexual morality At least the book is a defense of traditional sexual morality for men: No intentional attainment of orgasms until in sexual intercourse with a woman with whom there is a commitment to life long care of one another and any children resulting from their sexual intercourse.

I did not write to support any fundamental rule for the traditional morality for women because it might be different for women than for men. Women certainly have a different way of participating in sexual intercourse and relating to off-spring. I suggested that women might be the best people for articulating the fundamental principle for female sexuality.

I assumed that the moral rules for men and women, as well as men and women, complement one another in the broad sense that they function together in nature to bring about production and care of off-spring. As in so many species the male and female individuals in nature form new reproductive units. Of course, what happens in nature does not happen with mechanical regularity. Some individuals never mate while other mating units fail. But that’s nature.

But there is more harshness in nature than mere failure to attain a purpose. The attainment of a purpose may require frustration. Parts acting together may need to be “turn on” and “turn off” devices for the other part. That seems to be the way it is with men and women in their inclinations and maybe even in their moral principles. A turn off from one party when the other party is turning on certainly would not be harmony although it might well be how the complementarity is working best on this occasion. The “war of the sexes” is natural. Fortunately, there are many situations of mutual “turn on.” Occasional harmony is also natural.

Read more about sexual morality in nature in my book Confronting Sexual Nihilism: Traditional Sexual Morality as an Antidote to Nihilism was released by Tate Publishing on March 11, 2014. See Book Web Page for information about the book. The publisher’s listed price is $26.99. Printed copies can be purchased here by credit card for $12.99, plus $3.71 for shipping and handling.





To purchase the printed book by check, send check of $16.70 per copy. Send to:
Charles F. Kielkopf
45 W. Kenworth Rd.
Columbus, Ohio 43214
Include your shipping address.

Male Masturbators are Immoral

Male masturbators are immoral because they are acting on a principle or maxim that they can enjoy up through orgasm any imaginable sexual activity. There are, of course, external constraints on enjoying these activities with any unimagined person beyond oneself. There is fear of legal and social disapproval, lack of any interested partner, etc. The masturbator, though, places no internal restrictions, beyond his sexual interest, on these activities. There is no internal restriction on expanding these sexual interests when more exciting fantasies are needed for orgiastic pleasure.

The acts of a masturbator are not as serious as the acts of a man who actually carries out the sexual fantasy of the masturbator. But their sexual characters are the same. For instance, the masturbatory act of a man imagining fellatio with a nine year old boy is certainly not as serious as the act of a man who does it. But they both share the principle that they can enjoy this kind of activity.

Accepting a practice of masturbation is the basic form of an immoral sexual character for any man. Why? It puts him in conflict with any morality because in his imagination he can flout any rule. Any sexual morality will condemn some sexual activity*. A man who accepts his practice of masturbation holds that no only imagined sexual activities can be condemned.

*(Utilitarian moral outlooks which hold that in principle any sexual activity is permissible will hold some are in fact impermissible because of the damage they do.)

If this condemnation of masturbation interests, or irritates, you, my book defending traditional sexual morality might also be of interest.
My book Confronting Sexual Nihilism: Traditional Sexual Morality as an Antidote to Nihilism was released by Tate Publishing on March 11, 2014. See Book Web Page for information about the book. The publisher’s listed price is $26.99. Printed copies can be purchased here by credit card for $12.99, plus $3.71 for shipping and handling.





To purchase the printed book by check, send check of $16.70 per copy. Send to:
Charles F. Kielkopf
45 W. Kenworth Rd.
Columbus, Ohio 43214
Include your shipping address.

Women who have abortions deserve punishment

Towards the end of March 2016, Donald Trump in an interview conceded that women who have abortions should be punished. There was outrage from all sides. He couldn’t specify what a suitable punishment should. A ten year sentence was suggested but Trump really didn’t accept that. Later his campaign headquarters clarified Trump’s remarks to say only abortion providers should be punished. USA Pro-life groups immediately dismissed Trump’s proposals. They have never advocated punishing women who have abortions. However, I am anti-abortion or pro-life and do think that women who have an abortion deserve punishment and I play a small part in inflicting such punishments.

A crucial distinction is being ignored. There is a distinction between punishing through the criminal justice system (criminalizing) and punishing by expressions of moral disapproval. In the interview Trump let himself to be lead into assuming that punishing abortions would require criminalizing abortions. I strongly object to criminalizing women having abortions. The social and economic costs of punishing through the criminal justice system would be enormous. These costs would be salient and probably lead to public outrage and sympathy for abortion while the value of the deterred abortions would remain unspecified.

USA pro life groups correctly claim that the have never promoted making abortion a crime for the women having it. However, the pro life movement constantly punishes women who have an abortion by proclaiming that having an abortion is immoral. Our saying abortion is immoral is not merely writing a statement in some book or journal. We pronounce the condemnation of abortion publicly in ways which hurt. Standing outside an abortion clinic praying certainly can make some women leaving the clinic very unhappy. Our constant efforts to keep abortion from becoming a standard medical procedure and burdening it with legal restrictions presupposes an obvious moral condemnation of abortion. We do not often dwell on whether or not women deserve to suffer from our moral condemnation. But if it does come up we should grant that they deserve some of their feelings of shame and guilt we helped cause with our moral condemnation of abortion.What can be discussed is how much shame, guilt, anguish, etc., they deserve to suffer.

In summary: Women who have abortions deserve to be punished by expressions of moral disapproval of having an abortion. However, having an abortion should not be criminalized.

If these thoughts interest you, my book on sexual morality might also be of interest.
My book Confronting Sexual Nihilism: Traditional Sexual Morality as an Antidote to Nihilism was released by Tate Publishing on March 11, 2014. See Book Web Page for information about the book. The publisher’s listed price is $26.99. Printed copies can be purchased here by credit card for $12.99, plus $3.71 for shipping and handling.





To purchase the printed book by check, send check of $16.70 per copy. Send to:
Charles F. Kielkopf
45 W. Kenworth Rd.
Columbus, Ohio 43214
Include your shipping address.

God cannot destroy Satan

This is an exercise is philosophical theology. Using concepts from logic including the logical concepts of moral language arguments are constructed to show, at a very abstract level, that there must be some kind of being of religious interest that some being of religious interest must have certain features. The most well-know, or notorious, is the so-called ontological argument of St. Anselm. This is apriori conceptual play. However, if the order thought is the order of reality, this conceptual play uncovers fundamental features of religiously reality apart from thought.

I present the argument in a brief syllogism and then argue in support of only the second premise since I think apriori considerations about God’s goodness would easily support premise (1)
1. God cannot do what God ought not do.
2.God ought not destroy Satan
So
(3) God cannot destroy Satan

Why accept premise (2)?
Suppose God created an intelligence with a will free to choose as God wills it to act and to be or choose not to act and to be as God wills. Suppose this being is almost equal to God in intelligence and creative power. Suppose further that this being chooses not to act and be as God wills. Such a being could plausibly be described as Satan.

Even if Satan is not as he ought to be there is still a way he ought to be out there to be realized if Satan so chooses. If God were to destroy Satan, God would bring it about that Satan ceases to be. However, if Satan ceases to be, he cannot be as he ought to be. No being ought to stop the possibility of what ought to be from coming about. So, not even God ought to stop the possibility of Satan becoming as he ought to be.
Some corollaries which I think can be established are as follows.
A. God cannot bring it about that there is no time. For Satan is a moral being and a moral being needs a temporal framework to choose. Destruction of time would bring it about that Satan does not exist.
B. God cannot allow Satan to bring it about that he, Satan, does not exist. (Satanic suicide ). If Satan were to choose not to be, without revoking his choice contrary to God’s will, he would be irrevocably ruling out the possibility of being as he ought to be. An all good being cannot allow a being to irrevocably block the possibility of being as it ought to be.

I have written a book in which defending traditional sexual morality using as a crucial premise that we have a moral obligation to be morally correct people. Of course, the case for traditional sexual morality cannot be at the highly abstract level of the above conceptual play. However, I find that there is a phase of any serious philosophical argument where we confront the challenge starkly facing these apriori arguments. The challenge is what justifies us in assuming that the order of our thinking uncovers the order of reality apart from our thinking. I confront that high level challenge in my ” down to earth” book on sexual morality.

My book arguing that sexual neutrality leads to nihilism is Confronting Sexual Nihilism: Traditional Sexual Morality as an Antidote to Nihilism was released by Tate Publishing on March 11, 2014. See Book Web Page for information about the book. The publisher’s listed price is $26.99. Printed copies can be purchased here by credit card for $12.99, plus $3.71 for shipping and handling.





To purchase the printed book by check, send check of $16.70 per copy. Send to:
Charles F. Kielkopf
45 W. Kenworth Rd.
Columbus, Ohio 43214
Include your shipping address.

Immorality of Suicide and Physician Assisted Suicide

In this post, I lay out a moral objection to physician assisted suicide. Do not be “put-off” by the academic style of presenting a series of numbered claims linked together to draw conclusions. The numbered claims highlight crucial assumptions. This highlighting facilitates focusing on what needs to be discussed in evaluation of this moral condemnation of suicide. A full examination of the assumptions is not undertaken in this post. I make only a few supporting remarks below the argument.

1. I have a moral obligation to be morally correct human beings under any conditions.
By re-expressing (1) negatively, we get:
2. Under no conditions am I permitted to choose not to be a morally correct human being.
Now let us switch to applying the general moral law to my plans and choices.
3. If I plan to take, or have someone else take, my life I plan not to be under some conditions.
4. If I plan not to be under some conditions, then I plan not to be a morally correct human being under some conditions. (Being is a necessary condition for being morally correct.)
So, linking (3) and (4) we get:
5. If I plan to take, or have some take, my life , then I plan not to be a morally correct human being under some conditions.
Suppose
6. I plan to take, or have someone take, my life by making provisions for physician assisted suicide.
We get from 5) and (6)
7. I plan not to be a morally correct human being under some conditions.
Obviously, my plan expressed in (7) is in direct conflict with the moral law expressed in (2). This conflict is the moral condemnation of choosing suicide or physician assisted suicide.

Claim (1) brings out that my case starts from a moral claim. My argument is not based on only natural non-moral facts. I use first person singular, but the moral claim is for all people. If we do accept morality, it is quite plausible to accept an obligation to be moral, viz., a morally correct human being. A “Kantian” moral theory justifying (1) is developed in my book. If there is anything special in this condemnation of suicide it is expressed in (3). Choice of suicide is a choice not to be. It may seem that choice of suicide is a choice not to be in some miserable condition. However, a not to be is chosen as a means for not being in a miserable condition.

I have written a book in which defending traditional sexual morality using as a crucial premise that we have a moral obligation to be morally correct people. To get a sexual morality from that general moral principles, I show that there are specific ways men and women ought to exercise their sexuality. My book gets complicated because I argue that if we do not accept that there are specific ways men and women ought to exercise their sexuality – which I call the moral neutrality of sexuality- then there are no specific ways people ought to be. If there are now specific ways people ought to be, then there is no morality. Everything is permitted including suicide, of course. Nothing matters. That is nihilism.

My book arguing that sexual neutrality leads to nihilism is Confronting Sexual Nihilism: Traditional Sexual Morality as an Antidote to Nihilism was released by Tate Publishing on March 11, 2014. See Book Web Page for information about the book. The publisher’s listed price is $26.99. Printed copies can be purchased here by credit card for $12.99, plus $3.71 for shipping and handling.





To purchase the printed book by check, send check of $16.70 per copy. Send to:
Charles F. Kielkopf
45 W. Kenworth Rd.
Columbus, Ohio 43214
Include your shipping address.

The Morality Trap

Suppose that you are worried that human moral ways of thinking do not express some human independent standards of what to do and how to be. You fear, or perhaps hope, that moral thinking is simply a way in which human beings have evolved to think. Moral thinking has some survival value. But that is all. So, you ask whether or not we can simply set it aside; forget about asking moral questions. Here is where we encounter the “moral trap.”

If we have doubts about the legitimacy of our moral thinking, we ask ourselves whether or not we ought to discard thinking morally. This “ought” reveals that we do not avoid thinking morally by thinking about whether or not we should take morality seriously.

We can still set aside moral thinking – be amoralists. If we want to be amoralists we have to ignore the moral ways of thinking which includes ignoring the question whether or not we can ignore morality. The price of amoralism is that we cannot find a meaning in life without moral thinking. Avoiding raising the question of whether or not we ought to be moral requires continually distracting ourselves from facing moral questions. To have a meaning for our life, we need a way we ought to be. If we hold fast to amoralism, we have to suppress all thoughts of how we ought to be with the result of becoming nihilists.

I have written a book in which I develop the theme that this moral trap is a blessing because if we turn away from distracting ourselves from morality, we start thinking seriously of morality. I make a case that taking morality seriously leads to traditional sexual morality.

My book arguing that sexual neutrality leads to nihilism is Confronting Sexual Nihilism: Traditional Sexual Morality as an Antidote to Nihilism was released by Tate Publishing on March 11, 2014. See Book Web Page for information about the book. The publisher’s listed price is $26.99. Printed copies can be purchased here by credit card for $12.99, plus $3.71 for shipping and handling.





To purchase the printed book by check, send check of $16.70 per copy. Send to:
Charles F. Kielkopf
45 W. Kenworth Rd.
Columbus, Ohio 43214
Include your shipping address.

The Conceptualism Used in Kielkopf’s in Confronting Sexual Nihilism Solves the Classical Problem of Universals

This post is a sketch of the skeptical view of the meaning of words and phrases which I use in my book. I claim no originality for this view. I have acquired it from a forty year career in academic philosophy through study of Wittgenstein, Quine, Kripe, Rorty et al.. These people may not agree with exactly what I hold and have expressed its various components better than I express them.

The gist of the view is that people determine what words mean in conversation . Here “conversation” is used broadly. It covers what people write as well as speak and refers to both current and remembered conversation. There is no realm of meanings which people can inspect to determine the truth of what we say about the meaning of terms. If questions about meaning are settled, they are settled by agreement in conversation. If no agreement upon a truth claim about meaning, the claim is neither true nor false. This view is about truth claims about meanings; not about truth claims in general.There may be a reality beyond our speaking and thinking to determine the truth of what we say when we are not talking about the meaning of terms.

Call truth claims about meaning semantical truth claims.

I call this view “skeptical conceptualism.” I call it “conceptualism” to link it with the classical problem of universals. It is a view on general terms or concepts such as “harm.” It proposes that a concept is what people produce in their thinking and speaking, viz.,. conversation. Conceptualism holds that concepts are conceptualizing. It is skeptical by virtue of leaving open the possibility of indetermined claims about meaning.

I honestly think that this conceptualism solves the classical problem of universals by satisfactorily clarifying conceptualism. The price of the solution is what here is called conceptual skepticism.

Skeptical conceptualism at first glance seems trivial. It seems to maintain only that people given meaning to terms which have no meaning apart from that given them by people. However,a bit of reflection shows us that we cannot arbitrarily change the meaning of terms. At least not as individuals. Wittgenstein famously pointed out the difficulty in trying to make “cold” mean “hot.” Even at the communal level, it is hard to change meanings. Most likely legal decisions about the permissibility of same-sex marriage will not change what we mean by marriage. People will simply go on to talk of homo-sexual marriage and hetro-sexual marriage with an insinuation that hetro-sexual is what is really meant by marriage. So, at least a felt objectivity about the meaning of terms places an obstacle against a claim that it is a mere truism. Also there are difficulties in trying to make a clear separation between truth claims about meaning and other kinds of truth claims. Once you accept that truth claims about meaning are settled, if at all, by conversation, there are arguments, too complicated for this post, that seem to require accepting that all truth claims are settled by conversation. A hint of such an argument comes from a demand that we have to determine what “agreement with reality” means if we say that truth is agreement with reality.

The point of this post amongst my blog posts is to explain the status of many of my blog posts. In many of my posts I am engaging in a conversation, with unknown participants, about the meaning of terms. A clear example of this is in my post Penance : Fulfillment of Our Obligation to Express Moral Wrath. There I plea that many terms such as penance and retribution should be give meaning in our moral framework.

So I am arguing about the meaning of terms. But these arguments are important because it is with use of terms that we make truth claims about topics different from meaning. It may turn out that there is not agreement about the meaning of terms in some disputes. When this conceptual disagreement occurs, there will not be agreement about which non-semantical truth claims can be asserted.

A rough summary of the above is: All definitions are ad hoc working definitions.

Conceptual skepticism is a fundamental feature of the philosophical methodology used in my book on sexual morality.

My book arguing that sexual neutrality leads to nihilism is Confronting Sexual Nihilism: Traditional Sexual Morality as an Antidote to Nihilism was released by Tate Publishing on March 11, 2014. See Book Web Page for information about the book. The publisher’s listed price is $26.99. Printed copies can be purchased here by credit card for $12.99, plus $3.71 for shipping and handling.





To purchase the printed book by check, send check of $16.70 per copy. Send to:
Charles F. Kielkopf
45 W. Kenworth Rd.
Columbus, Ohio 43214
Include your shipping address.