Situation dependence of morality?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Mgrinder
Premium Member
Posts: 904
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Situation dependence of morality?

Post by Mgrinder »

I'd like to discuss something that I don't see discussed anywhere, namely the situation dependence of declaring something to be a good or bad state, and its consequences for moral philosophy.

To give an example. Anne breaks her leg, is she in a bad state? Most would reply yes to this question, however, there are some that might say "What if breaking her leg led to her finding a pot of gold? Then it was a good thing overall" or what if breaking her leg taught her something she couldn't have learned any other way? Then perhaps it was a good thing. There are more examples like this, and they at least cast some doubt on whether we can unequivocally say that breaking her leg puts Anne in bad state for all situations.

However, if we eliminate all these unlikely possibilities, if we specify the situation more precisely, then it seems to me that all doubt goes away. If I say that none of these unlikely possibilities occur, that the situation is a rather a typical one, not an unusual one, where Anne gets in alot of pain, misses work, is miserable for awhile, and she does not find a pot of gold, does not learn a lesson, and so on, then it seems to me that we can declare that her breaking her leg is bad for her in an absolute sense. Once we define the situation precisely, the answer seems to be come solid, definite, absolute - however you want to put it. Before the situation is defined precisely, the answer is less definite.

Thus I conclude that what is good or bad for someone is relative to the situation. Unless the situation is specified precisely enough, it can be hard to tell, but once it is defined precisely, there seems to be no doubt.

Since any example of physical harm (or benefit) will be similar to this, this seems to be true for a whole class of good or bad states. For instance, is rice good for me? If I am allergic it is not, if I have already eaten a great deal it is not, if it is not cooked maybe not, etc. But if you eliminate such possibilities, and specify that I am hungry, not overweight, and that rice is nutritious, etc. then it is good for me to eat it in that situation.

Notice that this does not mean in any way that what is good or bad for someone is relative to opinion. Relative to the situation yes, but once the situation is specified, what is good or bad for someone seems to become absolute, it is not a matter of opinion. If someone says that broken legs are good for Anne in the situation I precisely defined above, I would regard them as off their rocker, or more likely - simply lying.

This also seems to be the answer to Moore's open question argument. Moore contends that no matter what one proposes to be good (like pleasure), one can always ask, "But is it really good?" Well, it makes sense to ask Moore's question for things like pleasure, but it makes no sense to ask it for pleasure in certain well defined situations. I can contend that pleasure is good for me, and Moore can rightly ask questions like "What If I am a drug addict?". However, once I specify the situation where I get pleasure precisely, like saying that I was literally starving, I had not eaten in six days, and I found a ripe apple. It tasted better than anything I had ever tasted. I felt pleasure, and that pleasure (in that exact instance) was good for me. If Moore then asks "Was it really good?" I say yes, dummy, it really was. It's not an open question once you specify the situation precisely. It is an open question if you don't specify the situation, but it is a closed question in specific situations. Thus Moore's argument was about how the situations he was considering were not precisely defined. He used vague language (talking about "the good" rather than "good for someone"), and this led to his argument. It puzzles me that I can't find this analysis of his open question argument, despite it being something that many people discuss. Am I the only one to think of this answer to his argument?

What does this mean for morality? As long as morality has something to do with putting people in good states or bad states, then it means there are few, if any, absolute general rules for what is morally right to do or morally wrong to do. If what is good for someone, or a group of people, depends on the situation, then you will often, or always find an exception to a rule. For instance, it is usually considered morally wrong to kill someone, it puts them in a bad state. However, there are many possible counterexamples, such as when someone is suffering greatly, and need help ending their pain, and there is no prospect of getting better. Thus what is good for someone depends on the situation, and thus what you should do to them, if you want to put people in good states, also depends on the actual situation at hand.

If you specify that someone is being killed by someone else, and it is a typical murder for reasons of stealing money or some such, nothing unusual going on, humanity is not saved by the murder, the murder does not stop a war or anything like that, then there is no hesitation (at least for people that don't read a lot of philosophy and believe in relativism or whatever) in calling this an immoral act, as it puts the person in a bad state. It seems an absolute fact, and if you want to put people in good states (act morally), than this should not be done.

So why am I the only one to talk about this? I don't ever see it in books I read about morality, yet it seems like it should be a major topic.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Situation dependence of morality?

Post by Burning ghost »

I think there is often a habit of people to try and rationalise things that cannot be rationalised.

By this I mean if faced with a moral dilemma we try and add in information that removes us from making a "personal" decision. We have a tendency to disarm our emotions and use "rational" decision making to avoid personal responsbility.

I am not sure if this fits directly into what you are saying in the OP but thought it worth a mention in regard to how we develop precise scenarios sometimes to avoid our own highly personal view of the world we are part of. By this a mean rather than make a difficult choice between two given positions we'll either elaborate them (add a number of ifs and buts), or reduce it to a none decision "coin toss" (redirect responsibility from moral choices).
AKA badgerjelly
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Situation dependence of morality?

Post by Fooloso4 »

Parable of a Chinese Farmer:

Once there was a Chinese farmer who worked his poor farm together with his son and their horse. When the horse ran off one day, neighbors came to say, “How unfortunate for you!” The farmer replied, “Maybe yes, maybe no.”
When the horse returned, followed by a herd of wild horses, the neighbors gathered around and exclaimed, “What good luck for you!” The farmer stayed calm and replied, “Maybe yes, maybe no.”
While trying to tame one of wild horses, the farmer’s son fell, and broke his leg. He had to rest up and couldn’t help with the farm chores. “How sad for you,” the neighbors cried. “Maybe yes, maybe no,” said the farmer.
Shortly thereafter, a neighboring army threatened the farmer’s village. All the young men in the village were drafted to fight the invaders. Many died. But the farmer’s son had been left out of the fighting because of his broken leg. People said to the farmer, “What a good thing your son couldn’t fight!” “Maybe yes, maybe no,” was all the farmer said.
I do not know the origin of the story or if it from a larger context, but I read it more as a matter of how we evaluate what happens rather than as posing a moral problem.

Mgrinder:
If what is good for someone, or a group of people, depends on the situation, then you will often, or always find an exception to a rule.
This is why some ethicists advocate situational ethics and some reject rule based ethics. However, I do not think that anyone would support the idea that stealing the farmer’s horse or breaking his son’s leg is morally neutral or indeterminate because we do not know the eventual outcome.
User avatar
Alan Jones
Posts: 72
Joined: May 7th, 2013, 2:33 pm
Favorite Philosopher: J. Dewey W.T. Rockwell
Location: Emyn Mar, the Otter Lake Moraine, Michigan

Re: Situation dependence of morality?

Post by Alan Jones »

When a people let go of absolute (arbitrary) notions of obligation and duty (when they let go of renunciate morality), they can become mutually responsible. Their morality will be situational.
They will continue to doubt (to reflect) and will reevaluate as new information becomes available.
"Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them." - Peter Ustinov "Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority." - Thomas Huxley
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Situation dependence of morality?

Post by Burning ghost »

I am pretty sure that the original meanings of "wisdom" and "politics" is all about this idea of "good"/"bad".

I wise politician in this sense is one that can balance society to create the best outcome. Meaning they can weigh society towards feeling more "good" than bad. Objectively this is almost completely impossible to measure though and this is why politics is such a hated, and needed, area of human activity. The "politic" is essentially all human interaction.

As individuals we are all responsible to some degree for society. Even if we shun society and live in isolation we have made the choice and refused to "act". To not "act" is still an action. As a moral example I could fly to Africa and help people there in some way. I choose not to. Thus I indirectly influence African people I could have helped. From such thoughts we can assess our own sphere of personal rwsponsibility and how we wish to move our own "goodness" forwards and influence others state of "goodness" too. By "goodness" I am not simply talking about making people happy, I am talking about an overall positive impact on humanity as a whole and the progression of all happiness. Of course we are merely human and so it makes sense to understand our limits yet see the possible bigger picture beyond them.

Continued and expansive communication does appear at face value to be a step in the "right" direction. This combined with an understanding of our limitations to communicate personal positions and ideas, in my view, leads to a "good" balance between a structured society and an adaptive, creative and individual freedom within said structured society. In a bizarre and contrary way the "good" seems to me to be a structureless structure.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Mgrinder
Premium Member
Posts: 904
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: Situation dependence of morality?

Post by Mgrinder »

Fooloso4 wrote:
Parable of a Chinese Farmer:

Once there was a Chinese farmer who worked his poor farm together with his son and their horse. When the horse ran off one day, neighbors came to say, “How unfortunate for you!” The farmer replied, “Maybe yes, maybe no.”
When the horse returned, followed by a herd of wild horses, the neighbors gathered around and exclaimed, “What good luck for you!” The farmer stayed calm and replied, “Maybe yes, maybe no.”
While trying to tame one of wild horses, the farmer’s son fell, and broke his leg. He had to rest up and couldn’t help with the farm chores. “How sad for you,” the neighbors cried. “Maybe yes, maybe no,” said the farmer.
Shortly thereafter, a neighboring army threatened the farmer’s village. All the young men in the village were drafted to fight the invaders. Many died. But the farmer’s son had been left out of the fighting because of his broken leg. People said to the farmer, “What a good thing your son couldn’t fight!” “Maybe yes, maybe no,” was all the farmer said.
I do not know the origin of the story or if it from a larger context, but I read it more as a matter of how we evaluate what happens rather than as posing a moral problem.

Mgrinder:
If what is good for someone, or a group of people, depends on the situation, then you will often, or always find an exception to a rule.
This is why some ethicists advocate situational ethics and some reject rule based ethics. However, I do not think that anyone would support the idea that stealing the farmer’s horse or breaking his son’s leg is morally neutral or indeterminate because we do not know the eventual outcome.
Nice Parable, thank you. I agree with your last statement. My main point is that what is moral to do becomes absolute (certain) once the situation is defined precisely, but before that, it is not certain. Absolute morality exists (at least for some situations) and is not relative to opinion, it is however, relative to the situation. There is no absolute rule based ethics (there are always rule exceptions) but once you narrowly define the class of situations your rule applies to, then it can become absolute.
User avatar
Alan Jones
Posts: 72
Joined: May 7th, 2013, 2:33 pm
Favorite Philosopher: J. Dewey W.T. Rockwell
Location: Emyn Mar, the Otter Lake Moraine, Michigan

Re: Situation dependence of morality?

Post by Alan Jones »

Hello Mgrinder,
How do you define a situation "precisely"? (How narrow would you go to get to your absolute?)
Do your definitions of situations differ from those of others? Would everyone group situations into the same classes? Do people have different biases? Is any experience and any characterization//definition of a situation unbiased?
"Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them." - Peter Ustinov "Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority." - Thomas Huxley
User avatar
Mgrinder
Premium Member
Posts: 904
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: Situation dependence of morality?

Post by Mgrinder »

Alan Jones wrote:Hello Mgrinder,
How do you define a situation "precisely"? (How narrow would you go to get to your absolute?)
I think it's just a matter of eliminating any possibility to a situation that might make one doubt it. Often this means making it a "normal" situation.

For instance, suppose I was about to be tortured. How could you cast doubt on whether or not this would be bad for me? One way would be to claim I am Clark Kent, an invulnerable person. However, I just eliminate that by saying that it is me, not Clark Kent, that will be tortured, and I am human and can be hurt. Then you could ask if I am a masochist, maybe I enjoy it. So I just eliminate that too, and say I am not a masochist. Further, I can say that when I say torture, I mean torture, with whips, beatings electrocution, etc. I guarantee I will have no painkillers, I will not enjoy it, and it will reduce me to a blubbering wreck, begging for death, betraying my friends, I will have post traumatic stress syndrome, etc.

At this point, it seems to me I have made the situation specific enough to declare that torture, in this instance, as bad for me in this specific situation. Anyone who says it is good for me either is lying or doesn't understand much about English or anything, really. I am certain they are wrong.

Other attempts one might make to justify it might be to imagine that torturing me is an unfortunate necessity in order to save dozens of lives, or that my torturer gets alot of pleasure from torturing. Even if these sort of things are accepted, it's still the case that it is bad for me. Even if you can make it a moral necessity, it's still not good for me.

Another way to to put this is to make it a "normal" torture scenario. A normal torture scenario would not have Clark Kent in it, the person being tortured would not be a masochist, etc.
Alan Jones wrote: Do your definitions of situations differ from those of others? Would everyone group situations into the same classes? Do people have different biases? Is any experience and any characterization//definition of a situation unbiased?
Not sure how any of these questions relate to the torture scenario above, which the essence of what I am trying to say. If someone's definition of torture differs from mine, then we have to discuss it to see what the word means and clarify, seems to me it's pretty easy to come to a common ground. Why would someone's biases about a person being tortured matter on the question of whether it was good for them or not?
User avatar
Alan Jones
Posts: 72
Joined: May 7th, 2013, 2:33 pm
Favorite Philosopher: J. Dewey W.T. Rockwell
Location: Emyn Mar, the Otter Lake Moraine, Michigan

Re: Situation dependence of morality?

Post by Alan Jones »

Hello again Mgrinder,
Most people's torture is "enhanced interrogation" for some. Overstimulation makes what was a pleasure a pain. Even simple and seemingly "normal" or generic experiences will be evaluated differently by different people and by the same person over time. You have changed from what you were a moment ago. Why do people need absolutes, why the need to be certain?
"Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them." - Peter Ustinov "Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority." - Thomas Huxley
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Situation dependence of morality?

Post by Burning ghost »

What about if you being tortured stops others from being tortured and saves many lives? You may choose to accept the torture that is physically bad for you yet you may feel its worth the cost of saving other peoples lives. So to refuse the torture is bad for your moral position.

I think the point of looking for excepts to circumstances is what helps us explore our own sense of morality. If you reduce a moral question to a purely logical proposition it is no longer a moral question merely a logical obviousness.

It seems to me the whole point is about learning how to refine personal judgement and compare and contrast objectively disconnected pieces of information. Such things we present with ideas such as "worth" or "value". Do you value the life of an old woman or a baby more? Do you value knowledge above compassion? Empathy above intelligence? Such questions cannot be measured or fully rationalised so we're left floating between logical obviousnesses and simply respond as seems best ignorant of a definitive truth.

I am not saying we do not use logic to make ethical choices, but I am saying if all we use is logic to come to our decision we are not making any emotional, ethical or moral investment. We are acting without moral or ethical implication (or rather the pretense of such a position).
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Alan Jones
Posts: 72
Joined: May 7th, 2013, 2:33 pm
Favorite Philosopher: J. Dewey W.T. Rockwell
Location: Emyn Mar, the Otter Lake Moraine, Michigan

Re: Situation dependence of morality?

Post by Alan Jones »

[...if all we use is logic to come to our decision we are not making any emotional, ethical or moral investment. We are acting without moral or ethical implication (or rather the pretense of such a position).[/quote]

Yes. Also, the acceptance of dogmatic, ideological, (arbitrary) definitions of what's moral amounts to rejecting responsibility for one's decisions. It is a renunciate morality, submission to the "moral" decisions of authorities.
"Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them." - Peter Ustinov "Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority." - Thomas Huxley
User avatar
Mgrinder
Premium Member
Posts: 904
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: Situation dependence of morality?

Post by Mgrinder »

Alan Jones wrote:Hello again Mgrinder,
Most people's torture is "enhanced interrogation" for some.
Call it what you will, is it good for me in that specific situation? No. clearly not. Calling it by a different name doesn't matter.
Alan Jones wrote: Overstimulation makes what was a pleasure a pain. Even simple and seemingly "normal" or generic experiences will be evaluated differently by different people and by the same person over time.
Even if it is possible for some people to go on the rack and like it, the point is that I will not. Me. Not some made up alien. Me. It will be bad for me. case closed. Certain for me, absolute for me.
Alan Jones wrote: You have changed from what you were a moment ago.
I won't change so much in the next moment that i'll enjoy and benefit from having my fingers chopped off.
Alan Jones wrote: Why do people need absolutes, why the need to be certain?
Some certainty is pretty nice if you care about others and don't want to hurt them. If you can be certain that what you're about to do is going to be good for them, that's pretty important. People's lives are at stake in many moral decisions, so certainty is pretty important, I'd say.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Situation dependence of morality?

Post by LuckyR »

I guess I look at the situation (life, as it turns out) differently than the OP. To me, Anne breaking her leg, like any other situation, is measured as a mixture of perspectives that vary greatly in their "goodness" and "badness". You can sum the positives and negatives to come up with an overall answer but most would find that sort of answer of very little value.

Let me give you a different example. Say you have a baby boy and the topic of having him circumcised comes up. From the perspective of pain it is a negative, from the perspective of lowering the risk of penis cancer it is a positive, reducing AIDS risk, issues of autonomy, of regret blah blah blah. As it turns out the field of Pediatrics has collated and summed every conceivable positive and negative and the procedure is slightly beneficial. However, just about every family makes the choice based on family tradition, religious tradition or so he looks like his father (and brothers). The other perspectives are valid yet unimportant.

Thus it isn't about the broken leg, it is about how do you view broken legs. It is a perspective issue.
"As usual... it depends."
Iapetus
Posts: 402
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Situation dependence of morality?

Post by Iapetus »

Reply to Mgrinder:

So much of what you write seems to depend on your initial premises and it is those which I wish to address:
I'd like to discuss something that I don't see discussed anywhere, namely the situation dependence of declaring something to be a good or bad state, and its consequences for moral philosophy.
This is significant because, subsequently, you seem to equate putting people into good or bad states with moral actions:
there is no hesitation … in calling this an immoral act, as it puts the person in a bad state. It seems an absolute fact, and if you want to put people in good states (act morally), than this should not be done.
If you wonder why you are ‘the only one to talk about this’, then it might be because, as far as I can see, you are the only one to define moral actions thus and definitions, in such discussions, are critical.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines morality as;

Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour;

A particular system of values and principles of conduct;

The extent to which an action is right or wrong.


The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy refers in detail to ‘codes of conduct’.

I can understand how ‘moral actions’ might be initiated and judged according to these values, principles and codes but I cannot find any definition which refers to putting people into ‘good or bad states’.

Moreover, you write about the significance of ‘situational dependence’, yet in your further explanations, you seem to think it necessary to remove all the elements of the situation which contribute to its significance. In that, case, however, your judgement becomes situationally independent and, therefore, theoretical.

Anne breaks her leg. Her subsequent psychological condition – worried, accepting, neurotic, philosophical, resilient – is part of the situation. Do you need to remove this to determine whether she is in a good state or a bad state? Are your ‘good states’ and your ‘bad states’ absolute entities or are they relative? If they are relative, then why do you need to remove the situational factors? If they are relative, then why are the options only ‘good’ or ‘bad’? If Anne has been made to feel comfortable and supported and is optimistic about the outcomes then can we only talk about good states or bad states, or could we become highly sophisticated and talk about better than some and worse than others? In which case, how do ‘good’ and ‘bad’ help as concepts? If Anne’s leg did not heal as anticipated and the doctor needed to break the leg once more to reset it, would this be putting her into a good state or a bad state?
If someone says that broken legs are good for Anne in the situation I precisely defined above, I would regard them as off their rocker, or more likely - simply lying.
This is the problem you create when the only options are ‘good’ and ‘bad’. They do not reflect reality.
Anne gets in alot of pain, misses work, is miserable for awhile, and she does not find a pot of gold, does not learn a lesson, and so on.
You have reinterpreted the situation for your own purposes. You have assumed ‘only bad’ outcomes because it conforms to your premise.

Imagine a situation whereby playing a guitar loudly gives a neighbour a bit of a headache. It puts her into a bad state. She comes round to complain and she is hit over the head with that same guitar, fracturing her skull. She is, again, put into a bad state. Are the two actions equivalent? How does ‘bad state’ help to distinguish between the two? And how does this translate into ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’?

I know that we have had part of this conversation before but the concept of ‘good states’ and ‘bad states’ still defeats me.

It would help me greatly if you could define them, particularly by specifying how you would assess ‘good’ and ‘bad’.
User avatar
Mgrinder
Premium Member
Posts: 904
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: Situation dependence of morality?

Post by Mgrinder »

LuckyR wrote:I guess I look at the situation (life, as it turns out) differently than the OP. To me, Anne breaking her leg, like any other situation, is measured as a mixture of perspectives that vary greatly in their "goodness" and "badness". You can sum the positives and negatives to come up with an overall answer but most would find that sort of answer of very little value.

Let me give you a different example. Say you have a baby boy and the topic of having him circumcised comes up. From the perspective of pain it is a negative, from the perspective of lowering the risk of penis cancer it is a positive, reducing AIDS risk, issues of autonomy, of regret blah blah blah. As it turns out the field of Pediatrics has collated and summed every conceivable positive and negative and the procedure is slightly beneficial. However, just about every family makes the choice based on family tradition, religious tradition or so he looks like his father (and brothers). The other perspectives are valid yet unimportant.
Not sure about all your facts, but let's assume you are right. I would add that it's not much of a health risk these days, as you can wear a condom and wash your nether regions regularly if you are a male. Circumcision can also decrease sexual pleasure and sensitivity.

Should health risks be important or unimportant? Does slight health risk trump decreased sexual pleasure, or family tradition? These are all valid questions. Is there a right answer, or is it up to opinion?

It seems to me it is not up to opinion, rather it is up to the situation, and there is a right answer for each situation. For a mother in a orthodox jewish family that does not want her son to be circumsized , one could imagine that it is not worth her while to fight, given all the social consequences for her or her son. For another person in the same but slightly different situation, where it seems worth it to fight and change things, because she is being oppressed by this tradition, one could imagine that she should fight.

It is difficult to figure out, and many factors come into it, sure, but it seems to me there is a right answer for any situation, even if it's hard to figure out, or the exact consequences of an action are not certain. It is not up to personal preference, like what color I like. If I were a Mother in a an orthodox jewish family who though circumcision was bogus (for whatever reason), it's a very real decision, based on many facts and unknowns, not at all like my color preference.


LuckyR wrote: Thus it isn't about the broken leg, it is about how do you view broken legs. It is a perspective issue.
It is relative to the situation, but not up to opinion.
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