What is moral in life?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: What is moral in life?

Post by Gertie »

Steve
I would accept that, from a practical point of view, it is extremely difficult and maybe impossible to actually conclusively demonstrate the link between the human behaviours that we collectively call morals and evolutionary pressures. But I would propose that in principle either that link must exist or there must be other factors which went into the 3 or 4 billion year process that resulted in the existence of human beings.

If we believe that humans were made by a deity that's another thing. But if we don't believe that, and we believe in the concept of causality, then how else could those behaviours exist?
If you're interested I'd recommend a book called Brain Trust by Pat Churchland, there are videos of her lectures on youtube too. She gives a great big picture account with fascinating specific examples beginning to fill in the story.

There's the type of tribal cooperation Wilson talks about, and how this is sculpted by local time and place 'cultural' circs, but prior to that we're starting to get a more concrete idea of how evolutionary processes primarily concerned with self-care and reproduction took the initial huge step of caring for another, off-spring, for some mammals with helpless babies which would die without it. For example hormones associated with lactation become part of the brain's reward system, so physical closeness to your helpless off-spring feels good, and their absence or crying feels bad. Once these changes were in place, it's easier to see how they could extend to other kin, and even other unrelated tribe members once you have the biological mechanisms in place.

And the argument goes, that eventually these types of evolved caring and social impulses which didn't seem to make sense from a selfish survival perspective, were grounded in an independent, objectively existing, real (God-Given) Morality. So Morality came to be seen as an independently existing thing in itself, rather than a man-made concept.
Iapetus
Posts: 402
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: What is moral in life?

Post by Iapetus »

Reply to Wilson:
So to sum up, our sense that there are moral rights and wrongs evolved because it promoted survival of the groups and therefore the species at a time when life was dangerous and survival not assured. But the specifics of who's good and bad, which actions are good or bad - there's a huge variation from one culture to another. Looking at it from this point of view, my opinion is that there are no objective and universal moral truths. But within our own societies, we tend to arrive at similar conclusions as to right and wrong, and are able to have a consensus as to what should be allowed and what should be forbidden. And most of us in the developed countries share our belief in fairness, concern for others, promoting the general good, protection of the weak, helping those who need help, and so forth. We also tend to believe that those who don't follow the rules may have to be punished. Those ideas seem obvious and universal to us. They do to me. However, I recognize that I have those ideas because I grew up in a specific situation and developed in a certain way, and my moral beliefs cannot be proved to be better in an objective way than those of people in Russia or Thailand.
I am in broad agreement with the points you make, and particularly so with your opinion that there are no objective and universal moral truths. I have serious reservations about the use of the terms ‘moral’ and ‘truth’ because, like ‘God’, their definitions tend to be vague and varying. If it is the case that “within our own societies, we tend to arrive at similar conclusions as to right and wrong …”, I am not sure that we can even be confident of identifying and defining those conclusions. Take freedom of speech and expression, for example. I would imagine that there are as many interpretations of that term as there are people who advocate it. This brings us to the difficulty of defining ‘our own societies’. Then we have to imagine what might be different in ‘other societies’.

As for fairness, then that, too, is subject to endless interpretation. Thomas Jefferson, an owner of hundreds of slaves, may have had complex views on the issue of slavery but he freed very few and he sold 130 to pay off his debts. Yet he was happy enough to sign a piece of paper which declared that, “all men are created equal ...”. I suppose that is easy enough if slaves are not regarded as men. Or women for that matter, or those who do not hold property, or jews or slavs or ‘racial’ minorities. The list goes on. We define terms to serve our own motives.


Reply to Gertie:

I agree with you that many of Pat Churchland’s ideas are very interesting and pertinent. She makes an impressive case for the impact of chemicals – and in particular hormones – on behaviour patterns, initiated by changes in brain chemistry.
And the argument goes, that eventually these types of evolved caring and social impulses which didn't seem to make sense from a selfish survival perspective, were grounded in an independent, objectively existing, real (God-Given) Morality. So Morality came to be seen as an independently existing thing in itself, rather than a man-made concept.
I fail to see how what you have written in this paragraph follows in any way from your preceding comments and I don’t understand how you can link it to Pat Churchland’s work. Whilst she does refer to evolution as a contributer to social systems – as in the heirarchies observable in wolf packs – she is an advocate of the significance of electrical and chemical influences on brain activity. She has stated that “things spiritual are just not in my temperament” and has made it clear that she does not attribute morality to anything God-given. It does not follow, therefore, that she sees morality as “an independently existing thing in itself, rather than a man-made concept”. In fact, John Mikhail, in a critique of her work, points to her “skepticism toward innate moral principles”.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: What is moral in life?

Post by Eduk »

I am in broad agreement with the points you make, and particularly so with your opinion that there are no objective and universal moral truths.
In terms of subjectivity and objectivity when does something become objective? For example most humans have morals, I would conjecture that most humans have the same (or nearly the same) morals. By the way there are many things people do which they call moral where I disagree with the definition. I would certainly agree that morals only make sense when applied to humans, so I don't believe there is a moral field we are all passing through. It could of course be that the whole universe was made with the express purpose of creating morals (but this is outside testability and besides I'm not sure that would count as objective?).
My basic point is that is all/most humans have morals which are the same/very similar than could this be said to be an objective morality?
I agree for example that morals evolved. Morals may be mostly advantageous to survival (although not necessarily and certainly not necessarily for specific examples). But this is the key part does them being having evolved make them less real or less objective?
Also is there a confusion of emotion and morals, are these things separate?
Unknown means unknown.
Iapetus
Posts: 402
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: What is moral in life?

Post by Iapetus »

Reply to Eduk:
In terms of subjectivity and objectivity when does something become objective? For example most humans have morals, I would conjecture that most humans have the same (or nearly the same) morals. By the way there are many things people do which they call moral where I disagree with the definition. I would certainly agree that morals only make sense when applied to humans, so I don't believe there is a moral field we are all passing through. It could of course be that the whole universe was made with the express purpose of creating morals (but this is outside testability and besides I'm not sure that would count as objective?).
Having agreed that there are no objective and universal moral truths, I don’t know what, exactly, you expect from me when you ask, when does something become objective? My answer has to be, it doesn’t. I have already told you that, “I have serious reservations about the use of the terms ‘moral’ and ‘truth’ because, like ‘God’, their definitions tend to be vague and varying”. The argument, to a considerable extent, must depend on the definitions which are offered.

When you say, “I would conjecture that most humans have the same (or nearly the same) morals”, how many examples would you like me to give to demonstrate that people interpret moral positions differently? The view of the pacifist as opposed to the terrorist killer. The anti-abortionist who argues that all life is sacred as opposed to the pro-abortionist who argues that a woman has the right to exercise choice in relation to her own body. The passionate patriot who argues that their country comes before everything verses the position that we live in a world community. Christianity versus Islam. Hinduism verses Sikhism. What definition of ‘morals’ leads you to this conjecture?
My basic point is that is all/most humans have morals which are the same/very similar than could this be said to be an objective morality?
Please give me an example of an objective morality so that we can explore the idea. If your argument is that there are certain acts, such as killing babies, which tend to be condemned by most – but certainly not all – people, then is the motive irrelevant? If one person argues that such an act is unlikely to increase global wellbeing, whereas another argues that it is bad because a holy book tells them so, then are you suggesting that their moral position is the same? If so, then I think it is incumbent on you to offer a definition of ‘moral’ which makes this clear. And, of course, killing babies is sanctioned in the Bible; Psalm 137:9, 1 Samuel 15:2-3, Exodus 12:29-30, Exodus 32:26-29, amongst others.
I agree for example that morals evolved. Morals may be mostly advantageous to survival (although not necessarily and certainly not necessarily for specific examples). But this is the key part does them being having evolved make them less real or less objective?
I understand the argument that morality evolved but I am not sure about the extent to which I would go along with it. I can certainly accept that many moral choices may be partly determined by genetic disposition but I also think that the development of language played a vital part, as did the pressures exerted upon communal living as a result of technological innovation. The explanations are far from straightforward.
Also is there a confusion of emotion and morals, are these things separate?
That would depend on your definition of emotion and morality.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: What is moral in life?

Post by Eduk »

I don’t know what, exactly, you expect from me when you ask, when does something become objective? My answer has to be, it doesn’t
Apologies I meant that as a general point. If as a thought experiment we agreed that most humans had the same morals (please just as a thought experiment). In that case would that count as objective?
how many examples would you like me to give to demonstrate that people interpret moral positions differently?
There is no shortage of examples of bad choices which cause all involved much harm. But for something to be moral, by definition doesn't it have be good for individuals and people as a whole? I may be misdefining morality? Just as an example, your average terrorist is causing much more harm than good in the world. Of course they believe they are doing the moral thing and it is the exploitation of their emotions which leads them to believe this. Again I may be defining morality incorrectly?
If so, then I think it is incumbent on you to offer a definition of ‘moral’ which makes this clear. And, of course, killing babies is sanctioned in the Bible; Psalm 137:9, 1 Samuel 15:2-3, Exodus 12:29-30, Exodus 32:26-29, amongst others.
I don't define moral behaviour as whatever passages you choose to accept and how you wish to interpret them from whichever bible you choose to read. Just because someone says something is moral doesn't mean it is. Again if you define morals as positive things.

I would define morals as aiding the survival of positive and real aspects of humanity. Of course interpretation plays a massive part per individual, but some interpretations are more right than others.
Unknown means unknown.
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: What is moral in life?

Post by Wilson »

Eduk wrote: My basic point is that is all/most humans have morals which are the same/very similar than could this be said to be an objective morality?
Radical Muslims believe that the random slaughter of infidels is pleasing in the eyes of God.
Also is there a confusion of emotion and morals, are these things separate?
The internet definition of "morality" is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." So whether one arrives at a conclusion as to the rightness or wrongness of an action by rules or by instinct or by reading a holy book, that's still morality, by definition. I do believe that our moral decisions are mostly emotional or instinctual. In other words, if you see a child being abused, you don't look at your rule book, you react out of empathy and concern.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: What is moral in life?

Post by Eduk »

But are there good moral beliefs and bad moral beliefs? Or do morals have to good. So a bad moral belief isn't moral?
Unknown means unknown.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: What is moral in life?

Post by Fooloso4 »

Eduk:
If as a thought experiment we agreed that most humans had the same morals (please just as a thought experiment). In that case would that count as objective?
Kant defined the objectivity as the universal subjectivity. It is not a matter of compromise and reaching agreement but of the architecture of the mind, that is, the categories of understanding. Specifically with regard to morals, it is a morality based upon and regulated by reason. Just as reason yields universal agreement in mathematics, the right use of reason is able to do this in all areas governed by reason.

The other way in which morals could be considered objective is if an absolute moral authority such as God gave us a moral law.

If one accepts one of these options what would count as objective would be in the right case what reason dictates, and in the second, whatever the moral authority authorizes and forbids.

Now of course if you ask for specific examples you will not find universal or objective agreement, or, in other words, both options fail.
Iapetus
Posts: 402
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: What is moral in life?

Post by Iapetus »

Reply to Eduk:
If as a thought experiment we agreed that most humans had the same morals (please just as a thought experiment). In that case would that count as objective?
Here’s a parallel thought experiment. If all humans had pointy ears and long whiskers, would that make them cats? I can’t see your point. Humans are not like that. My point is that it is impossible to demonstrate that any two people on earth believe in exactly the same things. Even where they think they share common ideas, they tend to interpret things differently.
But for something to be moral, by definition doesn't it have be good for individuals and people as a whole? I may be misdefining morality?
I don’t think you have begun to define morality. By refering to ‘good’ or ‘bad’ you have already arrived at value judgements without at any point indicating on what basis you make them. One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter.
I don't define moral behaviour as whatever passages you choose to accept and how you wish to interpret them from whichever bible you choose to read.
Neither do I. So how do you define it? I don’t imagine that anybody is capable of following every ‘rule’ in the Bible, particularly when so many conflict. But individuals and even groups may tend to concentrate on aspects which they regard as significant. Others are likely to think differently.
Just because someone says something is moral doesn't mean it is.
What, precisely, do you mean by this? If somebody genuinely asserts as ‘moral’ something with which you disagree, then who are you to say they are ‘wrong’? I am not saying that there is not an answer to this but you have not come close to offering it.
Again if you define morals as positive things.
You haven’t defined morals. One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter. How is this objective? Do you have an example of objective morality which we can address?

-- Updated 17 Feb 2017, 21:02 to add the following --

Reply to Wilson:
The internet definition of "morality" is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." So whether one arrives at a conclusion as to the rightness or wrongness of an action by rules or by instinct or by reading a holy book, that's still morality, by definition.
In the light of what you wrote previously I think I go along with most of this. I do, however, take issue with the internet definition. I found a definition of morality which suggested that it is related to how we make moral choices. What use is that, when the definition is circular? In the same way, how can we distinguish between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ and ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ if we offer no guidelines as to how they can be distinguished? I have an idea about how I would make such judgements and that makes my morality personal to me. I am only too aware that other people think differently. This is why I agree with you that there no objective and universal moral truths.
I do believe that our moral decisions are mostly emotional or instinctual. In other words, if you see a child being abused, you don't look at your rule book, you react out of empathy and concern.
I entirely agree that many ‘moral’ decisions are influenced by emotion, instinct, empathy and concern. They are also influenced by upbringing, social experience, cultural background and a host of other factors. These proportions differ hugely from person to person and I doubt that anybody on the planet has a full comprehension of the range as it applies to them. And then there is reason and logic. These are probably the only factors which are readily amenable to considered argument in a philosophy forum. It allows questions to be asked and responded to. The discussions which ensue are thus necessarily limited; another reason why I am reluctant to refer to ‘morality’.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: What is moral in life?

Post by Gertie »

Iapetus
Reply to Gertie:

I agree with you that many of Pat Churchland’s ideas are very interesting and pertinent. She makes an impressive case for the impact of chemicals – and in particular hormones – on behaviour patterns, initiated by changes in brain chemistry.
And the argument goes, that eventually these types of evolved caring and social impulses which didn't seem to make sense from a selfish survival perspective, were grounded in an independent, objectively existing, real (God-Given) Morality. So Morality came to be seen as an independently existing thing in itself, rather than a man-made concept.
I fail to see how what you have written in this paragraph follows in any way from your preceding comments and I don’t understand how you can link it to Pat Churchland’s work. Whilst she does refer to evolution as a contributer to social systems – as in the heirarchies observable in wolf packs – she is an advocate of the significance of electrical and chemical influences on brain activity. She has stated that “things spiritual are just not in my temperament” and has made it clear that she does not attribute morality to anything God-given. It does not follow, therefore, that she sees morality as “an independently existing thing in itself, rather than a man-made concept”. In fact, John Mikhail, in a critique of her work, points to her “skepticism toward innate moral principles”.
You misunderstood me.

To clarify, no that isn't Churchland's argument, it's my
shorthand for how people came to think of morality. Many people did come to
believe what came to be called 'morality' has some objective existence, and/or
is God-given. But now people like Churchland are helping us to understand that
'survival of the fittest' evolution can result in altruism, for example. No
gods required.
User avatar
Lark_Truth
Posts: 212
Joined: December 24th, 2016, 11:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Brandon Sanderson

Re: What is moral in life?

Post by Lark_Truth »

Wow, you guys are really getting into this, aren't you?
I rather thank that morality is like playing a sports game. In playing sports, everybody wants to have fun. How does everybody have fun? By playing by the rules. Part of those rules involve the players staying within the lines that have been carefully drawn as per the game regulations. The most universal lines in almost any game are the boundary lines. If you stray outside of those lines, then you earn a foul or something against your team, which is sort of bad in some cases.
Morality is like such a game. You stay inside of the lines, you and a lot of people - even if they are your opponents - have a lot of fun playing a good game. You go outside of the lines, then that counts against you.
One could also think of morality being a guardrail over looking a sort of landscape of thick clouds with the sun shining down on them. If somebody gets bored with the fantastic view and wants something more, they jump over the guardrail, not seeing the cliff hidden by the cloudscape. All we hear from them is a big: Splat! (How gruesome.)
What I'm saying is that the lines in life are already drawn, the guardrails are already in place. The game of life is already fun, breaking its rules is not, even though we might want to push against those rules. The scenery that we can watch from the guardrail is great, falling off of a cliff is not.
A lot of you have mentioned that a culture's opinions on morality depends of what they believe. I don't see that as morality, just somebody's beliefs, their faith. I can agree that acting in morality does take faith, but does faith define what is moral? I do not think so.
Truth is Power. Reason is Wisdom. Intelligence is Experience. Hope is Bright!
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: What is moral in life?

Post by Eduk »

Iapetus I would say it was moral to read other people's posts in a forum with a principal of charity. In this manner you will more likely understand the other person's post. Which will in turn lead to a better discussion for all involved. Someone else could say that their moral outlook would be to read posts from the point of view of a troll. So how do we work out which one is actually moral? Or more moral? We consider the reward that both parties have had and the contentment and stimulation both parties have had and the corresponding effects on quality of life. An engaged charitably minded individual will have a more rewarding happier more productive life than a troll the vast majority of the time. I say vast majority because perverse people are born, immoral people are born. And there is of course bad luck such as car accidents and deseases.
Unknown means unknown.
Iapetus
Posts: 402
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: What is moral in life?

Post by Iapetus »

Reply to Gertie:
To clarify, no that isn't Churchland's argument, it's my shorthand for how people came to think of morality. Many people did come to believe what came to be called 'morality' has some objective existence, and/or is God-given. But now people like Churchland are helping us to understand that 'survival of the fittest' evolution can result in altruism, for example. No gods required.
Thanks for your clarification; I’m fine with that.

-- Updated 18 Feb 2017, 12:53 to add the following --

Reply to Eduk:
Iapetus I would say it was moral to read other people's posts in a forum with a principal of charity. In this manner you will more likely understand the other person's post. Which will in turn lead to a better discussion for all involved.
Eduk, I honestly don’t know what to make of your post. Are you complaining about the way in which I respond to a post or are you simply trying to give an example of ‘moral’? In what way do I lack ‘charity’? I try to remain civil at all times and I certainly do not troll. I go to very considerable lengths to try to understand what people are saying and, if their meaning is not clear, then I ask questions, as I have done with you. I believe that approach is well within what is appropriate in a philosophy forum. If, however, I do not receive answers to my questions or responses to my points, then it is certainly difficult to maintain a meaningful conversation. I have given you the charity of trying to respond to every point you have made and, if you think I have missed any, then please let me know. You have not done likewise.

You initiated the conversation with the question, “In terms of subjectivity and objectivity when does something become objective?” Since I had already explained my position about ‘objective’ morality, I restated it and added further explanation, stressing the importance of definitions. You have not responded.

You then asked, “I would conjecture that most humans have the same (or nearly the same) morals”. I disagreed and explained at some length. I asked in return, "What definition of ‘morals’ leads you to this conjecture?" You have not answered.

You then offered this; “My basic point is that is all/most humans have morals which are the same/very similar than could this be said to be an objective morality?” Since I had already explained why I do not accept your premise, I could have left it at that. But I didn’t. I said, “Please give me an example of an objective morality so that we can explore the idea”. You haven’t given me one. Instead, I offered a possibility of one; rejection of killing babies and I wrote a paragraph about it. I refered back to the possibility that everybody might agree. But, to my way of thinking, this would still not make it objective. I asked, “is the motive irrelevant?” I could have gone into more detail at that point but I wanted to wait for your response. You didn’t offer one.

You mentioned the significance of evolution and I wrote a paragraph to explain that I thought there was more to it than that. No response.

You asked about possible confusion between emotion and morals and I said it depended on the definitions. You haven’t offered any.

In your next post you returned to the thought experiment but gave no consideration to my previous answer, when I introduced the idea of motivation. So I gave you a different type of answer, “If all humans had pointy ears and long whiskers, would that make them cats?”. I think it is a philosophically valid alternative. You have not responded.

You then asked, “But for something to be moral, by definition doesn't it have be good for individuals and people as a whole?” I explained that this could not work as a definition because it employed a value judgement without explanation. You have not responded.

Then three more statements about morals without any attempt to define what you meant. I responded to each of them.

I am more than happy to pursue the concept of objective morality but, without feedback, I don’t know what more you can expect.

I have granted you the courtesy of reading your posts and responding in detail. You have not done likewise. I can live with that but I do bridle a little if the suggestion then is that I am being uncharitable. If you think I am being unreasonable, then please explain how and why.
Someone else could say that their moral outlook would be to read posts from the point of view of a troll. So how do we work out which one is actually moral? Or more moral? We consider the reward that both parties have had and the contentment and stimulation both parties have had and the corresponding effects on quality of life. An engaged charitably minded individual will have a more rewarding happier more productive life than a troll the vast majority of the time. I say vast majority because perverse people are born, immoral people are born. And there is of course bad luck such as car accidents and deseases.
I am sorry but I have difficulty in making sense of this. Something about the morality of reading posts, about trolls not leading productive lives and immoral people being born. If you have a specific point to make, some rephrasing would certainly help.
User avatar
Aristocles
Premium Member
Posts: 508
Joined: April 20th, 2015, 8:15 am

Re: What is moral in life?

Post by Aristocles »

When we ask what is moral in life, just as we ask the meaning of morality, what started morality, objectivity in morality, or just objectivity versus subjectivity (extensive threads already on the forum in each subject referenced), we then come to these psychological impasses disguised with our language/definitions, etc... Maybe this is just that part of "life" that illustrates a more fundamental "morality."

In so doing, when we use words including: all (no exceptions), impossible (cannot be otherwise), exactly (perfection), is (equality), any (infinite inclusion), anybody (infinite inclusion of bodies), every (no exceptions), entirely (complete), necessary (cannot be otherwise), then how can it be consistent to use such objective seeming words to eliminate claims to "objectivity/universal", etc..?
User avatar
Lark_Truth
Posts: 212
Joined: December 24th, 2016, 11:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Brandon Sanderson

Re: What is moral in life?

Post by Lark_Truth »

Could what is truly moral in life be what keeps trust strong?
For instance: Somebody has an affair with someone that they are not married to. Because of that, peoples' perception of the people who had that affair is warped and they turn away from that person, breaking off all relations to them. Infidelity tears families apart. It's not peoples's perception of morality that tears apart the bonds of trust, but the fact that somebody they thought they knew well went behind their back and betrayed their trust, and they are extremely emotionally hurt by that.
Another instance: A man and a women have been happily married for several years. The husband goes out drinking, comes home, gets into a rage (either in anger or lust) towards his wife and hurts her badly. When he falls asleep, she packs her backs, takes the kids, and gets out of there. He betrayed her trust, not by just going out and blowing a lot of money on alcohol, but by hurting her, and thus he has lost her trust, and she will never return to him, maybe get a divorce and remarries.
Third example: There are two teenagers who have been in a friendship for a while. The first teenager starts to constantly tease the other and the teasing begins to degrade on second's feelings and psychological state. After a while, the first teenager finds out (probably from their parent who heard from the second teenager's parent what their kid's comments were doing to their kid) just what their comments have been doing and apologizes. The second friend forgives the other, but says that they can no longer be friends because the first teenager has betrayed his friendship and his trust.
Is there a pattern here?
Can what is immoral be that which betrays our trust for others?
Truth is Power. Reason is Wisdom. Intelligence is Experience. Hope is Bright!
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