Reason and Morality

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Reason and Morality

Post by -1- »

Ranvier wrote:
Ex. How can one rationalize or justify executing (premeditated murder) a man on the death row... for murder. It goes against logic and morality. I faced many times legally permissible or even ethically advisable situations, yet my "internal" compass forced me to "recuse" myself from committing an immoral act that would otherwise force my hand in social or systemic pressure.
It is reasonable to kill one murderer to prevent more murders.

However, if someone gets to be known as a willing executioner, then he can become a serial killer. Of death row inmates.

I see your logic.

Plus: the original murderer had a reason to kill. One out of three times, death row inmates had committed murder out of passion (they were pissed off to the max by someone else) or out of revenge (same thing). The executioner has no involvement. So he more likely resembles passion-killers (who kill for the thrill) or sociopaths (who have no emotional involvement before, during or after the murder). So the executioner has no moral right to kill, while the people he kills, in about one-third of the time (I got this statistic out of thin air, no research behind my claim), are people who can at least morally be justified in their murderous act.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Reason and Morality

Post by Ranvier »

-1-

That's not exactly what I meant. It's the problem of logic in the State Law that enacts death penalty (premeditated murder of unarmed individual). It's illogical and immoral act. "Moral" Society can't be build upon immoral acts (bloody Revolution). Condoning murder or any immoral act, may provide a short term "solution" but it will breed more problems in the long run. Sacrificing one's own morals for the greater good, is no good at all.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Reason and Morality

Post by -1- »

Ranvier wrote:-1-

That's not exactly what I meant.
Well, welcome to communicating with the human race. Nobody every gets understood exactly what he means by what he says.

-- Updated 2017 August 29th, 11:46 am to add the following --

:-)
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Reason and Morality

Post by Spectrum »

Ranvier wrote:Ex. How can one rationalize or justify executing (premeditated murder) a man on the death row... for murder. It goes against logic and morality. I faced many times legally permissible or even ethically advisable situations, yet my "internal" compass forced me to "recuse" myself from committing an immoral act that would otherwise force my hand in social or systemic pressure.
I can rationalize and reconcile that from the Kantian Approach.

From a more refined philosophical view, Morality [per Kantian] must be separated into the following distinct perspectives, i.e.
  • 1. Morality - Pure - Absolute Moral Laws
    2. Ethics - Applied - Moral-Ethical Maxims
    3. The Legislature & Judiciary - Politics
    4. Individual's conscience capacity
While the above specific elements are interdependent they must first be discussed as independent topics.

Executing a man on death row is actually a Legislature & Judiciary [political] matter which should be independent from Morality and Ethics.
If the death penalty can proven objectively to prevent more deaths then it is justifiable to implement such a law. This [political measure] in one way has nothing to do with Morality and Ethics. If that society do not give consideration to moral and ethical elements then it is a bad government that need improvements.

When a society takes into account the moral and ethical elements then there will be a Moral Gap between what is expected from the Moral-Ethical standards and the Judiciary standards.

The size of the Moral Gap will depend how the basis of the Moral-Ethical standards are set, i.e. based on Consequentialism, Untilarianism, doentological, theistic, principles etc.

I had proposed the following way to setting standards;
  • 1. Moral Absolute Laws - to be based on the Purest and Highest level of Reason
    2. Ethical Law - to be based on Consequentialism, Untilarianism, doentological, theistic, principles.
    3. Judiciary Laws - to be adapted from the above.
Absolute Moral Law based on Pure Reason are used merely as guidance as a fixed goal post but it should not be enforceable. How to establish such standards is a long story. [Kantian].

Ethical Laws are practical Laws adapted from the Absolute Laws to be managed by the individual[s], organizations and groups of people. How - a long story.

Judiciary Laws should be adapted from Absolute Moral Laws but they are strictly political and controlled by governments. These can be based on Consequentialism, Untilarianism, principles but the point it they must strive to improve toward the never-achievable Absolute standards.

Example:
  • Absolute Moral Laws - "Killing of any human is not permissible - period, no ifs nor buts".
    Ethical Laws - say by a Hospital - "we strive to ensure zero death due to negligence.
    Judiciary - say in somewhere in Africa where murders are very prevalent - 'All convicted murders will face the death penalty'
All judiciary laws [assuming based on Consequentialism] must be subject to continuous reviews and improvements toward the Absolute Standard.

One problem and confusion is most people conflate Morality & Ethics with the Legislature & Judiciary. There are more like apples and oranges.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Reason and Morality

Post by Ranvier »

-1-
-1- wrote: Well, welcome to communicating with the human race. Nobody every gets understood exactly what he means by what he says.
Thanks -1-, I realize that time and again, when will I lean?...

-- Updated August 29th, 2017, 11:17 pm to add the following --

Spectrum

There are many words in your post, which were meant to presumably "rationalize" the State premeditated murder.
The only logic you offer in your "more refined [Kantian] philosophy" is the: "If the death penalty can proven objectively to prevent more deaths then it is justifiable to implement such a law."

1. How can this be objectively proven?
2. The ancient lex talionis retaliation resorting of "eye for an eye" is not logical because it may lead to a situation where the family of the "wrongly" (objectively proven) executed individual, would logically have the bases to claim equal punishment to the State. Pretty much the right to kill everyone, especially the executioner and people directly involved in sentencing.
3. Following that logic, removing a right arm of every citizen or blinding everyone would "objectively prevent more future deaths". Should we blind everyone? Why not go a step further in preventive measure and drop Mustard Gas on the population, that would objectively reduce future murder.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Reason and Morality

Post by Spectrum »

Ranvier wrote:Spectrum

There are many words in your post, which were meant to presumably "rationalize" the State premeditated murder.
The only logic you offer in your "more refined [Kantian] philosophy" is the: "If the death penalty can proven objectively to prevent more deaths then it is justifiable to implement such a law."

1. How can this be objectively proven?
2. The ancient lex talionis retaliation resorting of "eye for an eye" is not logical because it may lead to a situation where the family of the "wrongly" (objectively proven) executed individual, would logically have the bases to claim equal punishment to the State. Pretty much the right to kill everyone, especially the executioner and people directly involved in sentencing.
3. Following that logic, removing a right arm of every citizen or blinding everyone would "objectively prevent more future deaths". Should we blind everyone? Why not go a step further in preventive measure and drop Mustard Gas on the population, that would objectively reduce future murder.
What is Kantian is specifically, the judiciary must be separate and is not an essentially part of morality and ethics.
Kant did not go into details on how to operate a political-legislation-judiciary.

I only discussed the death penalty. The rest of your suggestions are rhetorics, surprised you did not suggest why not exterminate the whole human species and there would be more problems?

I stated only IF it can be objective determined and proven [foolproof], then the above consequential ends justify the means can be applied within a legislature and judiciary system. But such steps should be temporary while alternatives which are more effective should be established.

But if it cannot be objectively proven to be precise and humane, then, there is no justifications for the death penalty and humanity must strive hard to find alternatives to close the moral gap, i.e. striving toward the unachievable absolute standard.

My point [in contrast to your claim] is there are possibilities for justification for the death penalty within a political-legislature-judiciary system relative to its circumstances. But note this has nothing to do directly with pure Morality and Ethics.

It is the same with wars.
Within the Moral and Ethical system, it must be absolute necessary no wars are permissible.
But the current state of the majority psychological impulses is many groups will threaten each other and wars in inevitable, thus we have no choice but to raise international laws related to wars [just and otherwise] from the political perspective [not to be mixed with moral and ethics].
Then humanity must find ways to close the Gap between reality and the reasoned absolute moral standards.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Reason and Morality

Post by Ranvier »

Spectrum

Again many words... and pushing forward the Universal Moral Law idea.
All one has to do is to use logic and personal experience (conscience) illuminated by some intellectual wisdom. But logic should suffice in most instances, where you don't commit a "crime" to punish the same crime. That should be logical, whichever rational one wishes to use.

-- Updated September 4th, 2017, 1:20 pm to add the following --
Robert_in_valhalla wrote:
Both the original quote and the later point to internal feelings and compasses. I would argue these are largely products of one's social milieu, one's upbringing, one's education. Where else do they come from? Are you suggesting they are innate? They are transcendent? Divinely inspired?
I'm not excluding such possibility, since this world did not make sense to me even as a child...
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Reason and Morality

Post by Spectrum »

Ranvier wrote:Spectrum
Again many words... and pushing forward the Universal Moral Law idea.
All one has to do is to use logic and personal experience (conscience) illuminated by some intellectual wisdom. But logic should suffice in most instances, where you don't commit a "crime" to punish the same crime. That should be logical, whichever rational one wishes to use.
Based on what you present I assess you lack good managements skills which is necessary for effective improvements and progress for humanity.
The basic elements of management are, P.O.L.I.C.E.
  • 1 Planning
    2.Organizing
    3 Leading
    3.Implementing
    4.Controlling
    5.Empowerment
One of the most critical function is Planning and that require efficient Goal Setting.
The saying "If one fail to plan, then one planned to fail."
Note Planning definitely require the highest level of reasoning. These days the most powerful computers are used to compute large amount of data to facilitate planning.

A review of literature in management will reveal that lasting and efficient organization has a specific long term Universal Goal relevant to the organization [commercial or otherwise] that is supported by supported by various short term goals. The long term goal is usual or mission or vision of a company or organization.

When we deal with Morality and Ethics are are dealing with ALL humans without exceptions and I called that Team Humanity.
Without effective management, the morality and ethics will not progress from its present state.
Effective management requires good Planning strategies.
Good Planning strategies need the setting of long term goals.
The long term goals of Team Humanity has to be Universal Moral Standards/Goals/Maxims.

Your denouncing of my proposal for Universal Moral Standards/Goals/Maxim indicate your lack of good wisdom and philosophy in tacking the subject of Morality and Ethics.

-- Updated Tue Sep 05, 2017 12:03 am to add the following --

The long term goal is usual or mission or vision of a company or organization.
should be:
The long term goal is usually the 'mission' or 'vision' of a company or organization.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Reason and Morality

Post by Ranvier »

Spectrum

You know what they say about assumptions.... that's in reference to your assessment :)
Morality is an abstract concept, similar to love.
Apply P.O.L.I.C.E to the goal of falling in love with someone and see how it works out, especially with "C" ;)

As for the direction or the goal for humanity, I will walk with you to achieve such a goal, especially since this world doesn't make sense. But stop abusing the term "Morality" to define such aim.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Reason and Morality

Post by Spectrum »

Ranvier wrote:Spectrum

You know what they say about assumptions.... that's in reference to your assessment :)
Morality is an abstract concept, similar to love.
Apply P.O.L.I.C.E to the goal of falling in love with someone and see how it works out, especially with "C" ;)

As for the direction or the goal for humanity, I will walk with you to achieve such a goal, especially since this world doesn't make sense. But stop abusing the term "Morality" to define such aim.
The Philosophy of Morality & Ethics [comparable to Epistemology, logic, metaphysics] is a very significant concept in contrast to the concept of Love [merely an emotion].
Your 'marriage' example is a bit way off especially when there is near infinite numbers where management and its "C" is so critical.
I am very surprised you raised doubts with the element of control by jumping to 'autocratic' thinking which is getting outdated in the present phase of humanity's progress.

There are many perspective to "C" in a marriage. That one need a legal marriage license or contract is a form of control for both parties. A prenuptial contract is a critical control for some marriages.

Basically, the fundamental of morality in a marriage is there must be mutuality in the respect of each other's basic humanity dignity based on universal moral standards.

All of reality operate within is a system [System Theory].
In any system, "control" is a critical element beside input, process, and output.
Note https://en.wik1pedia.org/wiki/Control_system

-- Updated Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:32 am to add the following --
You know what they say about assumptions.... that's in reference to your assessment
There are no assumptions involved in P.O.L.I.C.E.
These are the observed principles from real organizations, experience and objective results that constitute good management.
Those that who do not implement P.O.L.I.C.E principles are doomed to fail sooner than most.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Reason and Morality

Post by Burning ghost »

I am reminded of the movie scene from "I Robot", where Will Smith is saved by the robot because the robot calculated the best course of action to save a human life. The robot could not understand the difference between saving a child and saving an adult. It was wholly incapable of understanding that taking the best logical option is not necessarily the best moral option.

We cannot "blame" the robot in the movie scenario though. In a sense the robot in the movie represents man-made law. Adhering to the law is basically about denying self responsibility. That said, it is clear there is a place for law in complex society because humans are fallible and often make numerous mistakes.

The general human struggle is coming to terms with our unknown amount of responsibility. Some people openly look to take on a more heavier burden than others, taking on too much or not enough is obviously damaging. We simply have to accept that there is no real way of knowing how much responsibility we have and remaining on guard.

Our "not knowing" is part of the beauty of life. Ignorance is what we make of it. Some choose to nihilism and others martyrdom, in some respects these opposing extremes share little that is different.

note: I don't have "Critique of Pure Reason" with me right now. I will pull out Kant's quote relating to this topic when I get home next week. Then hopefully move this topic forward toward what reconciliation between reason and morality means to me.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Mbw
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: February 5th, 2017, 5:48 pm

Mrs DoAsYouWouldBeDoneBy

Post by Mbw »

I have asked a few people the question "why shouldn't one steal?"
Often I get back answers like "the police might lock you up" or "it is socially unacceptable" or "it is morally wrong" or even "God tells us not to".
My answer is simply "because it pisses people off!"
I expect that every one of us has experienced being stolen from, so you know how annoying it can be.

The question now becomes "why should we try to avoid (deliberately) annoying people?"
My response is: imagine an interaction with some random person, for example perhaps you accidentally bump into them.
Would you prefer it if this person smiles and accepts your apology or gives you a stream of abuse?
You walk away from the abusive individual thinking "what a miserable person"
but should you blame this person, or the annoying persons unknown who have left them in their current state of misery?

There are enough accidental or unavoidable reasons generating unhappiness around us without deliberately causing more.
I personally believe that I would prefer to live in a world with less misery in it rather than a world with more misery,
it is therefore obvious that I should not deliberately undertake actions that I know will create misery for others.

Obviously there are various unavoidable scenarios, or "cruel to be kind" situations, that can be dreamed up where this simple idea will fail,
but as a general rule of thumb I think this is a reasonable stance, that if I want the world to be better for me, I have to treat others well.
User avatar
Ratwrangler
New Trial Member
Posts: 4
Joined: July 25th, 2017, 9:31 pm

Re: Reason and Morality

Post by Ratwrangler »

While I believe that some people can be led to an immoral decision based on reason, I doubt that I can. I've built my moral code over many years, and I am comfortable with it. Any action I take is based on my moral outlook first, and then reason. While I morally feel that the killing of another human being is inherently wrong, I can justify it for cases like war, self defense, and certain police actions. I do not feel it should be the first action, however. We see in the news almost daily now articles about police officers 'killing poor, innocent, unarmed people' simply because those victims in question are behaving in a non-social and often threatening way, and blatantly disobeying the officers' orders. If the officer in question reaches for his gun and takes lethal action immediately, there is probably a moral issue here. If he assesses the situation and determines that a gun or other weapon might be present and the lives of officers or innocent citizens are threatened, then he has a legal, ethical, and moral duty to do his job and protect others. If his moral fortitude is such that he cannot take the life of another under any circumstances, he should not be a police officer. Likewise if he feels he has a moral duty to kill people. Certain jobs in our society do carry the potential responsibility of killing another person, and those who cannot do that properly should never hold those jobs.


While I am guided very strongly by my own moral code, I am much less affected by our present ethical code, which is what our society follows. Examples would include any laws that protect people from themselves, even if their actions don't adversely affect society or other people. Motorcycle helmet laws are a good one. The proponents of the laws for wearing a helmet always argue that, if the rider without the helmet does not have insurance, society has to pay for his care when he becomes a quadriplegic due to an accident. I contend that that is society's choice to pay, not mine. If the rider knows full well that if he rides without a helmet or insurance, no one will pay for his care, maybe he'll make different decisions. When I was riding, Ohio did not require a helmet for most of that time. My insurance company did require that I wear one. Could I have found insurance that did not have that requirement? Probably, but it would have been more expensive, and logic and reason told me a helmet made sense. Another example would be our 'war on drugs', especially marijuana. There is no solid evidence that marijuana automatically prevents a person from being a good employee, or a good citizen, or that it is even a gateway drug to harder drugs. Alcohol and tobacco cost business and society much more than all the illicit drugs combined, but they are still legal. Morality and reason both tell me that doing a substance or action that has no adverse effect on anyone else should be permitted, other than for cases of age, and therefore legal. In Ohio, it is technically legal for a woman to walk around bare-breasted. If a woman tries it, though, she will be arrested for violation of other laws, usually vague, such as public nuisance. I've seen this challenged in the past.

This being said, I believe that reason cannot trump morality if your morals are clearly defined. Unfortunately, too many people seem to adopt the local ethics as their personal morals without thinking them through. This is the type of behavior that allowed many U.S. citizens to think slavery, and then the Jim Crow laws, segregation, and Prohibition were all OK. Society said they were OK, and none of these followers thought it through. In more recent years, we have had issues with legally issued drugs, such as Valium and various opioid painkillers. When the doctors were handing them out like candy, very few people felt that this was morally wrong simply because our medical community said it was fine. Personally, I've never felt drugs were the answer in the long run. Most of our medical issues of today could have been, and some could be, solved by lifestyle changes. How many people with diabetes today could have avoided it if their doctors told them 20 or 30 years ago to lose weight, get more exercise, and eat healthy foods? Probably most of them. Unfortunately, they selected fast foods with high-fructose corn syrup, almost no fiber, and little nutritional content. Then they actually believed that a glass of V8 was exactly the same as two servings of vegetables, and a multi-vitamin was as good as eating a balanced diet. Are these choices driven by morals, or reason?
User avatar
Mbw
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: February 5th, 2017, 5:48 pm

Re: Reason and Morality

Post by Mbw »

As I indicated in my previous post, my moral compass is heavily guided by what I believe to be my own self interest.
I choose refrain from certain behaviors because I believe that they are likely to affect the society around me in a way which I would find personally undesirable.
However not everyone follows this course, so should we be educating children in such a way as to encourage this style of thinking?

Ratwangler touched on an interesting point regarding the present ethical code, how this changes from place to place, and in particular how it is evolving over time.
To what extent are ethical and moral behaviors an absolute, and how much do they depend on the circumstances and society you find yourself in?
From this one can deduce that other people will have different beliefs regarding which behaviors to encourage and which to discourage.

Who is qualified to decide what is proper behavior?
User avatar
Jan Pahl
Posts: 20
Joined: September 6th, 2017, 3:22 pm

Re: Reason and Morality

Post by Jan Pahl »

I think "quick" answer to your question Burning ghost is that reason never ever acts alone with emotions, motivations and drives...its a empirical fact.
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