The embryo: A mass of cells for research or the magic of god

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
OTavern
Posts: 458
Joined: January 27th, 2008, 8:43 pm

Post by OTavern »

Meleagar wrote:Top-down morality is a necessity to establish any moral authority, because none is availabe through relativism.

Just because it might be a difficult task to properly interpret or undestand the rules of proper moral behavior doesn't mean one should just throw up their hands and give up to relativism. It seems to me that many people have an intractable aversion to authority or truth and would rather equivocate into gray oblivion than submit to authoritative values that would require condeming the behavior of others as immoral.
Agreed. This is a very critical point because it has not just one but two aspects that make it is profoundly easy to identify with relativism:
1. As you say it protects us from having to condemn or sanction others for their behaviour. It is far easier to say, "To each his own!" than to hold others accountable. That takes moral courage.
2. It also protects us from holding ourselves accountable. It is far easier to, as you say, "equivocate into oblivion" or hide behind diluted ethical principles than to condemn our own behaviour. Pride rears its ugly head when we realize we are not the moral beings we thought we were. Relativism is an open escape hatch. Where does it lead?

From a notorious relativist:
Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories, and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascism. - Benito Mussolini
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13821
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda »

Meleagar wrote:If someone disagrees and claims that it is morally acceptable to torture a child, will you turn a blind eye in the name of relativism?
No. I would intervene if I possibly could to save the child. I am a person of my culture which is opposed to child torture, heart and mind.There is a case here in the UK of a Turkish Kurdish man who has just been jailed because he acted on a belief that the most important consideration is what he and his culture consider to be his family 'honour'. This man murdered his daughter. Towards the end of a longish court case the man's wife shouted to him across the court "what did you do to Tulay?" This man's wife is afraid for her own safety living as she does within such a culture of male supremacy, yet she was able, under the influence , and I hope protection,of western cultural values, to express her genuine feelings as a mother.

The police are aware that there are many unproven cases of torture and murder of women and girls, and our western culture is utterly opposed to brutal male supremacy and has even arrived at equality of the sexes.There is undoubtedly a conflict of cultures in this and other regards.

Cultural relativity is a fact of life, but cultural relativity does not imply that you or I should endorse what we perceive from our own culture's perspective to be cruelty and injustice.

Quote:
Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories, and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascism. - Benito Mussolini



Mussolini was wrong though. Cultural relativism is not moral relativism. Moral relativism is absent from real politics. The aberration from received western cultural values that was Fascism made the war of 1939-45 a just war.
Socialist
Meleagar
Posts: 1877
Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
Contact:

Post by Meleagar »

Belinda wrote: Cultural relativity is a fact of life, but cultural relativity does not imply that you or I should endorse what we perceive from our own culture's perspective to be cruelty and injustice.
Nor does it imply that we should allow the brutalization of women and children in other cultures under the excuse of "cultural relativity". If you believe that brutalizing women and children is morally wrong in all cases, then you have an obligation and the moral authority to step in and stop it.
User avatar
wanabe
Posts: 3377
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Post by wanabe »

Its not begging the question Meleagar. If the child was say, we'll use a historical hypothetical: child hiding the location of a group of Jewish prisoners, starving, about to be gassed whatever, and wasn't telling because he is an Aryan youth. I think it would justify his torture (to be clear its not right just justified).
If it is, then what you are left with is that it is justifiable to torture a child for any reason any individual believes justifies it, even if that justification is their own pleasure, because all such values and beliefs are relative.


There is a dark side to free will however.
wanabe wrote:To answer your question directly: I would do my best to look at all the circumstances to make sure the kid isn't withholding some information that would be of greater moral(or otherwise) significance. If he was not I would rescue him in some way... You set no grounds in post #24 about when it is moray acceptable so I am generalizing.
I believe these comments combined are reasonable logic.

Relativism is being conscious of multiple ideas/beliefs. It can't be "followed" because one can't follow everything(all moral systems etc.), though I try.

It's not like relativists actually don't pick and choose a certain morality over another, they are just conscious that nothing is perfect and because we are imperfect so it's best to consider all options and think carefully, but some may get lost in it, sure.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.
Meleagar
Posts: 1877
Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
Contact:

Post by Meleagar »

While the other person believes he is justified in gassing the jews. Unfortunately, since you have no means by which to assess his behavior as immoral, since it is all relative, it makes your immoral act of torturing the child unjustified.

It is unjustified because there is no foundational basis of moral evaluation that can justify it in relationship to the other act that will occur if you don't stop it. Gassed jews, a tortured child ... all things relativists can justify given the "proper circumstances".

How do you know the jews are not being gassed under the proper circumstances, seeing as you've already stated that any atrocity can be justified given the "proper" circumstances?
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13821
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda »

While the other person believes he is justified in gassing the jews. Unfortunately, since you have no means by which to assess his behavior as immoral, since it is all relative, it makes your immoral act of torturing the child unjustified
He has a criterion though. He is in touch with basic compassion. I say 'basic' with reference to mirror neurons.If, alternatively, the child had been brutalised, callous and therfore unable to act, that is he would have been alienated from the faculty provided by his mirror neurons, he would have had no access to the criterion.

The other and supplementary criterion that the good child may have had is reason. He may have been able to reason that if everyone acted like the Nazi killers, eventually everyone would be dead.
Socialist
Meleagar
Posts: 1877
Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
Contact:

Post by Meleagar »

Belinda wrote:
He has a criterion though. He is in touch with basic compassion. I say 'basic' with reference to mirror neurons.If, alternatively, the child had been brutalised, callous and therfore unable to act, that is he would have been alienated from the faculty provided by his mirror neurons, he would have had no access to the criterion.

The other and supplementary criterion that the good child may have had is reason. He may have been able to reason that if everyone acted like the Nazi killers, eventually everyone would be dead.
Unless you are going to provide a pattern of neurons that serves as the criterion for what is and is not moral, and then explain why anyone else should accept what your pattern of neurons say is the correct pattern of neurons and resulting behavior instead of that of the Nazis, then you have no basis for meaningful comparative moral justification beyond just doing whatever you want to do however you justify it.

Morality cannot be explained via relativistic reductionism because you cannot get an ought from an is. Relativistic reductionism only gives us what is; it doesn't tell us what ought to be. The only thing that can tell us what ought to be in terms of moralty is a transcendent moral value.
User avatar
wanabe
Posts: 3377
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Post by wanabe »

Meleagar,
I don't know what to call(the name) the means by which I make my moral judgments, how ever I must have some base, even if it is too wide or complex for you to take it all in as presented in a single thread.

You can call your beliefs whatever you like, but you too practice relativism(not extreme relativism, just like me). Relativism is as I have said before, a tool to assess a moral situation critically taking in all(as many as possible) factors. It is the ability(or practice) to compare and contrast one moral system to another so that a more universal action can be taken.

I am not someone lost in relativism or at the extreme end of any -ism nor are you.

Where do you base your moral beliefs, you say you have free will so you must change your base as the situation presents its self.

There is no solid base from which to always stand on an issue one answer is not suited for every scenario.

Do you understand the differentiation I have made between justification and right?

When did I start torturing children?

I think you need to slow down and re-read what I have written, and not be so apt to make a monster out of someone else's beliefs before you realize how similar they are to your own, this is why relativism is important.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13821
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda »

Meleagar wrote:
Belinda wrote:
He has a criterion though. He is in touch with basic compassion. I say 'basic' with reference to mirror neurons.If, alternatively, the child had been brutalised, callous and therfore unable to act, that is he would have been alienated from the faculty provided by his mirror neurons, he would have had no access to the criterion.

The other and supplementary criterion that the good child may have had is reason. He may have been able to reason that if everyone acted like the Nazi killers, eventually everyone would be dead.
Unless you are going to provide a pattern of neurons that serves as the criterion for what is and is not moral, and then explain why anyone else should accept what your pattern of neurons say is the correct pattern of neurons and resulting behavior instead of that of the Nazis, then you have no basis for meaningful comparative moral justification beyond just doing whatever you want to do however you justify it.

Morality cannot be explained via relativistic reductionism because you cannot get an ought from an is. Relativistic reductionism only gives us what is; it doesn't tell us what ought to be. The only thing that can tell us what ought to be in terms of moralty is a transcendent moral value.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran06/ram achandran06_index.html

This is an article about mirror neurons and their relation to empathy. Obviously, if the mirror neuron theory is correct, Nazis who planned and carried out atrocities must have vetoed their mirror neurons, possibly by rationalising the prevalent culture of fear in Germany at that time, and in the cases of lesser Nazis,by obedience to authority.
Socialist
Meleagar
Posts: 1877
Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
Contact:

Post by Meleagar »

wanabe wrote: You can call your beliefs whatever you like, but you too practice relativism(not extreme relativism, just like me).
How would you know? I haven't told you anything about my moral system.
Relativism is as I have said before, a tool to assess a moral situation critically taking in all(as many as possible) factors. It is the ability(or practice) to compare and contrast one moral system to another so that a more universal action can be taken.
The interesting thing is that you think you've said something of substance above, when in fact you've said nothing other than "whatever a person can justify to themsleves is moral as moral as anything else". That's not a moral system; that's a system of rationalization so that you can feel like you behave morally.

IMO, "It's too complex for this thread" is code for "it's necessarily vague and ill-defined and I don't really want to examine it too closely or it will fall apart. I could be wrong, though.
I am not someone lost in relativism or at the extreme end of any -ism nor are you.
You make statements about my moral system without my having said anything about it. You're not lost in relativism? Being willing to call torturing a child a moral act is about as lost in relativism as you can get.
Where do you base your moral beliefs, you say you have free will so you must change your base as the situation presents its self.
I don't change my "base" at all because I don't subject my moral behavior to outside guidelines or rules nor do I have the need to invent rationalizations for my moral authority. I am a free will creator. A person with free will doesn't have to explain or justify his behavior, nor do they have the need to quantify their morals. Morality isn't relative; it's absolute.

Only the faux morality of biolgical machines without any connection to the eternal is relative, because they piece it together bit by bit out of reductionist perspective; they have no authority; they only have hollow justifications.
There is no solid base from which to always stand on an issue one answer is not suited for every scenario.
I guess when one has dismissed self-authority and embraced relativist reductionism and have become the output of systems, rules, models, explanations and rationalizations, they can find no firm ground to stand on. I understand that.

You and others are just afraid to go where your nihilist philosophy leads and so invent self-refuting concepts like compatabilist free will and relative morality to hide from what your philosophy actually means; that you are nothing and have no authority whatsoever. You are a rock rolling down a hill trying to believe that it is a good path and a righteous settling end-point.
Do you understand the differentiation I have made between justification and right?
I understand your equivocation, and why it is necessary for you to establish this illusion to have some semblance of a reason to continue existing.
When did I start torturing children?
Right after you imagined there would be a set of circumstances that would compel you to do so, and need some means to dress it up as the better thing to do.
I think you need to slow down and re-read what I have written, and not be so apt to make a monster out of someone else's beliefs before you realize how similar they are to your own, this is why relativism is important
You're not a monster, you're just another programmed biological automaton that doesn't realize what it is saying.

But I do appreciate your time.
User avatar
wanabe
Posts: 3377
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Post by wanabe »

If that is as far as you are willing to think about it I can do nothing for you.

I don't want to discuss it in this thread because its been off topic from what an embryo is for and have scared off any 3rd party input long enough.

You have said a great deal about moral systems, enough for me to 'know' where abouts you stand and why, via process of elimination because you are a very liner thinker, who is quick to tell someone that they are wrong before you understand them completely.
Meleagar wrote:I am a free will creator. A person with free will doesn't have to explain or justify his behavior, nor do they have the need to quantify their morals. Morality isn't relative; it's absolute.
I knew some thing along these lines would be your moral system(the above). A relativist does not have to explain or justify his behavior because morality isn't absolute it is relative... Your moral system has similar flaws to that which you see in relativism, only in a different direction.

Morality comes in at least two parts it's ideals and its practice... The ideals which are absolute as you correctly assert; and its practice which is relative as I correctly assert. If only I had said it so plainly before perhaps this un-constructive debate could have been avoided.

The above is what I was trying to explain before

I'm sorry that you only try to see things from one perspective. I would very much like to discuss this issue with you rather than debate it. First it may be best to have some common ground, we do, we both want what is right for every situation.

Morality can be absolute and it can be relative.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.
Simon says...
Posts: 739
Joined: July 10th, 2009, 3:24 am

Post by Simon says... »

If we are talking human embryos I'm sure the subject of abortion will (or perhaps already has) come up so I might as well break the ice. Usually I tended to stay out of the debate about abortion on account of being a man, though with more consideration I thought to myself "ok, so you think a father has less rights than a mother...ok, why?" and to be honest I couldn't find a good answer ergo I got involved. I was struggling to find a justification on the basis that my ethic is based on what is contructive, and abortion is destroying something, this is not contructive. But, then I remembered my debate on vegetarianism...

What I had said, was that the problem with the meat industry was not THAT the animals where being killed, because, all animals including humans, whether wild or not, will ultimately die, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it, our not killing them, does not ultimately save their lives, because in the end, nothing can save anythings life because all life ends, BUT BUT BUT BUT, what DOES matter is HOW things die. So in short, its not THAT animals are dying, but HOW those animals are dying. And not to be hypocritical one can actually apply this to humans. What makes murder unethical, is not THAT your killing someone, its HOW your killing them, (if a human gives consent, (euthanasia), then to not kill them is actually a pervertion of their free will).

Now, that is a problem we CAN deal with, whilst we cannot stop animals from dying, we can stop them being tortured whilst alive. But does boycotting the meat industry do this? No, of course not! Because when the demand for meat goes down, its a common misconception that meat producers just pack up and leave, this is false, what they do is compete for the last scraps of buisness, at which point they resort to ever more unethical means of slaughter and reering to increase the quality and quantity of their meat, and then when the buisness HAS gone under they slaughter their now useless livestock, hence the animals then are killed anyway. Hence boycotting something doesn't always solve the problem, particularly not where the meat industry is concerned, rather what does solve the problem is investment. What makes a difference is investing large amounts in more ethical produce i.e. free range etc. That way, meat producers see that the only way to compete financially, is to resort to ethical means of produce. So if you wanna see less animals tortured, you have to play the producers game, and use his greed against him. So its ok to eat meat, but only if its the right KIND of meat.

Then I thought about abortion. & I realised something. If I'm a proponent of meat eating, then, just how hypocritical would it be of me to be anti-abortion? Why is it ok to kill a fully concious pig, but not a single celled organism? Surely that is very discriminating against animals?

So my perspective became that of pro-choice, on the basis that actually, a single celled organism, by dint of lack a conscious mind with which to suffer, cannot be attributed rights any more than a sperm of egg cell. If we assign rights to "potential people" instead of "people", then if abortion is thus murder, sex in general is surely mass murder, as would be menstruating? The only way to save a sperm or egg's life is to fertilise it and give birth to it, so if the principle is that "it has the potential to be a human being, therefore it must live", then there would literally be no way out, because a woman physically cannot survive being pregnant every time she ovulates, and fertilisation physically cannot happen without the death of millions of sperm cells.

But most importantly I became pro-choice on the basis that by dint of being pro-Meat Eating I couldn't be anti-abortion for fear of being hypocritical.

As regards the mystery of consciousness and when a fetus becomes conscious, well that's clearly a nightmare because we know so little about consciousness on account of all experiments on it being illegal (because such would involve damaging living human brains (look this up)). Certainly there is no rational necessity or empirical observation to justify any assumption of supernatural elements at work (sorry but there REALLY ISN'T!), and all empirical evidence does point towards a material consciousness (sorry but if your one of those people who says that the correlation between material proding of the brain and mental changes does not proove anything you are clearly ignoring what empiricism actually entails! Certaintiy is not actually a prerequisit for proof, merely significant probability above a critical value.) I would argue that the mind works a lot like a large coorporation, with different departments controlling different aspects of the final product. Consciousness, is essentially the mind's senior management. Its important to remember that actually, your mind is a lot larger and more complex than just your consciousness, almost all of what happens in your mind is subconscious. I'd say that consciousness, is basically where the brain is "meta-processing", in other words whilst most of your mind prossesses information through a system of encoding (whereby pragmatic truths are represented through electrical patterns) the consciousness processes these processes.

A subconscious thought is one your not aware of and works like "I have seen apple, message from stomach says its empty, therefore I shall send message to consciousness in the form of the physical sensation called hunger", all of which is electrical patterns which encode (represent) these truths/facts. Then, the conscious part of your mind receives these signals and then goes "I am hungry. Do I want to act on this hunger and eat the apple? I shall ask emotion and memory parts of brain." Sends a signal requesting that information, memory tells emotional centre that everytime you have listened to your hunger and eaten, the hunger went away, and that this is a good thing, motivating emotional centre to say to the consciousness "I want to eat this apple", at which point consciousness says "I want to eat this apple, I can eat this apple, therefore, I will eat this apple", this being both the desire, and planning to carry out a particular action, otherwise known an intension, the basis for free will, and emotion and sensation being the basis for awareness. In short, the consciousness is where decisions about what your action is going to be is formulated based on the information that your subconscious provides.

And of course not all decisions ARE conscious, take reflex actions for example, or sleep walking.
Meleagar
Posts: 1877
Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
Contact:

Post by Meleagar »

Certainly there is no rational necessity or empirical observation to justify any assumption of supernatural elements at work (sorry but there REALLY ISN'T!),
If by "supernatural elements" you mean the theory that consciousness can exist independent of a physical body or brain, then please support your assertion above that there is no empirical evidence in favor of such a theory.
willowtreeme
Posts: 151
Joined: July 8th, 2008, 11:59 am
Location: In the moment

Post by willowtreeme »

Belinda,
Some people cannot differentiate between the right to life of a foetus, the right to life of a newborn and the right to life of a child of seven. Rights to life are not natural rights but are conferred on individuals by the society in which the individuals live.It is therefore necessary to have this dialogue so that compassion for all concerned is taken into consideration.
And THAT is the crux of it. Life is life and when it has been created, there is that RIGHT TO IT.

And since when is the right to life not NATURAL and since when does the society in which we live have the right to confer Life's rights on an individual, no matter what point in conception they are in?

They did that in Nazi Germany, remember?

It is Life itself that confers the right to Life - not society.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13821
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda »

Willowtreeme write about 'Life' as though Life were a person or a human institution who had the power deliberately to confer this or that. This sort of personalisation is rife among believers in a personal God whose personal notions and commands can be anything desired by priests and their followers.
If you know about life, Willowtreeme, you should be able to tell precisely the dividing line between a life form and a not-life form. But you cannot.There isn't one. The best we can do to define 'life' is the biological way citing DNA.

In answer to Willowtreeme's 'since when' question about human rights

The modern conception of human rights developed in the aftermath of the Second World War, in part as a response to the Holocaust, culminating in the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. However, while the phrase "human rights" is relatively modern the intellectual foundations of the modern concept can be traced through the history of philosophy and the concepts of natural law rights and liberties as far back as the city states of Classical Greece and the development of Roman Law. The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the enlightenment concept of natural rights developed by figures such as John Locke and Immanuel Kant and through the political realm in the United States Bill of Rights and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

“ All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Socialist
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