Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Belindi »

I credit you with judging from the context which variety of 'love' is referred to.


Desiring to live and protect all children is the default attitude according to both history and most moral codes.


GE Morton wrote:
But while a sound moral theory must apply universally, it need not be universally agreed upon.
If the prevailing moral code is not universally agreed upon at least by members of the participating society it's not sound and may be undergoing a paradigm shift.
That the alternative to reducing the difference yields worse effects, is my argument against Nozick.
By "worse effects," do you mean the envy reaction? John Stuart Mill called envy " . . . that most anti-social and odious of all passions . . .".
In some individual cases yes, but by "worse effects" I mean suffering, and also less efficient productivity.
Is your argument, "If we don't reduce inequality murder and mayhem will ensue"? That argument is a version of "might makes right." A threat --- "your money or your life" --- is not a moral argument.
I am not in a position to threaten anyone. If I were a dictator I'd institute democracy.



Of course people have needs (which vary from person to person, as mentioned above). But the questions were whether Alfie has some duty to meet Bruno's needs, or whether Alfie may be forced to perform that alleged duty.
Alfie's duty may actually be encoded in myth and oral tradition, or even in written law. I think it is actually the law in my own country that I have a legal duty to stop and help someone who is in danger or who has had an accident, whenever possible without increasing general danger or danger to any individual concerned. If Bruno is hungry and there is roast antelope to spare then it's Alfie's duty and pleasure to share it with Bruno even if Bruno is one of his friend's enemies.

As for the need for community, yes, humans are social animals, and most of them desire relationships with others. But the relevant community there is one's circle of family, friends, other associates with whom one maintains personal relationships. Society at large is not necessary to meet that "need."
It's true the bigger the society the more difficult it is to legislate based on democracy. There is a dual way to base legislation on. 1. The rather bleak principle of enlightened reciprocity 2. the arts which are international, intertribal, and interpersonal. I refer especially to narrative stories and also to ritual performances.Truth is not truth unless it's universally true and the best works of art although their forms may be ethnic or typical of their times are universally true in their imports.
The status quo is there is such a thing as personal property. The meaning of "all property is theft" is twofold. 1.If Alfie consumes one particular thing Bruno has no opportunity to get it for himself.Fact.
That is true. We've covered that. That is true of anything anyone consumes. But unless the thing consumed belonged to someone else, taking and consuming it is not theft. So describing it is an attempt to portray it as immoral. But deeming it immoral leads to the reductio ad absurdum mentioned earlier.
How would you stand vis a vis the climate emergency and shared natural resources such as air and water, and pathogenic infections? There are identifiable individuals who 'steal' those for their own use thereby making the resources unavailable in perpetuity for others.Call this 'theft'or some other term of disapproval but I defy you to legitimate this stupid and selfish behaviour.
Again, you're relying either on an assumption that Alfie has some duty to meet Bruno's needs, or that his needs give rise to property rights. The first requires a moral argument, and the second is historically false (historically, property rights arise from first possession, and have nothing to do with needs).
Please see above.


Are you arguing that all private property must be collectivized because 3% of its value is derived from natural resources? Also, there seems to be an underlying presumption there that natural resources are all public property, that "the public" is their owner. What is the basis for that belief? (You're not alone with that presumption, of course, which I've elsewhere described as "Locke's error").


Again, please see above. There is now an ecological imperative that over rides all other moral and practical demands.
That doesn't answer the question of, What is each person's "fair share" of those products and services?
I can't give minute rules and regulations. The differences are so enormous and obvious it's easy to see how to make some inroads into reducing them.


Majority rule and consensus are two different things. Majority rule is a workable, and morally defensible, method of reaching a decision where there are multiple decision-makers, all of whom have an equal right to make the decision. E.g., if Alfie, Bruno, and Chauncey have equal shares in factory, then they may decide by majority vote whether to manufacture widgets or twinkets. But non-owners do not have an equal right to a vote in that decision. They have no right to a vote at all.
I accept 'majority rule' instead of my word 'consensus'.

People who for whatever reason have rights to shares in profits do have a duty to outsiders not to infringe outsiders' rights by e.g poisoning water and air, causing ground tremors, destroying natural resources, causing human exploitation, and failing to clean up after the industry.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Sy Borg »

GE Morton wrote: October 2nd, 2019, 11:21 pm
Felix wrote: October 2nd, 2019, 2:51 pm

That is our main point of disagreement. People are not wholly or simply rational and their moral disposition cannot be either. The aptitute required to understand love and morality is different than the aptitude needed to understand mathematics and chemistry.
Methinks you're still conceiving morality to be a function of, or a product of, emotional responses or "feelings."
That may be because emotions are the reason for morality to exist. If no one minds what happens to them or others, where does morality come from? Calculated entropy?
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Felix »

Greta: That may be because emotions are the reason for morality to exist. If no one minds what happens to them or others, where does morality come from? Calculated entropy?
Yes indeed. I find this statement by GE Morton to be absurd, sounds like a directive one would hear from someone raised by robots:

GE Morton said: "But a rational set of moral rules has no more to do with feelings or emotional makeup than a workable set of rules governing any other arena of human interaction, e.g., a set of traffic rules or fishing/hunting regulations."
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Belindi »

GE Morton:

"But a rational set of moral rules has no more to do with feelings or emotional makeup than a workable set of rules governing any other arena of human interaction, e.g., a set of traffic rules or fishing/hunting regulations."

Rational moral rules includes that people are persons, and this gives rational moral rules an extra dimension compared with traffic rules and fishing/hunting regulations. Once that the great apes become persons hunting regulations will be included with rational moral rules.

What personhood is about:

“If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?". - (Act III, scene I).”

― William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton »

Greta wrote: October 3rd, 2019, 11:17 pm
GE Morton wrote: October 2nd, 2019, 11:21 pm
Methinks you're still conceiving morality to be a function of, or a product of, emotional responses or "feelings."
That may be because emotions are the reason for morality to exist. If no one minds what happens to them or others, where does morality come from? Calculated entropy?
You're entirely right. We seek moral rules because we --- most of us --- desire to live and prosper, because we care about what happens to us and to others. That desire, like all others, is a subjective emotional state. But that desire cannot tell us what those rules should be, what constraints and duties we must accept to accomplish that goal. For that we need to conduct a rational inquiry.

A parallel: A desire to explore Mars is a subjective emotional state. But emotions will not tell us how to build a vehicle or prepare a habitat.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton »

Belindi wrote: October 4th, 2019, 6:42 am
Rational moral rules includes that people are persons, and this gives rational moral rules an extra dimension compared with traffic rules and fishing/hunting regulations. Once that the great apes become persons hunting regulations will be included with rational moral rules.
Traffic rules and hunting/fishing regulations also apply to persons and are designed to further their interests, Belindi. There is no "extra dimension."
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Belindi »

GE Morton wrote: October 4th, 2019, 9:37 am
Belindi wrote: October 4th, 2019, 6:42 am
Rational moral rules includes that people are persons, and this gives rational moral rules an extra dimension compared with traffic rules and fishing/hunting regulations. Once that the great apes become persons hunting regulations will be included with rational moral rules.
Traffic rules and hunting/fishing regulations also apply to persons and are designed to further their interests, Belindi. There is no "extra dimension."
All right, but don't you get my point? Instead of fishing/hunting regulations or traffic rules let's instead take the rules of chess. These rules are not interested in persons, and similarly political or industrial systems the aims of which are to maximise production or economic growth omit the personhood of individuals who are units of labour. Persons are defined by possessing rights.

Which hunting/fishing rules are relevant to human rights? In the UK much of the rural land is used for grouse moors which are ecologically barren and serve a limited class of persons. Personhood means all men are created equal. Rules and mores that favour a certain class of man over another class of man (who are not criminal) are inconsistent with personhood rights of all men.

You and I have disputed my usage of 'theft'. I'll concede I was too eccentric. It's best to reserve 'theft' for forceful appropriation of what previously belonged to another.I decided 'predation ' is a more neutral word. Fact: humans are predatory, and it's hard to view any other species as not predatory in some way.If species were not predatory there could be no evolution by natural selection. All property is got by predation.

It's the nature of elite persons and groups to be more able to accumulate prey, often in the form of real estate .The end result of this process is like the system in pre-revolutionary Russia where serfs were slaves of the elite class. A socialist strives continually to contain the urge to predation. How would you who are not a socialist do so?
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Sy Borg »

GE Morton wrote: October 4th, 2019, 9:31 am
Greta wrote: October 3rd, 2019, 11:17 pm
That may be because emotions are the reason for morality to exist. If no one minds what happens to them or others, where does morality come from? Calculated entropy?
You're entirely right. We seek moral rules because we --- most of us --- desire to live and prosper, because we care about what happens to us and to others. That desire, like all others, is a subjective emotional state. But that desire cannot tell us what those rules should be, what constraints and duties we must accept to accomplish that goal. For that we need to conduct a rational inquiry.

A parallel: A desire to explore Mars is a subjective emotional state. But emotions will not tell us how to build a vehicle or prepare a habitat.
The example does not work. Everything needs emotions for motivation - from getting up, to travelling to Mars, to deciding on the morality that underpins our laws. However, emotions are tangential to Mars trips but are fundamental to morality.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton »

Greta wrote: October 4th, 2019, 5:03 pm However, emotions are tangential to Mars trips but are fundamental to morality.
No, they are not, to a rational morality.

You can either follow a morality based on intuitions, feelings, and cultural conditioning, which cannot possibly be universal (since all of those factors are idiosyncratic, temperamental, and volatile), or one whose rules are rationally and pragmatically calculated to further the goal of improving everyone's welfare.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton »

Belindi wrote: October 3rd, 2019, 4:56 am
Desiring to live and protect all children is the default attitude according to both history and most moral codes.
I'm not sure what you mean by "default attitude." If you mean those are interests of most people, I agree. But most is not all. Those interests are not universal.
If the prevailing moral code is not universally agreed upon at least by members of the participating society it's not sound and may be undergoing a paradigm shift.
Well, first, the soundness of a moral theory, or any theory, does not depend upon anyone's agreement with it. It depends only upon whether the postulates are true and the rules follow from them. And surely you'll acknowledge that no moral code has ever been universally agreed upon, in any society. Hence, per your criteria, none of them could be "sound."
In some individual cases yes, but by "worse effects" I mean suffering, and also less efficient productivity.
Material inequality does not cause any suffering. No injuries are inflicted upon Bruno merely because Alfie is better off than he (assuming Alfie did not gain his wealth by stealing from Bruno). Moreover, the fact that Alfie earns $1 million/year and Bruno only $50,000 does not entail that Bruno is suffering, in any meaningful sense.

As for productivity, inequality is necessary for productivity growth. Most of that growth is due to capital investments in technology, and unless there are wealthy investors there will be no capital to invest.
Of course people have needs (which vary from person to person, as mentioned above). But the questions were whether Alfie has some duty to meet Bruno's needs, or whether Alfie may be forced to perform that alleged duty.
Alfie's duty may actually be encoded in myth and oral tradition, or even in written law.
Neither myth nor tradition nor law establish a moral duty. Only a sound moral argument can do so. (Think a moment about all the morally outrageous practices which have been perpetuated in traditions and codified in law).
I think it is actually the law in my own country that I have a legal duty to stop and help someone who is in danger or who has had an accident, whenever possible without increasing general danger or danger to any individual concerned. If Bruno is hungry and there is roast antelope to spare then it's Alfie's duty and pleasure to share it with Bruno even if Bruno is one of his friend's enemies.
In common law countries "duty to rescue" laws generally apply only when the person obliged to rescue had a hand in creating the hazard, or when there is a special relationship between the person in peril and the rescuer, such as child and parent. No duty to rescue law (that I know of) requires anyone to feed strangers. Again, such a duty would require a powerful moral argument.

Typically, BTW, there will be no antelope to spare. What Alfie does not eat today he will salt or smoke in order to be able to eat next week, next month.
How would you stand vis a vis the climate emergency and shared natural resources such as air and water, and pathogenic infections? There are identifiable individuals who 'steal' those for their own use thereby making the resources unavailable in perpetuity for others.Call this 'theft'or some other term of disapproval but I defy you to legitimate this stupid and selfish behaviour.
As I mentioned earlier, the atmosphere, major bodies of water, some forest and rangelands are "natural commons" --- they are "owned" by everyone (because they have been freely used in common by all near them since time immemorial). Individuals may use those resources only in accordance with rules adopted by a majority of those owners (just as with any other property with multiple owners). And, yes, if someone takes more from a common than the rules allow, or damages it, he is stealing from the other owners. But one cannot "steal" something that has no owner (res nullius).
That doesn't answer the question of, What is each person's "fair share" of those products and services?
I can't give minute rules and regulations. The differences are so enormous and obvious it's easy to see how to make some inroads into reducing them.
Well, before you can conclude that the differences must be reduced you will need some criteria for determining "fair" shares. Otherwise that conclusion is baseless and arbitrary.

People who for whatever reason have rights to shares in profits do have a duty to outsiders not to infringe outsiders' rights by e.g poisoning water and air, causing ground tremors, destroying natural resources, causing human exploitation, and failing to clean up after the industry.
I agree! Businesses are sometimes guilty of criminal behavior. Like all other criminals they must be held liable for it.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Sy Borg »

GE Morton wrote: October 4th, 2019, 7:20 pm
Greta wrote: October 4th, 2019, 5:03 pm However, emotions are tangential to Mars trips but are fundamental to morality.
No, they are not, to a rational morality.

You can either follow a morality based on intuitions, feelings, and cultural conditioning, which cannot possibly be universal (since all of those factors are idiosyncratic, temperamental, and volatile), or one whose rules are rationally and pragmatically calculated to further the goal of improving everyone's welfare.
Or you can observe how morality naturally construct itself in all societies. The moralities each society chooses will be based on those that served them well in the past. Ideas that bring relative peace and prosperity. So tribes whose members kept skewering each other with spears did not tend to compete well against societies that could maintain their numbers by forbidding murder.

It all flows from there. We are members of the societies that succeeded. Our societies are the ones that maintained enough order to collectively prosper. Moralities evolve that suit a society's environmental and political circumstances. As usual, societies whose moralities failed to develop were out-competed by more cohesive groups who had cooperated in technology projects.

So I see you as just trying to re-invent wheels that have run for thousands of years. Yet where you are not innovating, proposing a new approach. Rather, you are boiling morality down, and then down again, to avoid the relativities.

Such is the diversity of morals both in place and time, all you are left with are references to murder, rape and theft. It's akin to trying to understand a painting by breaking it down to its component molecules ... the artwork appears to be primarily cotton, PVC and oil.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Belindi »

GE Morton wrote:
Desiring to live and protect all children is the default attitude according to both history and most moral codes.
I'm not sure what you mean by "default attitude." If you mean those are interests of most people, I agree. But most is not all. Those interests are not universal.
People whose interest is centred narrowly on the tribe or family, and also people whose interest is universal (e.g. universal like Jesus said "who is my neighbour?") want to live and want to protect children.Those are instincts/facts as much so as men have arms and legs.
If the prevailing moral code is not universally agreed upon at least by members of the participating society it's not sound and may be undergoing a paradigm shift.
Well, first, the soundness of a moral theory, or any theory, does not depend upon anyone's agreement with it. It depends only upon whether the postulates are true and the rules follow from them. And surely you'll acknowledge that no moral code has ever been universally agreed upon, in any society. Hence, per your criteria, none of them could be "sound."
A moral code is sound if and only if it stipulates how the people will cooperate for peace, prosperity, and rule of law. In practice moral codes often are unsound when there are rebellions, insurrections and also peaceful cultural changes. A moral code is a part of a culture of belief and practise.

Universally applicable ethics depend upon axioms. You prefer Nozick's: I prefer Spinoza's. Human nature is famously plastic. However Spinoza's is a grand theory which includes not only metaphysics but also psychology which is entirely consistent with modern psychology and neuroscience. Can you say that about Nozick's? As I mentioned personhood is crucial to any discussion of rights and responsibilities.
In some individual cases yes, but by "worse effects" I mean suffering, and also less efficient productivity.
Material inequality does not cause any suffering. No injuries are inflicted upon Bruno merely because Alfie is better off than he (assuming Alfie did not gain his wealth by stealing from Bruno). Moreover, the fact that Alfie earns $1 million/year and Bruno only $50,000 does not entail that Bruno is suffering, in any meaningful sense.
The difference between one million dollars and fifty million dollars is meaningless unless you also include cost of living. Did you truly not understand I was referring to deprivation amounting to starvation and absence of education and health care? Should a man who has plenty to be taxed to feed a man who has nothing? Or do you believe in the theory of the deserving poor?
As for productivity, inequality is necessary for productivity growth. Most of that growth is due to capital investments in technology, and unless there are wealthy investors there will be no capital to invest.
The size of the differential is relative to who has the power to enforce it. The poor and substantially deprived man should have more power than he has at present. I am a socialist you are not; how would you gauge what the differential should be ?

Alfie's duty may actually be encoded in myth and oral tradition, or even in written law.
Neither myth nor tradition nor law establish a moral duty. Only a sound moral argument can do so. (Think a moment about all the morally outrageous practices which have been perpetuated in traditions and codified in law).
Yes. What I wrote is necessary but not sufficient.

No duty to rescue law (that I know of) requires anyone to feed strangers. Again, such a duty would require a powerful moral argument.
The National Health Service in my country aims to feed and clothe strangers.The NHS was founded by a socialist called Aneurin Bevan.The NHS was my employer and teacher after I left school. Moral codes are established in hearts and minds not only by reason but also by practise.

Typically, BTW, there will be no antelope to spare. What Alfie does not eat today he will salt or smoke in order to be able to eat next week, next month.
There is and should be a moral limit to stockpiling.

As I mentioned earlier, the atmosphere, major bodies of water, some forest and rangelands are "natural commons" --- they are "owned" by everyone (because they have been freely used in common by all near them since time immemorial). Individuals may use those resources only in accordance with rules adopted by a majority of those owners (just as with any other property with multiple owners). And, yes, if someone takes more from a common than the rules allow, or damages it, he is stealing from the other owners. But one cannot "steal" something that has no owner (res nullius).
Who should own the Amazon rain forest? The Pacific ocean? The Great Barrier Reef? The anopheles mosquito? The influenza virus? The international criminal?

I can't give minute rules and regulations. The differences are so enormous and obvious it's easy to see how to make some inroads into reducing them.
Well, before you can conclude that the differences must be reduced you will need some criteria for determining "fair" shares. Otherwise that conclusion is baseless and arbitrary.
Medical and public health criteria are sufficient for most people.

People who for whatever reason have rights to shares in profits do have a duty to outsiders not to infringe outsiders' rights by e.g poisoning water and air, causing ground tremors, destroying natural resources, causing human exploitation, and failing to clean up after the industry.
I agree! Businesses are sometimes guilty of criminal behavior. Like all other criminals they must be held liable for it.
Then we both agree there has to be international law .
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton »

Greta wrote: October 4th, 2019, 8:24 pm
GE Morton wrote: October 4th, 2019, 7:20 pm

No, they are not, to a rational morality.

You can either follow a morality based on intuitions, feelings, and cultural conditioning, which cannot possibly be universal (since all of those factors are idiosyncratic, temperamental, and volatile), or one whose rules are rationally and pragmatically calculated to further the goal of improving everyone's welfare.
Or you can observe how morality naturally construct itself in all societies.
If you do that you're doing cultural anthropology, not moral philosophy.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Belindi »

GE Morton wrote:
If you do that you're doing cultural anthropology, not moral philosophy.
Ivory tower then GEM.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Sy Borg »

GE Morton wrote: October 5th, 2019, 11:24 am
Greta wrote: October 4th, 2019, 8:24 pm
Or you can observe how morality naturally constructs itself in all societies.
If you do that you're doing cultural anthropology, not moral philosophy.
That is the first step. You need to know what morals have been selected by what societies for what reasons. Otherwise the "moral philosophy" you propose is simply a blend of guesswork and ideology.

Universals are of little use to those with very particular local conditions, hence the need for regional governments that provide bespoke policy in certain areas that best suits the local people rather than imposing a theoretical universals upon them.

Morality is bigger, so moral laws tend to be more effective on a federal level. Then we tried to internationalise our laws and morals, trying to standardise with other like-minded nations. Yet what organisation is more despised and diregarded than the UN? And it's pretty clear, for instance that those in the Middle East are not interested in American morality. Meanwhile Americans feel similarly about Islamic morality.

At least with the US v Islamic morality, IMO it would be fair to consider that western morality is more advanced and sophisticated than Islamic morality because the latter which retains many more primitive features that need to be fixed for the societies to compete. Similarly, the morality of northern Europe is more advanced and sophisticated than the US's for exactly the same reasons.

However, it is clear that there are optimal sizes for societies in terms of social policy. Very large societies have little choice but to become increasingly authoritarian if they want to retain order. Many Asian nations are grappling with this issue and, increasingly, so is the US these days in its increasing embrace of authoritarianism.

If you succeed in creating The Complete GEM Book of Morality, how do you plan to implement/impose your deemed universal morals globally? How will you convince people not to kill, rape and steal? Given the impossibility, and tyranny, of a perfectly ordered society, what level of disobedience/disorder is deemed acceptable?
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

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