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 »

Greta wrote:
Yet what organisation is more despised and diregarded than the UN?
It's a beginning anyway, better than nothing,and may yet flourish.

Generally I agree with Greta about moral codes' being moral codes for peoples where they are at. However the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is as universal as can be at this stage of human evolution.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and it has been translated into over 500 languages.
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, 2:22 pm 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.
Rules for games are arbitrary, designed only to formalize some activity for challenging players' skills, for entertainment purposes. But the capacity for understanding those rules is the same capacity required for understanding laws or moral rules. You cannot teach a rabbit chess for the same reason you cannot teach it to obey laws. It lacks the capacity to grasp either set of rules.

I'm not sure what you mean by "omit the personhood of individuals who are units of labor." Indeed, conceiving individuals as "units of labor" itself seems to ignore their personhood.

Since you say that, "Persons are defined by possessing rights," I assume that by "omitting personhood" you mean the aims of increasing production or economic growth disregard workers' rights. Is that your claim?

If, so then you are probably assuming that persons have some "rights" which they don't actually have. All persons have rights to enter into relationships with other willing persons, including economic relationships. I.e., they have rights to employ their talents and efforts on any tasks they choose, and to the products of those talents and efforts. They also have the right to exchange the products of their labor and talents with any other willing person, on any mutually agreeaable terms. But no one has a right to the products of someone else's labor or talents, or any right that others serve them.

If those are not the rights you think industry ignores, please spell out which rights you mean.

BTW, this is tangential, but the entire concept of "labor" as factor of production needs to be re-conceptualized. The term arose with early economic theorizing in the 18th century, when "labor" primarily denoted "muscle power" --- the workers who hauled the stones into place when building the Pyramids, wielded hoes, shovels, guided the plows in farming, swung the picks and hammers when excavating mines and laying railroad track. But the Industrial Revolution for which they were laying the foundations would soon began to eliminate the need for human muscle power.

Few employers today are buying human muscle power. They are buying skills, and paying the prevailing market price for them. "Labor" needs to be replaced with "skills" as one of the primary factors of production. The value of a worker's time is the value of the skills he possesses.
Which hunting/fishing rules are relevant to human rights?
All of them. They are all designed to permit the satisfaction of the diverse desires of the various users of a natural common, all of whom have equal rights to use it, while preserving the resource for future users.
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.
Well, you're abusing that term as well. Among biologists only certain animals --- primarily carnivores --- are considered predators. Herbivores are not. A bird who builds a nest in a tree has not preyed upon anything. Neither does a human who builds a house and plants some crops on an unclaimed, unoccupied acre of land. If he is a hunter as well he is, of course, a predator.
A socialist strives continually to contain the urge to predation. How would you who are not a socialist do so?
Predation is immoral only to the extent that the prey are moral agents (or sometimes moral subjects), or when the prey are part of a natural common and the rights of other owners of the common are violated (e.g, by poaching). You constrain those behaviors via criminal laws.
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 7th, 2019, 5:50 am
However the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is as universal as can be at this stage of human evolution.
It purports to be universal, but it is largely arbitrary --- which means it is not derived from self-evident or empirically verifiable universal truths about human nature and human societies. It is instead a populist "wish list" of benefits most people desire, but to which they have no rights, as that term is understood in the liberal tradition. Most of the "rights" in the UN Declaration are "fiat rights" which, when they are enacted into law, are conjured from thin air by demagogues. They have no moral significance.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Belindi »

Rules for games are arbitrary, designed only to formalize some activity for challenging players' skills, for entertainment purposes. But the capacity for understanding those rules is the same capacity required for understanding laws or moral rules.
Hunting, fishing, scrabble, and cricket also have unwritten rules. Unwritten rules are for keeping the game alive as something people do, to be constrasted with something computers can do.So the fisher throws back his catch without being told to do so just because he knows they are scarce. The shooter won't do canned hunts. The scrabble player won't get wound up about what is allowed and what's not. The cricket player remains chivalrous at all times.



Since you say that, "Persons are defined by possessing rights," I assume that by "omitting personhood" you mean the aims of increasing production or economic growth disregard workers' rights. Is that your claim?
Yes, as a general trend. Robert Owen was an owner who paid attention to workers' welfare. True, we are now 'post-industrial' as you point out. However there are many workers who are still labouring in Dickensian conditions. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ker-deaths.
In the US and Europe many workers have to work overlong hours per week just to make ends meet, or to keep their jobs. In the UK some qualified nurses have been using food banks.
If, so then you are probably assuming that persons have some "rights" which they don't actually have. All persons have rights to enter into relationships with other willing persons, including economic relationships. I.e., they have rights to employ their talents and efforts on any tasks they choose, and to the products of those talents and efforts. They also have the right to exchange the products of their labor and talents with any other willing person, on any mutually agreeaable terms. But no one has a right to the products of someone else's labor or talents, or any right that others serve them.
That argument justifies workers' cooperatives. Rights are not natural but must be conferred by the more powerful on the less powerful.
If those are not the rights you think industry ignores, please spell out which rights you mean.
My I not credit you with knowing as well as I do when people who sell their labour are in poverty ?

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.
Well, you're abusing that term as well. Among biologists only certain animals --- primarily carnivores --- are considered predators. Herbivores are not. A bird who builds a nest in a tree has not preyed upon anything. Neither does a human who builds a house and plants some crops on an unclaimed, unoccupied acre of land. If he is a hunter as well he is, of course, a predator.
All right, I'll abandon 'predators'.Let's agree that all living species depend upon other living species. Some relationships are parasitic and some are commensal.I claim work cannot exist unless the relationship between employers ans employees is commensal, or cooperative in attitude and practise.
A socialist strives continually to contain the urge to predation. How would you who are not a socialist do so?
Predation is immoral only to the extent that the prey are moral agents (or sometimes moral subjects), or when the prey are part of a natural common and the rights of other owners of the common are violated (e.g, by poaching). You constrain those behaviors via criminal laws.
In democracies criminal law derives from moral law. Are you a democrat small d ? I am.
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 7th, 2019, 9:00 pm
Belindi wrote: October 7th, 2019, 5:50 am
However the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is as universal as can be at this stage of human evolution.
It purports to be universal, but it is largely arbitrary --- which means it is not derived from self-evident or empirically verifiable universal truths about human nature and human societies. It is instead a populist "wish list" of benefits most people desire, but to which they have no rights, as that term is understood in the liberal tradition. Most of the "rights" in the UN Declaration are "fiat rights" which, when they are enacted into law, are conjured from thin air by demagogues. They have no moral significance.
Please note, I wrote "as universal as can be at this stage of human evolution." Not "conjured from thin air" but based on ancient and well tried religious principles refined through enlightenment morality.
Nobody can originate morality from reason alone. Morals have histories.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Freudian Monkey wrote: March 13th, 2019, 9:11 pm Most secular contemporary thinkers agree that there are no absolute objective moral values. Meaning that the only way for us to arrive to objective morality is to essentially invent a moral standard that most people agree with (such as well-being) and base our morality around that generally agreeable standard.
That's not objective morality; it's consensus morality. 🤔 Not the same thing at all.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Belindi wrote: October 8th, 2019, 4:38 am Nobody can originate morality from reason alone. Morals have histories.
That's an excellent alternative to simply stating that morality is a human invention, and it is what we say it is. Your way says it better. 👍
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 8th, 2019, 4:34 am
Since you say that, "Persons are defined by possessing rights," I assume that by "omitting personhood" you mean the aims of increasing production or economic growth disregard workers' rights. Is that your claim?
Yes, as a general trend. Robert Owen was an owner who paid attention to workers' welfare. True, we are now 'post-industrial' as you point out. However there are many workers who are still labouring in Dickensian conditions. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ker-deaths.
In the US and Europe many workers have to work overlong hours per week just to make ends meet, or to keep their jobs. In the UK some qualified nurses have been using food banks.
If, so then you are probably assuming that persons have some "rights" which they don't actually have. All persons have rights to enter into relationships with other willing persons, including economic relationships. I.e., they have rights to employ their talents and efforts on any tasks they choose, and to the products of those talents and efforts. They also have the right to exchange the products of their labor and talents with any other willing person, on any mutually agreeaable terms. But no one has a right to the products of someone else's labor or talents, or any right that others serve them.
That argument justifies workers' cooperatives. Rights are not natural but must be conferred by the more powerful on the less powerful . . . My I not credit you with knowing as well as I do when people who sell their labour are in poverty?
It is apparent that we need some clarity as to what a "right" is. That some workers labor under "Dickensian conditions" or that nurses rely on food banks, or that some workers are in poverty tells us nothing about their rights. You seem to be laboring under the assumption that people have "rights" to whatever contributes to their welfare, or to whatever they "need." But that is not what the noun "right" denotes.

The meaning of that term, as it was used and understood in such documents as the US Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, the English Bill of Rights, and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, was derived from the founders of the liberal tradition (Hobbes, Locke, Blackstone, Kant, et al) and from the common law. The most succint summary is perhaps found in the French Declaration:

"1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.

2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.

3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.

4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights."

---https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp

The natural rights --- rights possessed by all persons irrespective of the existence or decrees of any government --- fall into two broad categories --- liberty rights (rights to act) and property rights (rights to things).

One has a natural right to do anything which does not injure anyone else (per #4 from the French Declaration). Acting to acquire property is one of the natural liberty rights embraced by that article. That gives us a basis for property rights: One has a property right to anything one has acquired without injuring anyone else.

To say that Alfie has a right to something X, or a right to do something Y, is to say that he is rightfully in possession of X or may rightfully do Y. This the moral sense of "right," and it means that Alfie harmed no one in acquiring X, or will harm no one by doing Y. That no harm is done to other moral agents is the sole criterion for distinguishing between morally rightful and wrongful acts.

For property rights, the working test for the validity of a claim of right per the common law is the first possession rule --- Alfie has a right to X --- a morally justified claim to X --- if he is either the first possessor of X or he acquired it via a "chain of consent" from the first possessor. One typically becomes a first possessor either by producing or discovering a thing. Why this test? Because if Alfie is the first possessor of X, then his acquisition of it could not have harmed anyone else, because no one else (by hypothesis) previously received any benefit from it.

In summary, any proposition of the form, "P has a right to X" is true IFF P is either the first possessor of X, or P acquired X via a chain of consent from the first possessor. If that condition is satisfied then the rights claim is true. If it is not satisfied the rights claim is false.

Many of the "rights" declared in the UN Declaration imply that people have "rights" to goods produced or discovered by other people, or "rights" to the services of other people. Since no such "right" can possibly satisfy the above criterion --- and indeed will contradict it --- they are bogus. They attempt to re-define "rights" with the aim of undermining the moral principle and undercutting the very protections the term was coined to denote. They seek to legitimize stealing and slavery.
All right, I'll abandon 'predators'.Let's agree that all living species depend upon other living species. Some relationships are parasitic and some are commensal.I claim work cannot exist unless the relationship between employers ans employees is commensal, or cooperative in attitude and practise.
I agree! If the employment relationship is voluntary and both parties receive benefits to which they have mutually agreed, then the relationship is commensal. Don't confuse commensal with paternalistic.
In democracies criminal law derives from moral law. Are you a democrat small d ? I am.
Yes. But a "constitutional democrat." Decisions as to the activities of government must be made by majority rule, but the powers of the government are limited by a written consitution which cannot be overridden by majorities. Those powers are few and specific --- maintaining a rule of law and a common defense, managing natural commons, and supplying certain public goods. They do not include meeting the personal needs or guaranteeing the personal welfare of any citizen.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Belindi »

Man is an animal that has no discernible natural rights. Other animals have natural rights as defined by their peculiar natures, whichever those be. But human nature is largely defined by cultures of belief and practise to such a large extent that human rights if they are to be defined at all must be defined by whichever men have the power to define those rights.

I am heir to traditions that stem generally from the ethics and moral codes of the last Axial Age, particularly in my case coloured by Presbyterianism and Scottish enlightenment liberal values. Therefore I claim my democratic right to support those inter-subjective values and beliefs when I want to do so.

Democracy itself is the best political method we know of for ameliorating suffering. Suffering is a universal fact probably the only universal fact that covers all sentient life forms. The fact of suffering is the only reason for enlarging an Enlightenment constitution to include personal welfare.

Inductive truth (such as suffering is experienced by all sentient life forms) is better than rational truth which seems to be what you aim for. Rational truth omits that each man's reasoning is imperfect, and relative to the man's experience.
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 9th, 2019, 6:58 am Man is an animal that has no discernible natural rights.
In light of my previous post I can't imagine why you would say that.

To say that someone has a "right" to something, or to do something, means that he acquired it righteously (for a property right), or that his act is righteous (a liberty right). The acquisition or other act was righteous if no injury was inflicted on anyone else. If P is the first possessor of X then he acquired X without inflicting loss or injury on anyone else; hence he has a right to X --- per the classic liberal definition of that term. Whether or not he inflicted loss or injury is usually empirically ascertainable. Thus whether P has a right to X is a factual matter.

Perhaps it is the word "natural" which you find problematic. But it is not at all mysterious. A "natural" right sensu stricto is simply a right to those things one naturally possesses, that each person brings with him into the world, such as his life, body, his natural talents and capacities. One is per force the first possessor of those things, and hence has rights to them. Things one later acquires via the exercise of those talents and capacities, provided no harm is done to others in the process, are also "natural" rights in a looser sense (though a better term is "common rights").

If you think natural rights are "indiscernible," it can only be because you are assuming some unconventional, ahistoric definition of "rights."
Other animals have natural rights as defined by their peculiar natures, whichever those be.
"Rights" is a moral concept. It denotes acts which are morally permissible, or possessions morally acquired. It makes no sense to attribute natural rights to creatures who cannot understand or formulate moral principles and rules. We humans can, of course, confer legal rights on them if we choose, or upon anything we wish, since those are arbitrary.
But human nature is largely defined by cultures of belief and practise . . .
Oh, no. Human beliefs and practices which are culture-dependent do not define "human nature." Indeed, that term is normally used precisely to distinguish those traits which are universal among humans from those which are idiosyncratic or variable with time or place.
. . . to such a large extent that human rights if they are to be defined at all must be defined by whichever men have the power to define those rights.
What?! Rights are whatever some despot decrees them to be? What sort of philosophy is that?
I am heir to traditions that stem generally from the ethics and moral codes of the last Axial Age, particularly in my case coloured by Presbyterianism and Scottish enlightenment liberal values. Therefore I claim my democratic right to support those inter-subjective values and beliefs when I want to do so.
Well, you can assume any values and beliefs you want. All values are subjective, and beliefs may or may not be supported by evidence or argument. But you can't claim that a belief unsupported by evidence or argument is true.
Democracy itself is the best political method we know of for ameliorating suffering.
The only means democracy or any other political system has for relieving suffering is by inflicting it on someone else --- by robbing Peter to pay Paul. No political system produces any wealth; they only have the power of plundering some to enrich others, especially the power-wielders themselves --- which is verboten per any moral theory that regards all persons as having equal moral status.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Belindi »

Other animals have natural rights as defined by their peculiar natures, whichever those be.
"Rights" is a moral concept. It denotes acts which are morally permissible, or possessions morally acquired. It makes no sense to attribute natural rights to creatures who cannot understand or formulate moral principles and rules. We humans can, of course, confer legal rights on them if we choose, or upon anything we wish, since those are arbitrary.
I agree.
But human nature is largely defined by cultures of belief and practise . . .
Oh, no. Human beliefs and practices which are culture-dependent do not define "human nature." Indeed, that term is normally used precisely to distinguish those traits which are universal among humans from those which are idiosyncratic or variable with time or place.
I agree. And nobody knows what traits if any are universal among humans.It would be good if we did but we don't.
. . . to such a large extent that human rights if they are to be defined at all must be defined by whichever men have the power to define those rights.
What?! Rights are whatever some despot decrees them to be? What sort of philosophy is that?
It's not a philosophy it's empirical fact, although "some despot" is not the only sort of hegemony.
I am heir to traditions that stem generally from the ethics and moral codes of the last Axial Age, particularly in my case coloured by Presbyterianism and Scottish enlightenment liberal values. Therefore I claim my democratic right to support those inter-subjective values and beliefs when I want to do so.
Well, you can assume any values and beliefs you want. All values are subjective, and beliefs may or may not be supported by evidence or argument. But you can't claim that a belief unsupported by evidence or argument is true.
I live in a free country so I can if I want to. I don't want to believe in what's improbable.
Democracy itself is the best political method we know of for ameliorating suffering.
The only means democracy or any other political system has for relieving suffering is by inflicting it on someone else --- by robbing Peter to pay Paul. No political system produces any wealth; they only have the power of plundering some to enrich others, especially the power-wielders themselves --- which is verboten per any moral theory that regards all persons as having equal moral status.
So you insist. Might you rephrase the above and replace "inflicting", "robbing", "plundering", and "verboten" with other words that don't carry such enraged connotations?
popeye1945
Posts: 1110
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by popeye1945 »

Relative to what is the key question, as long as morality is based on conflicting claims of various fairy godfathers moral relativism is all the world can expect, more divisiveness. Morality based on our common biology would relate to its subject, and divisivness would cease to be an issue, the end of moral relativism. Reason is not humanities guide here, as long as the majority of the population in all countries have no intellectual life the fairy godfathers will rule with moral relativism, a sad state of affairs.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Belindi »

popeye1945 wrote: April 12th, 2021, 8:25 am Relative to what is the key question, as long as morality is based on conflicting claims of various fairy godfathers moral relativism is all the world can expect, more divisiveness. Morality based on our common biology would relate to its subject, and divisivness would cease to be an issue, the end of moral relativism. Reason is not humanities guide here, as long as the majority of the population in all countries have no intellectual life the fairy godfathers will rule with moral relativism, a sad state of affairs.
Each fairy godfather is a personification of His society's moral code.The moral code, if it supports the viability of the society, will follow scientific facts. Obviously many moral codes and the great godfathers that personify them do not support the continuance of civilised lfe on Earth.
I endorse the pantheon of ancient Greece where each god or goddess is a force of nature including human nature, and none of these gods and godesses is infallible but can be propitiated or ignored in favour of a more relevant or sympathetic deity.
popeye1945
Posts: 1110
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by popeye1945 »

Belindi,
You know the present desert religions do not support science, perhaps Judaism is a little more flexible, not sure on that one. One thing that strikes me, this personification of society's moral code. Your talking about a moral code thousand of years old, the gods are war gods recomending genocide, murder, women as property, slavery, stoning and selling one's daughters into sexual slavery. Indeed the pantheon would be an improvement, most anything would be. My point has been if one wishes to create cohension morality has to be based on commonality, the commonality of our common biology, and in this area, science is more qualified to lead us into such the future than these archaic religions.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton »

popeye1945 wrote: April 23rd, 2021, 9:33 am My point has been if one wishes to create cohension morality has to be based on commonality, the commonality of our common biology, and in this area, science is more qualified to lead us into such the future than these archaic religions.
No moral propositions can be derived from biological or any other natural facts. That is called the "naturalistic fallacy." There is no deriving "ought" from "is."

Moreover, commonalities of any kind are of no moral interest. It is the differences among us, not the commonalities, that give rise to conflicts, and thus to moral questions.

You're also giving too much credit to religions as the sources of vernacular moralities. They are borrowers, not innovators. They adopted precepts widely accepted at the time as pragmatic --- and then pronounced them "the word of God."

A sound morality is at bottom a pragmatic endeavor.
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