Whose Lives Have Value?

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.
Post Reply
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by Steve3007 »

Nick_A wrote:There was a classic old TV show called Candid Camera. It enabled person to be caught in the act of being themselves. We laugh at ourselves. When we experience what we do it is is humorous.
I remember Candid Camera.
The comedy I refer to invites an audience to egoistically laugh at others.
As I said, I think that's a small sub-genre.
Humor doesn't require profanity while comedy does to please the crowd. Why is a good psychological question.
Profanity is a different issue from mocking other people in a non empathetic way. If the word is being used specifically to refer to "blasphemous or obscene language", I personally see nothing inherently wrong with profanity. If the comedian hopes to get a laugh simply due to the fact that his words are obscene or blasphemous, that's pretty shallow. But those words in a proper context are fine, in my view. For example, the British political satire "The Thick Of It" includes a lot of profanity. It reflects a satirical view of the heated environment inside the political "bubble".
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by Sy Borg »

Steve3007 wrote: October 18th, 2021, 4:22 am
Nick_A wrote:There was a classic old TV show called Candid Camera. It enabled person to be caught in the act of being themselves. We laugh at ourselves. When we experience what we do it is is humorous.
I remember Candid Camera.
The comedy I refer to invites an audience to egoistically laugh at others.
As I said, I think that's a small sub-genre.
Humor doesn't require profanity while comedy does to please the crowd. Why is a good psychological question.
Profanity is a different issue from mocking other people in a non empathetic way. If the word is being used specifically to refer to "blasphemous or obscene language", I personally see nothing inherently wrong with profanity. If the comedian hopes to get a laugh simply due to the fact that his words are obscene or blasphemous, that's pretty shallow. But those words in a proper context are fine, in my view. For example, the British political satire "The Thick Of It" includes a lot of profanity. It reflects a satirical view of the heated environment inside the political "bubble".
I loved Candid Camera as a little 'un. The time before reality TV evolved into a memetic parasite.

I am no prude but I also don't like comedians relying on profanity for cheap laughs between actual jokes. It was funny when Bill Hicks, George Carlin and Frank Zappa did it because they were breaking stifling taboos.

Swear words tend to be quite percussive, which is why they are so satisfying to say when you, say, stub a toe. That same quality lends itself to comedic use but it's now a cliché, stale from overuse, like Stairway to Heaven or the epithet "snowflake".

Whose lives have value? lol
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by Steve3007 »

Sy Borg wrote:Swear words tend to be quite percussive, which is why they are so satisfying to say when you, say, stub a toe. That same quality lends itself to comedic use but it's now a cliché, stale from overuse, like Stairway to Heaven or the epithet "snowflake".
Yes, but if in drama it would be unrealistic for the characters not to use profanities, then it seems silly, to me, not to use them. The example I gave ("The Thick of It") is a satire of the inner workings of government. That environment, it seems, often tends to be filled with testosterone and crisis fueled aggression. There's a lot of profanity, including a lot of graphic sexual imagery. Satire usually works by exaggerating the traits being satirized. Hence quite a lot of profanity is essential in that case!
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by Sy Borg »

Steve3007 wrote: October 18th, 2021, 5:29 am
Sy Borg wrote:Swear words tend to be quite percussive, which is why they are so satisfying to say when you, say, stub a toe. That same quality lends itself to comedic use but it's now a cliché, stale from overuse, like Stairway to Heaven or the epithet "snowflake".
Yes, but if in drama it would be unrealistic for the characters not to use profanities, then it seems silly, to me, not to use them. The example I gave ("The Thick of It") is a satire of the inner workings of government. That environment, it seems, often tends to be filled with testosterone and crisis fueled aggression. There's a lot of profanity, including a lot of graphic sexual imagery. Satire usually works by exaggerating the traits being satirized. Hence quite a lot of profanity is essential in that case!
If it's realistic dialogue then it will work, sure. The Thick of It sounds like a harder edged version of Yes, Minister.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by Steve3007 »

Sy Borg wrote:The Thick of It sounds like a harder edged version of Yes, Minister.
It is exactly that, yes. It's also an updating of Yes Minister to reflect the shift from civil servants trying to control and/undermine elected ministers to spin-doctors and political aides doing the same.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by Sy Borg »

Steve3007 wrote: October 18th, 2021, 5:51 am
Sy Borg wrote:The Thick of It sounds like a harder edged version of Yes, Minister.
It is exactly that, yes. It's also an updating of Yes Minister to reflect the shift from civil servants trying to control and/undermine elected ministers to spin-doctors and political aides doing the same.
Usually the civil servants are trying to just run a department but ministers and their staffers keep meddling based on political, rather than funtional, considerations. The public service would be a lot more efficient and effective without politicians IMO.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by Steve3007 »

Sy Borg wrote:Usually the civil servants are trying to just run a department but ministers and their staffers keep meddling based on political, rather than funtional, considerations. The public service would be a lot more efficient and effective without politicians IMO.
Since those civil servants have probably all studied philosophy at Oxford or somewhere, I bet they'd then be very happy that Plato's ideal world of the benign dictatorship of the philosopher rulers has finally been realized! :D
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: October 15th, 2021, 7:16 pm

Well, first, my comments regarding the basis of property is not a "theory;" they were reports of historical facts, of which I've provided abundant evidence in previous posts.

Secondly, what I said required arguments from self-evident, morally neutral premises were claims alleging moral duties, not claims regarding ownership of property. The latter are not even moral questions; they're factual ones.

So, please set forth the moral arguments for the duties you allege we all have.
The "historical facts" you allege appear to ignore history. I doubt that such seminal 20th century figures as Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, or Fidel Castro would find your "historical facts" accurate. The historical fact is that definitions of property have varied wildly from culture to culture and civilization to civilization. However, you are free to define property however you want, as long as you don't claim that your definition is a "historical fact".
Well, if you see no need to provide rational arguments for the duties you assert, why are espousing them on a philosophy forum?

"Analogical"? Does that mean, "If it feels good, do it"?
Your notion that I shouldn't say anything unless I say everything is ridiculous, as is your ignorance of a mode of moral thinking that has dominated Christendom for two millenia. Neither you nor I are Christians, but since you are the one who keeps offering historical justifications for your definition of property, it would behoove you to recognize modes of moral thinking that have a far greater historical precedent.


Methinks you haven't been following all of these moral threads too closely. The "greatest good for the greatest number" is undeterminable, because what counts as "the good" is subjective and idiosyncratic, varying from person to person. Determining it requires interpersonal comparisons of utility, but there is no "utility yardstick" against which the utility of different things to different people can be measured. That is an intractable problem of social choice theory.
A cynic, according to Lord Somebodyorother in "Lady Windermere's Fan" by Oscar Wilde, knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. I'll concede, GE, that you are no cynic. Instead, you are wild-eyed Fundamentalist, who thinks he has everything all figured out. By conflating "value" and "price" you succeed in seeming to make "value" measureable. But do you? Let's look at one almost universal human urge: sex. If a man pays $100 to a prostitute, we can "measure" the value (supposedly), but isn 't it (perhaps) MORE valuable if the sexual congress costs nothing, but is freely and lovingly given? When we try to measure the value in dollars and cents, we actually devalue the experience.
That is a pragmatic argument, not a moral one. It is the "torches and pitchforks" argument ("If we don't meet their demands they'll storm the castle with torches and pitchforks"). Morally, it is a version of the ad baculum argument.
So is taxing people to pay for the military or the police -- which you support. Of course government policies should consider practicalities -- ad baculum or no.

To what principles of mine do you refer? The ones you offer above are neither self-evident, empirically verifiable, or morally neutral. They are all merely recitations of culturally-conditioned moral intuitions which their exponents have never subjected to serious philosophical scrutiny.

Anyone who sets out to engage in moral philosophy needs to follow Descartes example and set whatever moral intuitions they bring to the inquiry aside, subject to doubt. Then set about to justify them on rational grounds. Otherwise, their moral "theories" will amount to nothing more than circular arguments leading back to pre-conceived conclusions.
All logical arguments are circular; logic involves nothing more than restating the premises. Your premise (I don't feel like looking it up and quoting it right now) is neither self-evident, empirically verifiable, nor morally neutral. It is just as fraught with cultural conditioning as those I listed, and less endowed with empathy and love. Oh well.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: October 18th, 2021, 9:18 am
GE Morton wrote: October 15th, 2021, 7:16 pm
Well, first, my comments regarding the basis of property is not a "theory;" they were reports of historical facts, of which I've provided abundant evidence in previous posts.

Secondly, what I said required arguments from self-evident, morally neutral premises were claims alleging moral duties, not claims regarding ownership of property. The latter are not even moral questions; they're factual ones.

So, please set forth the moral arguments for the duties you allege we all have.
The "historical facts" you allege appear to ignore history. I doubt that such seminal 20th century figures as Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, or Fidel Castro would find your "historical facts" accurate.
Yikes! "Seminal figures" --- really? Is that the Left's current euphemism for "infamous"? You're really groping the bottom of the barrel there. I'm sure those tyrants wouldn't agree with the definitions of "murder," "genocide," "theft," or "tyranny" either. Why didn't you include such eminent moral and historical authorities as Genghis Khan, Stalin, Hitler, and Idi Amin?

Was that comment tongue-in-cheek?

Yes, that the first possession criterion for determining property ownership is all but universally applied when those questions arise, not only in the West but virtually everywhere else as well --- in common law courts and by the "man on the street" on a daily basis ("finders, keepers;" "First-come, first-served") --- is beyond serious dispute. It is a fact. If you dispute that, it is you who is ignoring history.

Here's an excerpt from a decent history of the principle (which I've linked before):

"First possession has been the dominant method of establishing property rights (Berger 1985, Epstein 1979, Rose 1985). This rule grants an ownership claim to the party that gains control before other potential claimants. First possession is both more prolific and more viable than suggested by the exotic treasure trove and wild animal cases that typically come to mind. In fact, first possession has been applied widely in both common and statute law in such varied settings as abandoned property, adverse possession, bona fide purchaser, fisheries and wildlife, groundwater, intellectual property, land, non-bankruptcy debt collection, nuisance law, oil and gas, pollution permits, the radio spectrum, satellite orbits, seabed minerals, spoils of war including prisoners and slaves, treasure trove, and water rights. First possession is also a powerful norm (Ellickson 1991) tightly woven into the fabric of Anglo-American society, where it is better known as "finders keepers" or "first come, first served," in cases ranging from street parking and cafe seating to setting up fishing huts on frozen lakes. First possession has also been a fundamental component of civil law, traditional African and Islamic legal systems, as well as informal and customary rule-making around the world (Dukeminier and Krier 1993, Lawson 1975)."

https://www.sfu.ca/~allen/1st%20poss%20 ... lgrave.doc
The historical fact is that definitions of property have varied wildly from culture to culture and civilization to civilization. However, you are free to define property however you want, as long as you don't claim that your definition is a "historical fact".
The definition of property is not what is at issue. I accept the following dictionary definition:

"Property (noun)
2a: something owned or possessed
specifically : a piece of real estate
b: the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : OWNERSHIP"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/property

What may be counted as property varies somewhat from place to place and time to time. What is at issue is the basis for assigning property titles, and the criterion for determining what property --- whatever is countable as property at a particular time and place --- belongs to whom. That the first possession principle is that basis and criterion is an historical fact, whether the likes of Mao and Pol Pot agree with it or not.
Well, if you see no need to provide rational arguments for the duties you assert, why are espousing them on a philosophy forum?

"Analogical"? Does that mean, "If it feels good, do it"?
Your notion that I shouldn't say anything unless I say everything is ridiculous, as is your ignorance of a mode of moral thinking that has dominated Christendom for two millenia.
Now, now. I never claimed you had an obligation to "say everything." I did say that if you allege a moral duty, you have an intellectual/philosophical obligation to provide some rational argument for it. How about responding to what is actually said, rather than to concocted straw men?

A "mode of moral thinking"? What "mode" would that be? Can you elaborate? What other "modes" do you prefer, or believe contrast with it?
Neither you nor I are Christians, but since you are the one who keeps offering historical justifications for your definition of property, it would behoove you to recognize modes of moral thinking that have a far greater historical precedent.
Ok, please set those forth, and cite the historical support you claim.
By conflating "value" and "price" you succeed in seeming to make "value" measureable.
Where have I conflated value and price? On the contrary, I've drawn the distinction between those a couple of times. Please cite the comment upon which you base that claim.
Let's look at one almost universal human urge: sex. If a man pays $100 to a prostitute, we can "measure" the value (supposedly), but isn 't it (perhaps) MORE valuable if the sexual congress costs nothing, but is freely and lovingly given? When we try to measure the value in dollars and cents, we actually devalue the experience.
Actually, we can't measure the value of X to P (which is, say, V) by looking at the price P pays for X. What P pays only establishes a lower bound on the value he places on X. We can only determine V by also leaning what P will not pay. That gives us an upper bound. By observing a number of such transactions on P's part we can "close in" on that value, V.

And you're conflating two different values of two different things there, namely, the value of a momentary sexual release vs. the value of a loving relationship. And, yes, P may well place a higher value on the latter than on the former.
That is a pragmatic argument, not a moral one. It is the "torches and pitchforks" argument ("If we don't meet their demands they'll storm the castle with torches and pitchforks"). Morally, it is a version of the ad baculum argument.
So is taxing people to pay for the military or the police -- which you support. Of course government policies should consider practicalities -- ad baculum or no.
Er, no. Taxing people to pay for government services which benefit them has a moral basis. It does not require an ad baculum argument.
All logical arguments are circular; logic involves nothing more than restating the premises.
Egads. No, it doesn't. It involves drawing out the implications of the premises, which are often not obvious.
Your premise (I don't feel like looking it up and quoting it right now) is neither self-evident, empirically verifiable, nor morally neutral. It is just as fraught with cultural conditioning as those I listed, and less endowed with empathy and love. Oh well.
Are you referring to the Fundamental Principle, i.e., "Develop principles and rules govering interactions between moral agents in a social setting which enable all agents to maximize their welfare"?

That the above has been the central aim of most moral codes and systems over the centuries is empirically verifiable. It is also morally neutral, in that it doesn't, per se, set forth any moral principles or rules. It is subjective, of course, and hence no one has any logical (or moral) reason to adopt it as the goal of their moral system. An egoist, for example, might prefer an axiom to the effect, "Develop principles and rules which benefit me." Or a moral anarchist may eschew any moral rules, i.e., "If it feels good, do it!"

So if you prefer some alternate axiom, what would that be?
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by Ecurb »

Your "First Possession" citations don't impress me, GE. Somehow I doubt that they were honored or accepted by Attila, Napoleon, Pirates, Communists, Kings ruling by Divine Right, and Apache raiders. I can see Genghis Khan now, addressing his Hordes: "We have now entered the Khwarewarezmian Empire. They possessed this land first, so be careful to honor their property rights!" In fact, Mongol Hordes and Pirates alike were required by custom and law to share their plunder, rather than abiding by the rule of "first possession". The Greeks thought trading with non-Greeks was cowardly -- why not just take what you want and give nothing in return. I don't doubt that there is a history of "first possession" being associated with property rights -- but I do not concede that it is anywhere near a universal rule.

I explained the Christian "mode of moral thinking" (it's analogical) in an earlier post, and I simply can't believe that you or any educated Westerner is ignorant of it. If you are interested in a simple explanation, read "Mere Christianity" (C.S. Lewis). If humorous irony is more your thing I recommend "Orthodoxy" by GK Chesterton. Don't be too literal minded or "objective", though. One of the chapters in "Orthodoxy" is "The Contradictions of Christianity". Many thinkers far more profound than you or I find these seeming contradicitions fascinating, and have studied them carefully.

YOur fundamental principle ("Develop principles and rules governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting which enable all agents to maximize their welfare") sounds good and smells bad. There are no such principles or rules. MOral agents -- like secret agents -- sometimes have conflicting interests and cannot ALL maximize their welfare. One person's welfare may be another's adversity (as it was with the Mongols and Khwarezemians). Limited resources often mean that if one person can exploit them, others cannot. In addition, Christians would suggest (again, like you, I'm referring to the dominant moral thinking of the last 2000 Western years) that morality is MORE than interactions between people. Hence Jimmy Carter's "lusting in the heart" comment. I've offered this example before: two men, both in solitary confinement for rape and murder. One has truly repented and if he were released would sin no more. The other is unrepentant, and if he were released would rape and murder. Is one more evil than the other? Christians (and I) would answer, "Yes". Finally, maximizing welfare cannot be measured "objectively". One's welfare is necessarily subjective.

Finally, taxing rich people to pay for safety nets DOES benefit them -- just as much (probably) as taxing them to pay for armies and the police. It benefits them in precisely the same way --by helping to create a safer and more stable society. This is (of course) arguable -- but I don't see how it's arguable to claim there's a difference in KIND between the different use of taxes. Why is paying taxes to kill people preferable to paying taxes to feed people -- if we assume that both help create a safer and more stable society, which benefits the tax payer?
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by Ecurb »

One more thing: lest you think my listing of Genghis Khan, Mao and Apache raiders among the many who didn't believe "first possession" conferred property rights lists only the wickedest, perhaps I should mention European Americans. We were willing, even eager, to contest possession of the land with Native people. Where was our faith in the "first possession" principle then? Surely that's another example where history belies the notion that "first possession confers property rights" is standard Western morality. It isn't.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by Nick_A »

So far we have discussed the question of whose lives have value from a social perspective. Society decides whose lives have value. But the next step is to ask if your life has value? Who or what decides? Some say life has no objective value which means my life has no objective value and only decided by society. Others say there is a personal God who decides if my life has value. With my luck, God will turn out to be a woman and will be eternally banished.

But if there is no personal God or a great beast who determines value through secularism and government, how does some kid get a sensible answer? An adult may introduce him to this old Zen koan. Apparently life on earth matters but also doesn't matter. Then what is the sense of enlightenment and what does it have to do with value?

Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water; after enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. — Zen proverb.

Why bother with enlightenment if we just chop wood and carry water? A kid may ask: If it is all just opinion, Isn't alcohol and video games a better alternative to learn if my life has value?
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by Sy Borg »

Nick_A wrote: October 18th, 2021, 10:44 pmOthers say there is a personal God who decides if my life has value.
If God exists, then everyone is unconditionally loved, in which case everyone is valuable, no matter what they believe.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7940
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by LuckyR »

Sy Borg wrote: October 19th, 2021, 12:31 am
Nick_A wrote: October 18th, 2021, 10:44 pmOthers say there is a personal God who decides if my life has value.
If God exists, then everyone is unconditionally loved, in which case everyone is valuable, no matter what they believe.
Well, everyone has value to someone, even in the absence of gods. That's why murder of anyone is illegal.
"As usual... it depends."
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by Steve3007 »

Nick_A wrote:With my luck, God will turn out to be a woman and will be eternally banished.
:lol: . A bit of humour there. I like it. Here's another scary thought: If being "woke" means being aware, and if God is omniscient, then she is the most woke entity in the universe. She is the Form of the Woke. Now that, surely, really is the stuff on nightmares! :lol:

On a more serious note though: Whenever you talk about subjective value you always talk about what society values or what government values. Why don't you ever (as far as I've noticed at least) talk about how we value each other. When that kid asks why he shouldn't turn to alcohol and video games, one natural answer to him is something along the lines of "What would your mother think of that?". Isn't it?

You've often asked why, if there are no objective values, people don't just attack each other (or something similar). So, why don't they? Why is it that genocides have tended to happen in societies where people believed in objective values? If subjective values are so terrible, and you assert that the modern world is dominated by them, why is the modern world, in general, so much more peaceful than the world has been in the past? Why is it so much less likely that any given individual person will be embroiled in war?
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