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
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by Sy Borg »

GE, I get it. You cannot tolerate anyone mentioning instances where workers are exploited by the rich and powerful.

So you quickly fell into that old "Marxism" cliché, which you used as a weapon. In the US, falsely calling people by that name is akin to accusing straight people you don't like of being gay; it's an attempt to devalue the other by associating them with a stigmatised group. You asked for examples of your tendency to fall into the usual right wing clichés. That was one right there. Your "old man" rant about lazy people not wanting to work was a classic cliché.

I'm not much into PC so I tend to tread on the toes of the politically correct, as has happened with you here. I usually don't realise I'm being political incorrect when I am doing it - all I'm doing is mentioning the bleeding obvious in passing, on the way to my main point.

For instance, the observation about the exploitation of employees by corporates dangling a work-free utopia in front of them was subsidiary to my main point. That is, value in broader society is conferred on the basis of wealth and fame.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: October 15th, 2021, 12:50 pm Your theories about property are neither "self-evident" nor "empirically verifiable and morally neutral" , in my opinion.
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.
As I've stated before, I don't see the need to argue my position from "first principles". For one thing, I think morality is analogical as much as it is logical.
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"?
However, in the interests of debate, I'd suggest that some of the following principles might seem reasonbable.

1) It is the moral duty of citizens to follow the laws of the land unless they have a morally significant reason not to.
Sorry, but, again, unless you produce sound arguments for that "duty" and spell out what is to count as "morally significant," your "principle" is vacuous. So you're back to the obligation of setting forth a rationally defensible moral theory.
2) The greatest good for the greatest number suggests that the minor inconvenience to rich people of paying taxes (minor because they can't spend all their money anyway) is trumped by the major benefit of providing a safety net for poor people.
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.
3) Providing a safety net for poor people helps preserve a stable society, from which everyone benefits (especially the elite).
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.
4) "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" suggests that we DO have a duty to help the poor, if (given that we might be poor) we would want others to help us.
It doesn't suggest that to me. To me it suggests, "You respect my rights and I'll respect yours."
Are these principles at least as "self-evident" and "empirically verifiable and morally neutral" as yours? Yes they are.
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.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by GE Morton »

Sy Borg wrote: October 15th, 2021, 4:35 pm GE, I get it. You cannot tolerate anyone mentioning instances where workers are exploited by the rich and powerful.
Oh, I tolerate them all the time. But I always challenge those claims, because they're false (when "exploit" is used in the 2nd sense I gave above).
Your "old man" rant about lazy people not wanting to work was a classic cliché.
I've never "ranted" about "lazy people not wanting to work." In fact, I'm sure I've never used the words "lazy people" on this forum. If I did and have forgotten it, please link the post.

It would help if, when criticizing some argument or claim I (or anyone else) has made, if you would quote the exact statement with which you disagree, rather than some "interpretation" of your own, or paraphrases of your own devising, which are invariably straw men.
For instance, the observation about the exploitation of employees by corporates dangling a work-free utopia in front of them was subsidiary to my main point. That is, value in broader society is conferred on the basis of wealth and fame.
Well, I don't disagree that many people assign value to others on those bases. But with regard to that "dangling," why would those "exploiters" dangle that promise unless they thought it would appeal to their audience? Are you suggesting they're "exploiting" their ignorance, their greed, or their longing for a free lunch?
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by Sy Borg »

You saved me from going looking for your post because you did it again, carrying on about people "longing for a free lunch". How would you parse this from "lazy people"? There's no semantic difference, which makes clear that my reporting of your complaints was fair, not a strawman at all, as you falsely assumed.

If machines can do all the work, why would you judge people for not working? Do you believe that people live to work and that automation robs humans of function and meaning? Do you believe that people who do not work have zero value?
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by GE Morton »

Sy Borg wrote: October 15th, 2021, 10:39 pm You saved me from going looking for your post because you did it again, carrying on about people "longing for a free lunch". How would you parse this from "lazy people"? There's no semantic difference, which makes clear that my reporting of your complaints was fair, not a strawman at all, as you falsely assumed.
Oh, free lunchers are a much larger class than "lazy people."

Now, of course, everyone enjoys a free lunch. But "free lunchers," as I use the term, are people who demand that others deliver them free lunches, under threat of force. That class includes everyone who accepts free lunches delivered by government, as the government collects the revenue to pay for them by force --- it includes subsidies to farmers; renters; home buyers; grocery shoppers; hospital patients; property developers; local governments for sewer, water, and other municipal services; local school districts; college students; local transit riders; Amtrak riders; numerous businesses; artists, opera companies, and dance troupes; airline passengers; scientists studying the mating habits of sow bugs (and endless other equally compelling questions). I.e., just about everyone whose vote is sought by some politician. Most of those with their hands out are not lazy. And, of course, the more free lunches it delivers, the more hands that go out: "Where's mine!?"

The free luncher class also includes the self-helpers, i.e., thieves, burglars, purse-snatchers, scammers, street muggers, etc.
If machines can do all the work, why would you judge people for not working? Do you believe that people live to work and that automation robs humans of function and meaning? Do you believe that people who do not work have zero value?
I already answered that. Because the machines are the products of someone else's time, talents, and labor. Someone who buys or builds a machine that can do his work for him is perfectly entitled to give up work. But he is not entitled to force others to give him a machine, or any goods it produces.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by Sy Borg »

GE Morton wrote: October 15th, 2021, 11:23 pmOh, free lunchers are a much larger class than "lazy people."

.... The free luncher class also includes the self-helpers, i.e., thieves, burglars, purse-snatchers, scammers, street muggers, etc.
That's bull, GE, and you know it. The context was the conflict of interest between employers in the 70s hoping to save money with automation and unions, whose members would be made redundant. Unions were convinced to not react to layoffs because automation offered the possibility of reduced hours, even a leisure society. I noted that this was basically a con job.

In response, you complained that the workers were just looking for a "free lunch" - an accusation of laziness. It had nothing to do with burglars or the like, yes?

If we are to judge rent seekers, let's not forget tax-avoiding corporations and billionaires, who throw the tax burden on to those less able to afford it. This dynamic is decimating the middle class. Rupert Murdoch has not paid a cent of tax in Australia for seven years, and he has earned billions.

But that doesn't matter because the middle class doesn't matter, right? Only VIPs and power players matter to society today. The middle class and the poor are treated as an amorphous, and sometimes inconvenient, mob, to be placated with pork barrelling come election time.
GE Morton wrote: October 15th, 2021, 11:23 pm
If machines can do all the work, why would you judge people for not working? Do you believe that people live to work and that automation robs humans of function and meaning? Do you believe that people who do not work have zero value?
I already answered that. Because the machines are the products of someone else's time, talents, and labor. Someone who buys or builds a machine that can do his work for him is perfectly entitled to give up work. But he is not entitled to force others to give him a machine, or any goods it produces.
That is not an answer. If people cannot find work that pays because all of the work is automated, what do you expect the people to live on?

If society requires a certain level of unemployment to function (and as automation increases, that level is increasing) then the society is morally obligated to pay the unemployed enough money to live. Further, as the ranks of unemployed grow, if they are not provided with a living allowance then local demand will collapse; businesses need customers.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by GE Morton »

Sy Borg wrote: October 16th, 2021, 2:24 am
GE Morton wrote: October 15th, 2021, 11:23 pmOh, free lunchers are a much larger class than "lazy people."

.... The free luncher class also includes the self-helpers, i.e., thieves, burglars, purse-snatchers, scammers, street muggers, etc.
That's bull, GE, and you know it. The context was the conflict of interest between employers in the 70s hoping to save money with automation and unions, whose members would be made redundant. Unions were convinced to not react to layoffs because automation offered the possibility of reduced hours, even a leisure society. I noted that this was basically a con job.

In response, you complained that the workers were just looking for a "free lunch" - an accusation of laziness. It had nothing to do with burglars or the like, yes?
Er, does a "leisure society" not entail free lunches?
If we are to judge rent seekers, let's not forget tax-avoiding corporations and billionaires, who throw the tax burden on to those less able to afford it. This dynamic is decimating the middle class. Rupert Murdoch has not paid a cent of tax in Australia for seven years, and he has earned billions.
Oh, many businesses are free lunchers as well, though not because they avoid taxes, but because they seek and obtain lavish government subsidies for their products, such as "affordable" housing developers, producers of solar cells and wind generators, recipients of "competitiveness grants," private colleges and trade schools which depend on government-subsidized students, etc. Whether or not a business is improperly avoiding taxes depends upon what those businesses owe, based on the value of the services they receive from government --- not on how much they can afford.
GE Morton wrote: October 15th, 2021, 11:23 pm I already answered that. Because the machines are the products of someone else's time, talents, and labor. Someone who buys or builds a machine that can do his work for him is perfectly entitled to give up work. But he is not entitled to force others to give him a machine, or any goods it produces.
That is not an answer. If people cannot find work that pays because all of the work is automated, what do you expect the people to live on?
It certainly is an answer. The question was, "to what is the worker entitled?", not "what does the worker need?" He is not entitled to anyone else's services or to the products of anyone else's labor, regardless of his needs.

And, of course, your premise is false. "All of the work" will never be automated. Human desires are endless, and so is human imagination. When a machine replaces a human worker, that worker can exercise that imagination to provide a product or service that will satisfy --- or create --- some new human desire, as has occurred repeatedly throughout economic history. Unless, of course, his only ambition is to join the "leisure society" and subsist on free lunches. There will never be a shortage of work.
If society requires a certain level of unemployment to function (and as automation increases, that level is increasing) then the society is morally obligated to pay the unemployed enough money to live. Further, as the ranks of unemployed grow, if they are not provided with a living allowance then local demand will collapse; businesses need customers.
You don't recognize the absurdity of that view? If "society" is paying the unemployed enough money to live, wouldn't every rational person choose to be unemployed? Who is going to run these businesses, build and maintain those machines? Invent and develop new ones?
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by Belindi »

I guess most rational people would choose to work for no other reason than the work be meaningful for them, and not going to injure or kill them, or harm others. Most people would love to be able to invent or develop machines. Some people enjoy building and maintaining machines, and do it for fun.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by LuckyR »

GE Morton wrote: October 16th, 2021, 11:33 am
Sy Borg wrote: October 16th, 2021, 2:24 am
GE Morton wrote: October 15th, 2021, 11:23 pmOh, free lunchers are a much larger class than "lazy people."

.... The free luncher class also includes the self-helpers, i.e., thieves, burglars, purse-snatchers, scammers, street muggers, etc.
That's bull, GE, and you know it. The context was the conflict of interest between employers in the 70s hoping to save money with automation and unions, whose members would be made redundant. Unions were convinced to not react to layoffs because automation offered the possibility of reduced hours, even a leisure society. I noted that this was basically a con job.

In response, you complained that the workers were just looking for a "free lunch" - an accusation of laziness. It had nothing to do with burglars or the like, yes?
Er, does a "leisure society" not entail free lunches?
If we are to judge rent seekers, let's not forget tax-avoiding corporations and billionaires, who throw the tax burden on to those less able to afford it. This dynamic is decimating the middle class. Rupert Murdoch has not paid a cent of tax in Australia for seven years, and he has earned billions.
Oh, many businesses are free lunchers as well, though not because they avoid taxes, but because they seek and obtain lavish government subsidies for their products, such as "affordable" housing developers, producers of solar cells and wind generators, recipients of "competitiveness grants," private colleges and trade schools which depend on government-subsidized students, etc. Whether or not a business is improperly avoiding taxes depends upon what those businesses owe, based on the value of the services they receive from government --- not on how much they can afford.
GE Morton wrote: October 15th, 2021, 11:23 pm I already answered that. Because the machines are the products of someone else's time, talents, and labor. Someone who buys or builds a machine that can do his work for him is perfectly entitled to give up work. But he is not entitled to force others to give him a machine, or any goods it produces.
That is not an answer. If people cannot find work that pays because all of the work is automated, what do you expect the people to live on?
It certainly is an answer. The question was, "to what is the worker entitled?", not "what does the worker need?" He is not entitled to anyone else's services or to the products of anyone else's labor, regardless of his needs.

And, of course, your premise is false. "All of the work" will never be automated. Human desires are endless, and so is human imagination. When a machine replaces a human worker, that worker can exercise that imagination to provide a product or service that will satisfy --- or create --- some new human desire, as has occurred repeatedly throughout economic history. Unless, of course, his only ambition is to join the "leisure society" and subsist on free lunches. There will never be a shortage of work.
If society requires a certain level of unemployment to function (and as automation increases, that level is increasing) then the society is morally obligated to pay the unemployed enough money to live. Further, as the ranks of unemployed grow, if they are not provided with a living allowance then local demand will collapse; businesses need customers.
You don't recognize the absurdity of that view? If "society" is paying the unemployed enough money to live, wouldn't every rational person choose to be unemployed? Who is going to run these businesses, build and maintain those machines? Invent and develop new ones?
Don't you realize the absurdity of that view? In a consumer society the vast majority of folks like vacation trips, sports cars, fancy restaurants, designer clothes etc that subsistance stipends don't allow for and thus seek employment.
"As usual... it depends."
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by Nick_A »

If we don't knw the value f life how can we hope to know the value of work. Simone offers a clue

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... a%2C%2094).
Abstract
This essay argues that Simone Weil appropriates Marx's notion of labor as life activity in order to reposition work as the site of spirituality. Rather than locating spirituality in a religious tradition, doctrine, profession of faith, or in personal piety, Weil places it in the capacity to work. Spirit arises in the activity of living, and more specifically in laboring—in one's engagement with materiality. Utilizing Marx's distinction between living and dead labor, I show how Weil develops a critique of capital as a “force” that disrupts the individual's relation to her own work by reducing it to the mere activity of calculable “production.” Capital reduces labor to an abstraction and thereby uproots human subjectivity, on a systemic scale, from its connection to living praxis, or what Weil calls spirituality. Life itself is exchanged for a simulacrum of life. In positioning living labor as spiritual, Weil's work offers a corrective to these deadening practices.
Living labor is done with conscious attention or self awareness or our relationship with higher consciousness. Dead labor is a mechanical process. It is a skill that requires no self awareness but just a government to tell people what to do. But if a person lacks the quality of conscious attention necessary to respect life, how can they understand the spirituality of work? People cannot which is why there is this mad rush for the blindness of technology. It isn't what is done which creates living labor but the human quality of how it is done. Conscious attention is the awakening influence. Machine support dead labor. Man can use machines but when machines use Man, culture must die.
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
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by GE Morton »

LuckyR wrote: October 16th, 2021, 12:04 pm
You don't recognize the absurdity of that view? If "society" is paying the unemployed enough money to live, wouldn't every rational person choose to be unemployed? Who is going to run these businesses, build and maintain those machines? Invent and develop new ones?
Don't you realize the absurdity of that view? In a consumer society the vast majority of folks like vacation trips, sports cars, fancy restaurants, designer clothes etc that subsistance stipends don't allow for and thus seek employment.
Oh, but the champions of the "leisure society" will insist that those are "necessities" also, if the unemployed are not to be relegated to 2nd-class citizen status. After all, the UN Charter of Human Rights guarantees that "Everyone has the right to rest and leisure . . ." (Article 24), and "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care . . ." (Article 25). We already hear arguments that well-being requires smart phones and access to broadband Internet, convenient means of transportation, free college educations, and (presumably) whatever else may be required for everyone "to reach their full potential."

No sports cars, though. Those are frivolous, climate-damaging status symbols, unnecessary when everyone has access to free public transportation.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by LuckyR »

GE Morton wrote: October 16th, 2021, 1:36 pm
LuckyR wrote: October 16th, 2021, 12:04 pm
You don't recognize the absurdity of that view? If "society" is paying the unemployed enough money to live, wouldn't every rational person choose to be unemployed? Who is going to run these businesses, build and maintain those machines? Invent and develop new ones?
Don't you realize the absurdity of that view? In a consumer society the vast majority of folks like vacation trips, sports cars, fancy restaurants, designer clothes etc that subsistance stipends don't allow for and thus seek employment.
Oh, but the champions of the "leisure society" will insist that those are "necessities" also, if the unemployed are not to be relegated to 2nd-class citizen status. After all, the UN Charter of Human Rights guarantees that "Everyone has the right to rest and leisure . . ." (Article 24), and "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care . . ." (Article 25). We already hear arguments that well-being requires smart phones and access to broadband Internet, convenient means of transportation, free college educations, and (presumably) whatever else may be required for everyone "to reach their full potential."

No sports cars, though. Those are frivolous, climate-damaging status symbols, unnecessary when everyone has access to free public transportation.
Ah yes, the 'ol slippery slope dodge. Yes, we all know that welfare Queens drive Cadillacs, oh wait that was a Reagan era myth that only the most gullible fall for.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by Sy Borg »

GE Morton wrote: October 16th, 2021, 11:33 am
If society requires a certain level of unemployment to function (and as automation increases, that level is increasing) then the society is morally obligated to pay the unemployed enough money to live. Further, as the ranks of unemployed grow, if they are not provided with a living allowance then local demand will collapse; businesses need customers.
You don't recognize the absurdity of that view? If "society" is paying the unemployed enough money to live, wouldn't every rational person choose to be unemployed? Who is going to run these businesses, build and maintain those machines? Invent and develop new ones?
Did you consider the next step for even a moment? This is not a static model, as per your libertarian ideology, but real life that continues after the sackings. The new jobs will also be replaced by machines, needing very few high level functionaries as oversight.

Your simplistic worldview holds that, if most jobs are taken by machines (and they will be) then the former workers should be left to starve and die, which you would see as preferable to handing out "free lunches".
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by Sy Borg »

All of this begs a key question related to this thread's question: If automation displaces most people, do the displaced have any value at all?

At first glance, the average person''s value will only be as a data source in the future, but if they make no money, advertisers won't care. However, study of masses of regular people may be useful in designing machine intelligence, for a while.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Whose Lives Have Value?

Post by Nick_A »

Imagine for a moment that people all hear this same sound every day slowly rising in pitch. No one knows its source but for some reason they all hear it. This sound keeps rising so high in pitch that no one, even animals hear it. Secular experts claim it is gone since nothing exists beyond our senses so the matter is closed. The some annoying kid who likes to ask questions asks: 'we know that sound is actually interpretations of vibratory frequency. Isn't it possible that this vibration just rose in quality beyond sensory and mechanical limitations?

How insulting! Of course the kid will be cancelled and sent to Timbuktu for reeducation for daring to challenge experts but what if he is right. Doesn't conscience work with the same principle? Secular Man or the Man of senses only values what the senses verify regardless of how absurd it proves to be in the world. Since the universal values of conscience is personal and only available to those having gone beyond subjective morality, let the kid out of jail and let the world fight over subjective morality. The spiritual influence of these rare ones are more important
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
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