What could make morality objective?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sy Borg »

GE Morton wrote: February 14th, 2021, 9:52 pm
Greta wrote: February 14th, 2021, 2:59 pm
[then mistakenly lists more ideas informally known as "theories"]

Just because people call something a "theory" informally does not make it a theory.
Well, yes, it does. The meanings of words are ascertained by observing how they are actually used.
The debate was about the formal meaning of theory. You know this so stop playing games. It would be bizarre for me, or anyone, to claim that people are incapable of referring to their random ideas as "theories".

Stop trying to shift the goal posts. It's an obvious flim flam and adds nothing useful to the forum. In order for a theory to be formulated, consensus is needed amongst experts, not unanimity, but a consensus. Obviously.

As for the informal use of "theory", there are obviously no limits. People can, and do, say as they will.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by GE Morton »

Peter Holmes wrote: February 14th, 2021, 7:00 am
(I think I've already explained what I think morality is and what counts as a moral assertion. But I'm happy to come back to that later. For now, we're discussing the nature and function of moral assertions such as 'slavery is wrong'.)
I may have missed that, with respect to what morality is. Please reprise it. As for what counts as a moral assertion, as far as I can recall, the definition you offered was circular --- i.e., something like, "A moral assertion is any assertion that asserts that something is morally right or wrong." Which is, of course, circular and thus uninformative.
Perhaps you didn't notice that the Merriam-Webster definition of 'objective' makes no mention of propositions or their public verifiability. So your definition of the word 'objectivity' - 'public verifiability of a proposition' - is your choice.
Methinks you need to read that more carefully: "2 a: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind."

What relates to, or are "of" objects, phenomenon, or conditions are propositions.
'A "fact" is a proposition which asserts some state of affairs which is publicly confirmable. If a moral proposition asserts some state of affairs which is publicly confirmable, then it, too, is a "fact," just as any other proposition which asserts a confirmable state of affairs.'

And this is obviously incorrect. The predicate should be 'is publicly confirmed', not 'is publicly confirmable'. So your conditional should be as follows:

If a moral proposition asserts some state of affairs which is publicly confirmed, then it, too, is a "fact," just as any other proposition which asserts a [publicly] confirmed state of affairs.

And I think your definition of a fact is this: A fact is a proposition which asserts a publicly confirmed state-of-affairs.
No, it is not. First, my own statement ("A 'fact' is a proposition which asserts some state of affairs which is publicly confirmable") was a gloss, and not strictly accurate. Subjective propositions can also be facts, e..g, "I have a headache" is not publicly confirmable, yet it can be a fact. Only objective facts must be publicly confirmable.

And, no, not "confirmed." If there is life on Mars that will be a fact right now, even though the proposition asserting it is not confirmed at the present. If life on Mars is discovered by astronauts in 2040, it will be understood to have been a fact in 2021 as well. There are infinitely many facts about the universe not yet discovered, and propositions asserting them would be true, even though not known to be true.

A factual proposition is one which asserts a state of affairs that is publicly confirmable, whether or not it has been confirmed. Sometimes we mark the distinction between propositions which are (in principle) confirmable from those that have been actually confirmed with the qualifier "established" --- "It is an established fact that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer."

In sum, a fact need not be known in order to exist.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by GE Morton »

Sculptor1 wrote: February 14th, 2021, 7:00 pm
The subject of morality is human feelings and desires.
If that is what you understand by "morality," then I certainly agree it is not, and can never be, objective. Nor worth discussing, either.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by GE Morton »

Greta wrote: February 14th, 2021, 10:22 pm
The debate was about the formal meaning of theory.
Yes, and that is what I and TS gave you above. It makes no reference to consensuses.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sy Borg »

GE Morton wrote: February 14th, 2021, 10:52 pm
Greta wrote: February 14th, 2021, 10:22 pm
The debate was about the formal meaning of theory.
Yes, and that is what I and TS gave you above. It makes no reference to consensuses.
It does not need to because it's so obvious. But you already know that ...
Peter Holmes
Posts: 562
Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

GE Morton wrote: February 14th, 2021, 10:44 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: February 14th, 2021, 7:00 am
(I think I've already explained what I think morality is and what counts as a moral assertion. But I'm happy to come back to that later. For now, we're discussing the nature and function of moral assertions such as 'slavery is wrong'.)
I may have missed that, with respect to what morality is. Please reprise it. As for what counts as a moral assertion, as far as I can recall, the definition you offered was circular --- i.e., something like, "A moral assertion is any assertion that asserts that something is morally right or wrong." Which is, of course, circular and thus uninformative.
Perhaps you didn't notice that the Merriam-Webster definition of 'objective' makes no mention of propositions or their public verifiability. So your definition of the word 'objectivity' - 'public verifiability of a proposition' - is your choice.
Methinks you need to read that more carefully: "2 a: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind."

What relates to, or are "of" objects, phenomenon, or conditions are propositions.
No, you read it again more carefully. There's no mention of either propositions or their confirmability. Do you think a proposition is 'independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers'? When we observe a thing 'in the realm of sensible experience', such as a dog or a tree, are we observing a proposition? Is ours a universe of (largely unknown) propositions? Absurd!

The conceptual mess you're in is a result of befuddlement by the myth of propositions - the myth that linguistic expressions 'embody' or 'manifest' abstract things (so-called propositions) which, in some magical way, actually are the states-of-affairs that they assert. The JTB account of knowledge casually restates the myth, as does the ridicuous idea of propositional knowledge. (Would the expression 'sentence knowledge' be coherent?)

That you thoughtlessly assume Webster's definition of 'fact' is talking about propositions is startling evidence of this delusion - mistaking what we say about things for the way things are. But here's a simpler definition from the Concise Oxford. 'fact: a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true.' The two completely different meanings of 'fact' are evident here. A thing that is known to exist or to have occurred is obviously not a proposition.
'A "fact" is a proposition which asserts some state of affairs which is publicly confirmable. If a moral proposition asserts some state of affairs which is publicly confirmable, then it, too, is a "fact," just as any other proposition which asserts a confirmable state of affairs.'

And this is obviously incorrect. The predicate should be 'is publicly confirmed', not 'is publicly confirmable'. So your conditional should be as follows:

If a moral proposition asserts some state of affairs which is publicly confirmed, then it, too, is a "fact," just as any other proposition which asserts a [publicly] confirmed state of affairs.

And I think your definition of a fact is this: A fact is a proposition which asserts a publicly confirmed state-of-affairs.
No, it is not. First, my own statement ("A 'fact' is a proposition which asserts some state of affairs which is publicly confirmable") was a gloss, and not strictly accurate. Subjective propositions can also be facts, e..g, "I have a headache" is not publicly confirmable, yet it can be a fact. Only objective facts must be publicly confirmable.
Nope. A fact is, primarily, a state-of-affairs that is or was the case. And what we call 'objectvity' is independence from opinion when considering the facts. So to call facts (states-of-affairs) objective or subjective is a category error - a grammatical misattribution. The expression 'objective fact' is a redundancy or tautology; and the expression 'subjective fact' is plain incoherent.

And, no, not "confirmed." If there is life on Mars that will be a fact right now, even though the proposition asserting it is not confirmed at the present. If life on Mars is discovered by astronauts in 2040, it will be understood to have been a fact in 2021 as well. There are infinitely many facts about the universe not yet discovered, and propositions asserting them would be true, even though not known to be true.
Notice your recognition here that a fact is a state-of-affairs that can be asserted by a proposition - or, more accurately, a factual assertion. So you've casually abandoned your definition of a fact as a proposition.

A factual proposition is one which asserts a state of affairs that is publicly confirmable, whether or not it has been confirmed. Sometimes we mark the distinction between propositions which are (in principle) confirmable from those that have been actually confirmed with the qualifier "established" --- "It is an established fact that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer."

In sum, a fact need not be known in order to exist.
Okay, thanks. It's obvious that a fact that 'need not be known in order to exist' is not a proposition. So now we can move on to address the nature and function of a 'moral proposition' - more accurately, a moral assertion - such as 'slavery is wrong'. I have to stop now, however.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7096
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor1 »

GE Morton wrote: February 14th, 2021, 10:47 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: February 14th, 2021, 7:00 pm
The subject of morality is human feelings and desires.
If that is what you understand by "morality," then I certainly agree it is not, and can never be, objective. Nor worth discussing, either.
For years you have been banging on about this, but have consistently FAILED to over a single example of an objective moral truth.
And by you own definition(is objective if its truth conditions are publicly confirmable) have no morality which is sully agreeable to the public.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by GE Morton »

Peter Holmes wrote: February 15th, 2021, 5:21 am
GE Morton wrote: February 14th, 2021, 10:44 pm
Methinks you need to read that more carefully: "2 a: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind."

What relates to, or are "of" objects, phenomenon, or conditions are propositions.
No, you read it again more carefully. There's no mention of either propositions or their confirmability. Do you think a proposition is 'independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers'? When we observe a thing 'in the realm of sensible experience', such as a dog or a tree, are we observing a proposition? Is ours a universe of (largely unknown) propositions? Absurd!
Egads. You stubbornly ignore ignore the words "of, relating to" in that definition, and pretend that it only mentions being "an object, phenomenon . . ." etc. No, a proposition is not independent of thought and perceptible by all observers. But it certainly is of, and relates to, some such object or phenomenon.
The conceptual mess you're in is a result of befuddlement by the myth of propositions - the myth that linguistic expressions 'embody' or 'manifest' abstract things (so-called propositions) which, in some magical way, actually are the states-of-affairs that they assert.
Well, that is wandering pretty far from the topic, and is gratuitous. There is nothing mythical or magical about propositions, and no one I know of claims they "are" the states of affairs they assert. A proposition is merely a verbal construction that asserts a state of affairs. They are true if the state of affairs they assert exists, false if it does not. They are objective if the state of affairs they assert is publicly confirmable, subjective if it is only privately confirmable.

"So-called" propositions? You're challenging a term that is ubiquitous in the philosophical literature and whose meaning is perfectly clear and universally understood? Do you really want to tilt at that windmill?
That you thoughtlessly assume Webster's definition of 'fact' is talking about propositions is startling evidence of this delusion - mistaking what we say about things for the way things are. But here's a simpler definition from the Concise Oxford. 'fact: a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true.' The two completely different meanings of 'fact' are evident here. A thing that is known to exist or to have occurred is obviously not a proposition.
We've covered this. I agree that "fact" can refer to either a confirmed state of affairs, or to a proposition asserting such a state of affairs. E.g.,

Alfie: "Paris is the capital of France."

Bruno: "Yes, that is a fact."
A fact is, primarily, a state-of-affairs that is or was the case. And what we call 'objectvity' is independence from opinion when considering the facts.
Agree.
So to call facts (states-of-affairs) objective or subjective is a category error - a grammatical misattribution. The expression 'objective fact' is a redundancy or tautology; and the expression 'subjective fact' is plain incoherent.
Also agree, unless understood colloquially. Strictly speaking, facts are neither objective nor subjective; only the propositions asserting them are.
Notice your recognition here that a fact is a state-of-affairs that can be asserted by a proposition - or, more accurately, a factual assertion. So you've casually abandoned your definition of a fact as a proposition.
As said above, the term "fact" can apply either to a confirmed state of affairs, OR to a proposition asserting such a state of affairs. The term is regularly used for both purposes.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by GE Morton »

Sculptor1 wrote: February 15th, 2021, 11:27 am
For years you have been banging on about this, but have consistently FAILED to over a single example of an objective moral truth.
But I have. Several times.
And by you own definition(is objective if its truth conditions are publicly confirmable) have no morality which is sully agreeable to the public.
"Publicly confirmable" doesn't mean, or imply, "agreeable to the public."
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Greta wrote: February 14th, 2021, 10:22 pm
GE Morton wrote: February 14th, 2021, 9:52 pm
Greta wrote: February 14th, 2021, 2:59 pm
[then mistakenly lists more ideas informally known as "theories"]

Just because people call something a "theory" informally does not make it a theory.
Well, yes, it does. The meanings of words are ascertained by observing how they are actually used.
The debate was about the formal meaning of theory. You know this so stop playing games. It would be bizarre for me, or anyone, to claim that people are incapable of referring to their random ideas as "theories".

Stop trying to shift the goal posts. It's an obvious flim flam and adds nothing useful to the forum. In order for a theory to be formulated, consensus is needed amongst experts, not unanimity, but a consensus. Obviously.

As for the informal use of "theory", there are obviously no limits. People can, and do, say as they will.
No one was introducing colloquial senses of "theory," by the way.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7096
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor1 »

GE Morton wrote: February 15th, 2021, 12:39 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: February 15th, 2021, 11:27 am
For years you have been banging on about this, but have consistently FAILED to over a single example of an objective moral truth.
But I have. Several times.
Orwellian double talk

And by you own definition(is objective if its truth conditions are publicly confirmable) have no morality which is sully agreeable to the public.
"Publicly confirmable" doesn't mean, or imply, "agreeable to the public."
So you are implying that moral systems are generally disagreeable to the public or should be generally disagreeable; are like to be, are better if they are - what?. If that is the case then who the hell are moral laws supposed to serve?
Is it the case that you and a few friends get to decide what are the best moral laws and just impose them (objectively) upon everyone else?
Quit the double talk and...
Give an example.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sy Borg »

Terrapin Station wrote: February 15th, 2021, 12:48 pm
Greta wrote: February 14th, 2021, 10:22 pm
GE Morton wrote: February 14th, 2021, 9:52 pm
Greta wrote: February 14th, 2021, 2:59 pm
[then mistakenly lists more ideas informally known as "theories"]

Just because people call something a "theory" informally does not make it a theory.
Well, yes, it does. The meanings of words are ascertained by observing how they are actually used.
The debate was about the formal meaning of theory. You know this so stop playing games. It would be bizarre for me, or anyone, to claim that people are incapable of referring to their random ideas as "theories".

Stop trying to shift the goal posts. It's an obvious flim flam and adds nothing useful to the forum. In order for a theory to be formulated, consensus is needed amongst experts, not unanimity, but a consensus. Obviously.

As for the informal use of "theory", there are obviously no limits. People can, and do, say as they will.
No one was introducing colloquial senses of "theory," by the way.
Anyone masochistic enough can check to see the goalposts move around.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by GE Morton »

Sculptor1 wrote: February 15th, 2021, 2:00 pm
So you are implying that moral systems are generally disagreeable to the public or should be generally disagreeable; are like to be, are better if they are - what?
"Better"? "Better," how? Per what standard or criteria are you measuring them?

A set of moral rules X is "better" than set Y if X better serves the purpose for which those rules were created. Whether it does or not is an empirical matter, and thus objective. Whether or not anyone agrees with it is irrelevant. The ad populum argument is as fallacious when used in a moral argument as it is in any other context.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 562
Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

GE Morton wrote: February 15th, 2021, 12:36 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: February 15th, 2021, 5:21 am
GE Morton wrote: February 14th, 2021, 10:44 pm
Methinks you need to read that more carefully: "2 a: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind."

What relates to, or are "of" objects, phenomenon, or conditions are propositions.
No, you read it again more carefully. There's no mention of either propositions or their confirmability. Do you think a proposition is 'independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers'? When we observe a thing 'in the realm of sensible experience', such as a dog or a tree, are we observing a proposition? Is ours a universe of (largely unknown) propositions? Absurd!
Egads. You stubbornly ignore ignore the words "of, relating to" in that definition, and pretend that it only mentions being "an object, phenomenon . . ." etc. No, a proposition is not independent of thought and perceptible by all observers. But it certainly is of, and relates to, some such object or phenomenon.
But this is a definition of the word 'fact', not the word 'proposition'. So you are stubbornly insisting that 'of' or 'relating to' an object...refers to a proposition, when that is not mentioned at all in this definition. You're making an unjustified but telling assumption.
The conceptual mess you're in is a result of befuddlement by the myth of propositions - the myth that linguistic expressions 'embody' or 'manifest' abstract things (so-called propositions) which, in some magical way, actually are the states-of-affairs that they assert.
Well, that is wandering pretty far from the topic, and is gratuitous. There is nothing mythical or magical about propositions, and no one I know of claims they "are" the states of affairs they assert. A proposition is merely a verbal construction that asserts a state of affairs. They are true if the state of affairs they assert exists, false if it does not. They are objective if the state of affairs they assert is publicly confirmable, subjective if it is only privately confirmable.
No this very much on topic. Like all so-called abstract things, propositions are misleading metaphysical fictions. And the JTB truth-condition is a clear example of what I'm saying about their mystical nature: S knows that p iff p is true. (It's not, as you said some time ago, S knows that p is true iff p is true.) What S can know is that a feature of reality (a state-of-affairs) is the case, and that is not 'knowing that p'. Neither a feature of reality, nor our knowing that it's the case, has anything to do with the truth of an assertion that it indeed is the case.

However, at least here you clarify the difference and separation between a feature of reality and a linguistic expression that describes it. And that difference and separation is critical in this debate about what constitutes a fact, and therefore whether there can be so-called moral facts.

"So-called" propositions? You're challenging a term that is ubiquitous in the philosophical literature and whose meaning is perfectly clear and universally understood? Do you really want to tilt at that windmill?
Yes. A proposition is not, as you say, 'merely a verbal construction that asserts a state of affairs'. Here's one representative definition:

'In linguistics and philosophy, a proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence, where "meaning" is understood to be a non-linguistic entity which is shared by all sentences with the same meaning.[1] Equivalently, a proposition is the non-linguistic bearer of truth or falsity which makes any sentence that expresses it either true or false.'

That a fiction - the non-linguistic entity that is the meaning of a sentence - has been around for a long time - like Platonic forms - is no reason to treat it with any respect. To the bonfire with it,
That you thoughtlessly assume Webster's definition of 'fact' is talking about propositions is startling evidence of this delusion - mistaking what we say about things for the way things are. But here's a simpler definition from the Concise Oxford. 'fact: a thing that is known to exist, to have occurred, or to be true.' The two completely different meanings of 'fact' are evident here. A thing that is known to exist or to have occurred is obviously not a proposition.
We've covered this. I agree that "fact" can refer to either a confirmed state of affairs, or to a proposition asserting such a state of affairs.{/quote]
So it's 'confirmed', not 'confirmable' now?

E.g.,

Alfie: "Paris is the capital of France."

Bruno: "Yes, that is a fact."
A fact is, primarily, a state-of-affairs that is or was the case. And what we call 'objectvity' is independence from opinion when considering the facts.
Agree.
So to call facts (states-of-affairs) objective or subjective is a category error - a grammatical misattribution. The expression 'objective fact' is a redundancy or tautology; and the expression 'subjective fact' is plain incoherent.
Also agree, unless understood colloquially. Strictly speaking, facts are neither objective nor subjective; only the propositions asserting them are.
Notice your recognition here that a fact is a state-of-affairs that can be asserted by a proposition - or, more accurately, a factual assertion. So you've casually abandoned your definition of a fact as a proposition.
As said above, the term "fact" can apply either to a confirmed state of affairs, OR to a proposition asserting such a state of affairs. The term is regularly used for both purposes.
Good. I think we may be near the end. So, to summarise, I think we agree on the following.

1 A fact is, primarily, a state-fo-affairs that is or was the case. And what we call objectivity is independence from opinion when considering the facts. And here I want to point out that none of this, so far, is about propositions - more accurately, factual assertions.

2 A fact is a state-of-affairs that can be asserted by a factual assertion - a linguistic expression - which is true if the state-of-affairs is the case. And as a matter of usage, we can call such a true factual assertion a fact. But here I want to point out the potential confusion in this completely different use of the word 'fact'. It's critical that we clarify which way we're using the word 'fact': a state-of-affairs or a description of a state-of-affairs.

3 To apply the adjectives 'objective' and subjective' to facts-as-states-of-affairs is incoherent.

4 We disagree as to whether the adjectives 'objective' and 'subjective' can be applied to propositions. But, anyway, you maintain that the distinction refers to the public confirmability of a state-of-affairs.

Do you in fact agree with these assertions? If not, please amend them where necessary.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7096
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor1 »

GE Morton wrote: February 15th, 2021, 7:33 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: February 15th, 2021, 2:00 pm
So you are implying that moral systems are generally disagreeable to the public or should be generally disagreeable; are like to be, are better if they are - what?
"Better"? "Better," how? Per what standard or criteria are you measuring them?
LOL :lol: :lol:
Surely that is your **** problem.
I'm not the one trying to impose his morality on everyone and claiming he is objective.

A set of moral rules X is "better" than set Y if X better serves the purpose for which those rules were created.
WHICH IT WHAT FFS???
Whether it does or not is an empirical matter, and thus objective. Whether or not anyone agrees with it is irrelevant. The ad populum argument is as fallacious when used in a moral argument as it is in any other context.
Morals are not nad never been how you describe them.
Morals are always imposed by the powerful on those iver whom they have power.

You would clearl this all up with one good example.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021