The Foundation of Ethics

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Alias wrote: October 28th, 2020, 1:26 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 27th, 2020, 8:25 am We don't see a lot of arguments that create or modify moral rules. Most rules are simply handed down to us by others. For example, we are taught that "stealing is bad" and we are scolded or we are told of others being punished for stealing, and we acquire that "feeling of badness" about the behavior of stealing.
Well... sorta. At the same time, momma is bringing home pens, Scotch tape and yellow pads from work and poppa's fudging his peripheral income on the tax return and both are telling you to let baby bro have the cookie he filched off your plate.... so... it's bad, but maybe not always and maybe not all that bad....
Alias wrote: October 28th, 2020, 1:26 am
But, have we considered what may have gone through the heads of our earliest ancestors who first had to decide whether stealing was a good or bad thing?
They were very bright people, but their social organization was a lot simpler than ours. You took another guy's harpoon without permission, he'd thump you. ("This is not good," you thought.) A couple of young warriors got into a tussle over ownership of a really good spear, each accusing the other of taking it without asking. ("This is not good," thought the chief; "They'll get to thumping each other and their friends will take sides and there will be discord in the tribe.") So the next time somebody wanted somebody else's hide scraper, they snuck up quietly and took it with nobody noticing and the concept of theft came into the human consciousness (birds and rodents had been familiar with it for millions of years) and everybody from grandmothers in need of a chili for their stew to little boys wanting a better slingshot started sneaking around, abstracting other people's stuff and everybody was running around, yelling insults at one another and pulling hair. So, the chief called a council of the elders and they made A Very Solemn Declaration: From now on, anybody caught stealing anything at all will be banished for two moons. (Hell, all alone out there in the wilderness for two moons, a person could die!) (Well, okay, the elders amended, not old people and little kids - they can do their penance time on the edge of the camp and their family can bring them food. But no affection!!)
So, the loss of the victim's property (harpoon, hide scraper, chili, or slingshot) harmed him. The harm made him angry, and the anger motivated him to "thump" the guy who stole their property, to teach him not to do it again. The one-on-one punishment was creating discord in the tribe, so the chief and elders stepped in to make a rule against stealing.
Alias wrote: October 28th, 2020, 1:26 am
We know, for example, that tribes like the Vikings routinely raided other towns to acquire the things they needed.
That's not theft; that's armed robbery. Vikings probably would have been ashamed to sneak around taking things without being seen; they came directly at their prey with weapons. And they killed a lot of the people who objected, so it's robbery and murder. And that's never wrong, as long as you're doing it to another tribe/ nation/ ideology.
Armed robbery indeed. Or perhaps war. And, anything's fair in war, or it used to be until the Geneva Conventions.

Alias wrote: October 28th, 2020, 1:26 am
So, the notion that stealing is universally wrong was not the accepted moral rule for everyone.
No moral rule is universal. No definition of a crime/ sin/ transgression / wrongdoing is universal.
All morality is circumstantial and provisional and all law is unequally applied.
I think that theft and murder are considered a crime pretty much everywhere. The place where I think theft might not be a crime would be a commune, where property is held in common. But I don't know whether that would include personal items.

I think that morality would universally object to any unnecessary harm deliberately inflicted by one person on another. But, interpreting and applying this dictum is what will vary from society to society. Circumcision, for example, would be considered a necessary harm by Jewish sects.
Alias wrote: October 28th, 2020, 1:26 am
How would we determine which rule is morally better than the other? What is the criteria by which these two rules (or any two rules) can be morally compared?
The only criterion is whether a society survives. If it keeps making bad laws, it won't.
I suspect that most societies have plenty of bad laws on the books. But, the question is, how do we tell a bad law from a good law? Did you have any particular example of a bad law in mind? What makes it bad and what would you replace it with?
User avatar
Calico
New Trial Member
Posts: 5
Joined: June 14th, 2020, 8:42 pm

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Calico »

One idea that would seem to be foundational is "The Golden Rule" of treat others as you would want to be treated. This leads to the concept of fairness and while there are many factors that must be considered on the road to determining what is fair, this general rule would seem to be at or near the core of ethical behavior.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Calico wrote: October 29th, 2020, 9:44 am One idea that would seem to be foundational is "The Golden Rule" of treat others as you would want to be treated. This leads to the concept of fairness and while there are many factors that must be considered on the road to determining what is fair, this general rule would seem to be at or near the core of ethical behavior.
I agree. We do not want to be harmed, so we should not harm others. The opportunities we enjoy should be available to others. We would not want our property stolen, so we should not steal from others. I think Kant's universal law, that one should be willing to be governed by that law oneself before imposing it on others, likely derives from "do unto others as you would have then do unto you".
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

The foundation of ethics is the wellbeing of ourselves and others.

Our wellbeing is partly subjective and partly objective. Subjective wellbeing is how we feel about things. It is the emotional side of our experience. We feel hurt when someone treats us unfairly, and angry when we see an injustice. We feel love for our family. Our feelings are often attached to beliefs that color how we view events. Objective wellbeing is something that others can easily observe. A doctor, for example, can diagnose an illness, and objectively describe how we are not well at the moment. We can also objectively observe when one person helps or hurts another.

The goal of ethics is to produce a set of rules that best serve everyone's wellbeing. One thing that most people desire is the freedom to pursue their own happiness in their own way. So, one of the "rules for making rules" is to avoid making unnecessary rules.

Rules change. Over time, we discover ways that we can improve everyone's wellbeing by changing a rule. We outlawed slavery. We gave black me the right to vote. We gave women the right to vote. We established social security to provide retirement benefits for the elderly. We gave same-sex couples the right to marry.

Advocates for these rule changes point out the harms to our wellbeing under the current laws, and show the benefits we gain under the new laws. Moral judgement evaluates these benefits and harms, choosing the law that best serves the wellbeing of everyone.
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Ecurb »

One thing is certain: we can't have an ethically sound society unless we ban circumcision immediately. That's the one universal rule! No cutting!
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Ecurb wrote: October 29th, 2020, 9:11 pm One thing is certain: we can't have an ethically sound society unless we ban circumcision immediately. That's the one universal rule! No cutting!
Well, if circumcision is performed by a doctor in a hospital, I think it is okay. I was circumcised. I have no memory of the experience. And I like it better this way. So, for me it is a benefit and not a harm.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Alias »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 28th, 2020, 1:05 pm [A:... bringing home pens, Scotch tape and yellow pads from work and poppa's fudging his peripheral income on the tax return and both are telling you to let baby bro have the cookie he filched off your plate.... so... it's bad, but maybe not always and maybe not all that bad.... ]

while they would never steal a car?
Nobody said "never". Of course they would, if their kid's bleeding and nobody will stop to take him to the hospital, or they're being chased by somebody who wants to kill them - which might be cops, btw - or for a number of other reasons. Law-breaking, like law-abiding, is circumstantial.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Alias wrote: October 29th, 2020, 11:13 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 28th, 2020, 1:05 pm [A:... bringing home pens, Scotch tape and yellow pads from work and poppa's fudging his peripheral income on the tax return and both are telling you to let baby bro have the cookie he filched off your plate.... so... it's bad, but maybe not always and maybe not all that bad.... ]

while they would never steal a car?
Nobody said "never". Of course they would, if their kid's bleeding and nobody will stop to take him to the hospital, or they're being chased by somebody who wants to kill them - which might be cops, btw - or for a number of other reasons. Law-breaking, like law-abiding, is circumstantial.
Yes. Circumstantial. Then, what is the general rule that we apply in all circumstances?
popeye1945
Posts: 1110
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by popeye1945 »

What other parts of the anatomy might it also be alright to cut, according to some bible babble. It was a bad idea then and its a bad idea now when we tend to think ourselves rational. A legit morality must be based upon our common biology for it to be applicable across the board. The peoples that wrote these ancient spiritual texts had just gotten use to the idea that it might be best to keep their food away form their feces. The bases of morality is compassion, compassion all things which have the capacity to suffer, on this, a civilization can stand. :)
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Alias »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 28th, 2020, 8:39 pm So, the loss of the victim's property (harpoon, hide scraper, chili, or slingshot) harmed him. The harm made him angry, and the anger motivated him to "thump" the guy who stole their property, to teach him not to do it again. The one-on-one punishment was creating discord in the tribe, so the chief and elders stepped in to make a rule against stealing.
Pretty much. They also attempted, more or less successfully, to make the severity of punishment proportional to the harm done by the crime. That way, both parties could eventually reconcile. With private retribution, the greatest danger to society is that the wronged party over-reacts, causes more harm than he suffered, which makes the other person angry enough to retaliate, and the personal vendetta escalates to a family feud. All practical legal codes are aimed at equilibrium. Impractical ones levy disproportionate retribution on dissenters, and their societies are crippled by that burden of punishment.
[not theft... armed robbery.]

Armed robbery indeed. Or perhaps war. And, anything's fair in war, or it used to be until the Geneva Conventions.
Mo, that's not the first or only code of honour for warriors. They were many and various and not too squeamish, but they made sense to the people involved. The Geneva Convention is kind of like the Paris Accord on climate change - sounds nice; all the self-styled good guys signed on, but no hostile forces take it all that seriously.

[No moral rule is universal.]

I think that theft and murder are considered a crime pretty much everywhere.
But defined differently, regarded differently, enforced differently and punished differently.
The place where I think theft might not be a crime would be a commune, where property is held in common. But I don't know whether that would include personal items.
Communal property does not include personal items, though in some communes, it does include women and/or children.
I think that morality would universally object to any unnecessary harm deliberately inflicted by one person on another.
She probably would, if she existed. I notice you identify the potentially harmed entity as "person". So, like, that wouldn't include any human who is not accorded personhood in a given culture, and all other species, as well as the society at large and the world in which they live.
But, interpreting and applying this dictum is what will vary from society to society. Circumcision, for example, would be considered a necessary harm by Jewish sects.
And eternal damnation is deemed by fundamentalist christiansappropriate punishment for having been born in sin .
[The only criterion is whether a society survives. If it keeps making bad laws, it won't.]

I suspect that most societies have plenty of bad laws on the books. But, the question is, how do we tell a bad law from a good law?
Disproportionate harm. When the economic conditions cause a situation where people cannot survive without breaking the law, or the government outlaws activities that are deeply embedded in human nature. Both of these situations generally occur in highly stratified societies, where the law is applied selectively: the lower classes are apprehended and punished for acts that the elite commit with impunity.
Did you have any particular example of a bad law in mind? What makes it bad and what would you replace it with?
One example that satisfies all my criteria would be cutting off a man's hand for stealing. A man who is starving and unemployed has little choice but to steal food. Why are people starving in Nigeria and Saudi Arabia? Because the elites have already stolen the nation's wealth and organized things in such a way that the people can't get any of it back by legal means. What happens when you turn an unemployed man into a cripple? He becomes permanently unemployable, a burden on his family, which is already struggling, and not stigmatized: more enemies for the state, rebellion festering.

What would I replace it with? Circumstantial justice. First, be sure you have the right perp. If he did it, to whom did he do it? How much harm was caused by the crime? Then, determine why he did it and then figure out what needs to change so that he doesn't need to, or want to do it again. If the man is broken, repair him. If the system if broken, repair it.
Yes. Circumstantial. Then, what is the general rule that we apply in all circumstances?
There is none. That's what circumstantial means: each circumstance needs its own response.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Alias wrote: October 30th, 2020, 12:08 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 28th, 2020, 8:39 pm So, the loss of the victim's property (harpoon, hide scraper, chili, or slingshot) harmed him. The harm made him angry, and the anger motivated him to "thump" the guy who stole their property, to teach him not to do it again. The one-on-one punishment was creating discord in the tribe, so the chief and elders stepped in to make a rule against stealing.
Pretty much. They also attempted, more or less successfully, to make the severity of punishment proportional to the harm done by the crime. That way, both parties could eventually reconcile. With private retribution, the greatest danger to society is that the wronged party over-reacts, causes more harm than he suffered, which makes the other person angry enough to retaliate, and the personal vendetta escalates to a family feud. All practical legal codes are aimed at equilibrium. Impractical ones levy disproportionate retribution on dissenters, and their societies are crippled by that burden of punishment.
There is a civil view of punishment based on the notion that justice serves the practical purpose of helping to protect everyone's rights. A "just penalty" would naturally (a) repair the harm to the victim if possible, (b) correct the offender's future behavior if corrigible, (c) protect society by securing the offender until his behavior is corrected, and (d) doing no more harm to the offender than is reasonably needed to accomplish (a), (b), and (c).

Another modern practice is "restorative justice" where a meeting is arranged between the offender and his victim. There's a Wikipedia article that describes it this way:
Wikipedia Restorative Justice wrote:"A restorative justice program aims to get offenders to take responsibility for their actions, to understand the harm they have caused, to give them an opportunity to redeem themselves and to discourage them from causing further harm. For victims, its goal is to give them an active role in the process[1] and to reduce feelings of anxiety and powerlessness.[2] Restorative justice is founded on an alternative theory to the traditional methods of justice, which often focus on retribution. However, restorative justice programs can complement traditional methods."
Alias wrote: October 30th, 2020, 12:08 am
[not theft... armed robbery.]

Armed robbery indeed. Or perhaps war. And, anything's fair in war, or it used to be until the Geneva Conventions.
Mo, that's not the first or only code of honour for warriors. They were many and various and not too squeamish, but they made sense to the people involved. The Geneva Convention is kind of like the Paris Accord on climate change - sounds nice; all the self-styled good guys signed on, but no hostile forces take it all that seriously.
Rules are only taken seriously if they are enforced. UN enforcement is weak, but multiple nations can agree to apply economic sanctions to nations that break the rules, like those upon Iran for their nuclear program or on Russia for meddling in elections.

The notion of "codes of honor" is a bit scary, because they provide no guidance for limiting a penalty. In some cultures there are "honor killings" where a woman whose behavior dishonors her family is put to death. It is better to seek justice than to seek honor.
Alias wrote: October 30th, 2020, 12:08 am [No moral rule is universal.]
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 28th, 2020, 8:39 pm I think that theft and murder are considered a crime pretty much everywhere.
But defined differently, regarded differently, enforced differently and punished differently.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 28th, 2020, 8:39 pm I think that morality would universally object to any unnecessary harm deliberately inflicted by one person on another.
Alias wrote: October 30th, 2020, 12:08 am She probably would, if she existed. I notice you identify the potentially harmed entity as "person". So, like, that wouldn't include any human who is not accorded personhood in a given culture, and all other species, as well as the society at large and the world in which they live.
I think morality must be specific to each species. What is good for the tiger is bad for the antelope. But all human beings should be included in questions of human moral judgement.
Alias wrote: October 30th, 2020, 12:08 am And eternal damnation is deemed by fundamentalist christians appropriate punishment for having been born in sin .
I don't think that eternal torture can be justified under any circumstances. There's nothing one can do in a finite time on Earth that could justify even having one's knuckles rapped throughout eternity.
Marvin wrote: how do we tell a bad law from a good law?
Alias wrote: October 30th, 2020, 12:08 am Disproportionate harm. When the economic conditions cause a situation where people cannot survive without breaking the law, or the government outlaws activities that are deeply embedded in human nature. Both of these situations generally occur in highly stratified societies, where the law is applied selectively: the lower classes are apprehended and punished for acts that the elite commit with impunity.
Marvin wrote: Did you have any particular example of a bad law in mind? What makes it bad and what would you replace it with?
Alias wrote: October 30th, 2020, 12:08 am One example that satisfies all my criteria would be cutting off a man's hand for stealing. A man who is starving and unemployed has little choice but to steal food. Why are people starving in Nigeria and Saudi Arabia? Because the elites have already stolen the nation's wealth and organized things in such a way that the people can't get any of it back by legal means. What happens when you turn an unemployed man into a cripple? He becomes permanently unemployable, a burden on his family, which is already struggling, and not stigmatized: more enemies for the state, rebellion festering.
We had a similar, though less dramatic, law here. If you failed to pay your court fines, your drivers license would be suspended. But if you can't drive you can't work. The law was changed just recently.

Laws arise by agreement. But how can the state expect a person to honor an agreement that threatens the survival his family? That's why states are morally obligated to provide the means to meet at least the most basic needs for every person.
Alias wrote: October 30th, 2020, 12:08 am What would I replace it with? Circumstantial justice. First, be sure you have the right perp. If he did it, to whom did he do it? How much harm was caused by the crime? Then, determine why he did it and then figure out what needs to change so that he doesn't need to, or want to do it again. If the man is broken, repair him. If the system if broken, repair it.
Marvin wrote:Yes. Circumstantial. Then, what is the general rule that we apply in all circumstances?
Alias wrote: October 30th, 2020, 12:08 am There is none. That's what circumstantial means: each circumstance needs its own response.
The general rule that you seem to imply is that we should avoid unnecessarily harming each other. The penalty in one circumstance will be different than in another, but the penalty should always do no more harm than is reasonably required to accomplish the goal of justice, which is to protect everyone's rights, the victim, the public, and the offender.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Terrapin Station »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 27th, 2020, 8:25 am We don't see a lot of arguments that create or modify moral rules. Most rules are simply handed down to us by others. For example, we are taught that "stealing is bad" and we are scolded or we are told of others being punished for stealing, and we acquire that "feeling of badness" about the behavior of stealing.
There's no moral stance that I hold that I hold due to being "taught" it. I can't be "taught to feel" one way or another about interpersonal behavior. I would be surprised if some people felt that they were "taught to feel" some way or other and wound up feeling that way, but maybe some people would say that.

I can't be taught preferences or tastes in general. I simply HAVE the preferences or tastes that I do. They're dispositions I have due to the physical facts of my brain--its particular structure and functioning.

This is not to say that my preferences or tastes can't be influenced by anything. They certainly can be. All sorts of experiences, different things that one becomes acclimated to, etc. can all have an influence on preferences and tastes, but this is a much different idea than having preferences and tastes transmitted to one or being "taught" them.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Terrapin Station »

I suppose I only needed one "that I hold" there LOL
Haicoway
Posts: 235
Joined: December 11th, 2014, 7:29 am

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Haicoway »

I think it is about fitting into a community, which evolved for self-protection. It’s ok to steel from another community, but not from members of your own. Religions got involved somehow.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Steve3007 »

Terrapin Station wrote:I suppose I only needed one "that I hold" there LOL
I think two "that I hold"s may not have been essential but they did add to the meaning of the sentence. Maybe a comma after the first one could have been a good move. If there was only one "that I hold" it might have looked like you were saying:

"I've been taught not to hold any moral stances."

Or maybe not.
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