Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
moonwolfsingingnz
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: November 26th, 2020, 12:18 pm

Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?

Post by moonwolfsingingnz »

I am very much in the beginning stages of studying philosophy, with a particular interest in morality and ethics. In virtue ethics, how does one decide who are exemplars of virtue? Are such answers subjective? If not, how does one objectively arrive at a definition of virtue?
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Kant points out that any virtue, such as courage, intelligence, loyalty, etc., can be just as easily employed to do evil as to do good. The one exception is what Kant called a "good will". So, before discussing any virtue, we must first presume that it is a quality of a person having a good will. Persons of good will seek good for others as well as for themselves.
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?

Post by Jack D Ripper »

moonwolfsingingnz wrote: November 26th, 2020, 12:36 pm I am very much in the beginning stages of studying philosophy, with a particular interest in morality and ethics. In virtue ethics, how does one decide who are exemplars of virtue? Are such answers subjective? If not, how does one objectively arrive at a definition of virtue?

You have asked some good questions. Since you are just starting out, you might want to look at articles in online encyclopedias of philosophy, such as the articles at these links:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

https://iep.utm.edu/virtue/


If we look at someone like Aristotle, he thought that one could figure out the proper function of man (and I do intend that sexist expression here, as Aristotle intended it) and that it was objective. However, many today find his teleological approach unconvincing, and don't think there is an objective basis for his claims at all.

Traditionally, no proper arguments are generally given for the qualities that are supposedly those of a virtuous person, and people can often get away with that, because most people agree on many of the characteristics that they believe a virtuous person would have. Kindness, for example, is widely regarded as a good thing, so that when someone proposes that as a virtue, most people don't bother asking for a proof of that claim. If they did, then they would likely end up asking questions like what you are asking. I think you should keep asking those kinds of questions.


If you are specifically interested in Aristotle on this, you would want to read The Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford, not surprisingly, has a good edition of it, translated by David Ross, and had been revised by a couple of people. ISBN 0-19-283407-X. Unfortunately, Oxford likes to print their cheap books on paper that yellows with age.

Of course, if you are wanting to look at more modern theories (or older ones, like Plato's), then you will want to read something else.


Oh, you probably want an answer to your questions.


In virtue ethics, how does one decide who are exemplars of virtue?


Normally, people just think about what they regard as excellence in a person. Then they look around and decide who has those qualities that they admire.


Are such answers subjective?


Yes, but they usually believe that they are objective. Part of that is because there tends to be a lot of agreement about what qualities are good qualities to have, but agreement with many other people does not make it objective.


If not, how does one objectively arrive at a definition of virtue?


They don't. Paying attention to this aspect of the matter is how you know the answer to the previous question. Very often, it is in the early stages of an ethical theory that the sleight of hand takes place, where the ethicist pretends to have proven that something is objective.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

If the qualities are first defined in terms of behavior, then one could make an objective claim that the person consistently exhibiting that behavior has that virtue. And that's probably what we all do. We observe someone being kind to people and say that person is kind. We observe a fireman or soldier running into danger and say they have courage. We observe someone who found a wallet on the sidewalk and used the cards inside to identify the owner and return it to them, and say he is honest.

I think that virtues correspond to principles. We say that it is good for people to be kind, and brave, and honest (that is, the behaviors usually have good results). We can also say that people ought to be kind, and brave, and honest (because of the good results).
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: November 26th, 2020, 9:19 pm If the qualities are first defined in terms of behavior, then one could make an objective claim that the person consistently exhibiting that behavior has that virtue.

The trouble is not in whether someone has a particular quality or not, but in determining that a specific quality really is a virtue. (It is attending to the question of how someone goes from an "is" to an "ought".) If someone claims that X is a virtue, the concern is whether that is subjectively or objectively determined. That is, how does not know that X is a virtue? Claiming it is objective does not make it so. If it is just that people feel like those qualities are virtues, then it is subjectively determined.


Marvin_Edwards wrote: November 26th, 2020, 9:19 pm And that's probably what we all do. We observe someone being kind to people and say that person is kind. We observe a fireman or soldier running into danger and say they have courage. We observe someone who found a wallet on the sidewalk and used the cards inside to identify the owner and return it to them, and say he is honest.

I think that virtues correspond to principles. We say that it is good for people to be kind, and brave, and honest (that is, the behaviors usually have good results). We can also say that people ought to be kind, and brave, and honest (because of the good results).

Virtue ethics is not primarily about consequences. Here are a couple of quotes:

Virtue ethics is a broad term for theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or acting in order to bring about good consequences. A virtue ethicist is likely to give you this kind of moral advice: “Act as a virtuous person would act in your situation.”

Most virtue ethics theories take their inspiration from Aristotle who declared that a virtuous person is someone who has ideal character traits. These traits derive from natural internal tendencies, but need to be nurtured; however, once established, they will become stable. For example, a virtuous person is someone who is kind across many situations over a lifetime because that is her character and not because she wants to maximize utility or gain favors or simply do her duty. Unlike deontological and consequentialist theories, theories of virtue ethics do not aim primarily to identify universal principles that can be applied in any moral situation. And virtue ethics theories deal with wider questions—“How should I live?” and “What is the good life?” and “What are proper family and social values?”
https://iep.utm.edu/virtue/

Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach that emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism). Suppose it is obvious that someone in need should be helped. A utilitarian will point to the fact that the consequences of doing so will maximize well-being, a deontologist to the fact that, in doing so the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral rule such as “Do unto others as you would be done by” and a virtue ethicist to the fact that helping the person would be charitable or benevolent.

This is not to say that only virtue ethicists attend to virtues, any more than it is to say that only consequentialists attend to consequences or only deontologists to rules. Each of the above-mentioned approaches can make room for virtues, consequences, and rules. Indeed, any plausible normative ethical theory will have something to say about all three. What distinguishes virtue ethics from consequentialism or deontology is the centrality of virtue within the theory (Watson 1990; Kawall 2009). Whereas consequentialists will define virtues as traits that yield good consequences and deontologists will define them as traits possessed by those who reliably fulfil their duties, virtue ethicists will resist the attempt to define virtues in terms of some other concept that is taken to be more fundamental. Rather, virtues and vices will be foundational for virtue ethical theories and other normative notions will be grounded in them.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
moonwolfsingingnz
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: November 26th, 2020, 12:18 pm

Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?

Post by moonwolfsingingnz »

Marvin and Jack, you have both been really helpful and I appreciate your comments. Thank you.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Jack D Ripper wrote: November 27th, 2020, 12:23 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: November 26th, 2020, 9:19 pm If the qualities are first defined in terms of behavior, then one could make an objective claim that the person consistently exhibiting that behavior has that virtue.

The trouble is not in whether someone has a particular quality or not, but in determining that a specific quality really is a virtue. (It is attending to the question of how someone goes from an "is" to an "ought".) If someone claims that X is a virtue, the concern is whether that is subjectively or objectively determined. That is, how does not know that X is a virtue? Claiming it is objective does not make it so. If it is just that people feel like those qualities are virtues, then it is subjectively determined.
Thanks. Your post was very helpful. I'm a consequentialist. For me, the pragmatic question is "What is it good for?" (the Morality question) and "How can we tell, in fact, whether it is or is not actually good for that purpose?" (the Objectivity question).

Consequences answer the question "Why?" Consequences explain why we create rules. Consequences explain why we care to develop virtues in ourselves and others. Consequences are like a "grand unifying theory" of morality.

So, to me, the test of "whether X is a virtue" is in whether X produces the results that virtues are expected to produce. If we have objective evidence of those results, then we have objective evidence of the virtue. It is no longer a subjective feeling, but is now a demonstrated fact.

A "virtue" seems to be defined below as a "character trait", one that is not necessarily inborn, but one that can be developed by practice until it is a habitual "way of life". Habits don't require thinking and choosing, because the choosing was done long ago in order to build the habit. They are like rules that have become "second nature" to us, operating as if they were always naturally imbued.

So, virtues would operate differently than written rules that one may look up in a book of ethics, like "do not steal". Instead they would encapsulate a set of rules into a single notion like "Honesty", which implies not lying, not stealing, and not cheating.

That seems to me to be what virtues are about, if I've understood the notion correctly.
Jack D Ripper wrote: November 27th, 2020, 12:23 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: November 26th, 2020, 9:19 pm And that's probably what we all do. We observe someone being kind to people and say that person is kind. We observe a fireman or soldier running into danger and say they have courage. We observe someone who found a wallet on the sidewalk and used the cards inside to identify the owner and return it to them, and say he is honest.

I think that virtues correspond to principles. We say that it is good for people to be kind, and brave, and honest (that is, the behaviors usually have good results). We can also say that people ought to be kind, and brave, and honest (because of the good results).

Virtue ethics is not primarily about consequences. Here are a couple of quotes:

Virtue ethics is a broad term for theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or acting in order to bring about good consequences. A virtue ethicist is likely to give you this kind of moral advice: “Act as a virtuous person would act in your situation.”

Most virtue ethics theories take their inspiration from Aristotle who declared that a virtuous person is someone who has ideal character traits. These traits derive from natural internal tendencies, but need to be nurtured; however, once established, they will become stable. For example, a virtuous person is someone who is kind across many situations over a lifetime because that is her character and not because she wants to maximize utility or gain favors or simply do her duty. Unlike deontological and consequentialist theories, theories of virtue ethics do not aim primarily to identify universal principles that can be applied in any moral situation. And virtue ethics theories deal with wider questions—“How should I live?” and “What is the good life?” and “What are proper family and social values?”
https://iep.utm.edu/virtue/

Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach that emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism). Suppose it is obvious that someone in need should be helped. A utilitarian will point to the fact that the consequences of doing so will maximize well-being, a deontologist to the fact that, in doing so the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral rule such as “Do unto others as you would be done by” and a virtue ethicist to the fact that helping the person would be charitable or benevolent.

This is not to say that only virtue ethicists attend to virtues, any more than it is to say that only consequentialists attend to consequences or only deontologists to rules. Each of the above-mentioned approaches can make room for virtues, consequences, and rules. Indeed, any plausible normative ethical theory will have something to say about all three. What distinguishes virtue ethics from consequentialism or deontology is the centrality of virtue within the theory (Watson 1990; Kawall 2009). Whereas consequentialists will define virtues as traits that yield good consequences and deontologists will define them as traits possessed by those who reliably fulfil their duties, virtue ethicists will resist the attempt to define virtues in terms of some other concept that is taken to be more fundamental. Rather, virtues and vices will be foundational for virtue ethical theories and other normative notions will be grounded in them.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?

Post by Jack D Ripper »

moonwolfsingingnz wrote: November 27th, 2020, 5:06 am Marvin and Jack, you have both been really helpful and I appreciate your comments. Thank you.

You are welcome.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

moonwolfsingingnz wrote: November 26th, 2020, 12:36 pm I am very much in the beginning stages of studying philosophy, with a particular interest in morality and ethics. In virtue ethics, how does one decide who are exemplars of virtue? Are such answers subjective? If not, how does one objectively arrive at a definition of virtue?
Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy wrote:Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach that emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism). Suppose it is obvious that someone in need should be helped. A utilitarian will point to the fact that the consequences of doing so will maximize well-being, a deontologist to the fact that, in doing so the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral rule such as “Do unto others as you would be done by” and a virtue ethicist to the fact that helping the person would be charitable or benevolent. - link
So a virtue ethicist is someone who promotes doing what is good. An exemplar of virtue is surely someone - anyone - who believes that they know what is good and right, and is willing to tell others of it. I.e. most humans! This is an arbitrary thing, that many philosophers would style 'subjective'.

As virtue is a vague and ill-defined, subjective, invention, I don't think there is a way to arrive at an objective definition; I don't think such a thing exists.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
hegel
Posts: 77
Joined: March 29th, 2020, 1:17 pm

Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?

Post by hegel »

moonwolfsingingnz wrote: November 26th, 2020, 12:36 pm I am very much in the beginning stages of studying philosophy, with a particular interest in morality and ethics. In virtue ethics, how does one decide who are exemplars of virtue? Are such answers subjective? If not, how does one objectively arrive at a definition of virtue?
Virtue ethics is usually attributed to Aristotle. His method is to observe other people and judge whether the action is good or bad.
The idea of virtue being objective or subjective need not even enter the analysis.
hegel
Posts: 77
Joined: March 29th, 2020, 1:17 pm

Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?

Post by hegel »

Pattern-chaser wrote: November 28th, 2020, 1:03 pm
So a virtue ethicist is someone who promotes doing what is good. An exemplar of virtue is surely someone - anyone - who believes that they know what is good and right, and is willing to tell others of it. I.e. most humans! This is an arbitrary thing, that many philosophers would style 'subjective'.

Is the virtue of not being violent subjective? Are there people who think being violent is always good?
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?

Post by Gertie »

I think any moral theory which isn't ultimately consequentialist is difficult to justify in moral terms.

My suspicion is virtue ethics and deontology are morally meaningless if they aren't concerned with outcomes, which will need justifying in terms of good/bad or right/wrong consequences.

You can argue that 'being virtuous' or following a set of rules will generally result in morally good consequences, and that's fine for establishing a rule of thumb practical approach. A methodology rather than a principle. If you pick the right virtues or rules it will mostly work in terms of consequences too.

But without bearing consequences in mind, how can you assess where a rule of thumb breaks down (eg the lying to Nazis about Anne Frank in your attic scenario), or doesn't that matter, iare consequences really irrelevant to moral consideration for Virtue Ethicists or Deontologists?

More significantly, how do you establish what Good and Right are, without considering consequences? Are they then about anything more than rules for rules' sake we happen to agree on? Or feeling like you're a good person?

If we expect more from a moral theory, we have to think about the Is/Ought distinction, what is it for and how can it be justified. Why do Oughts matter? And I believe this entails thinking about Interests, and consequences in terms of how they affect Interests.

To talk of Interests, a stake in the state of affairs, as ''objective'' raises problems, because in order to have interests you need to be able to experience the state of affairs - have sentience (qualiative 'what it's like' conscious experience). And conscious entities (Subjects) will have some similarities, but also different types of interests, and different priorities. Even amongst humans. So some flexibility and freedom makes sense when looking at it this way. Hard and fast rules and virtues don't automatically confer this, they often need caveating, if consequences are prioritised.

I think the virtue of kindness is a good fit with consequentialism, because it entails considering the Interests of others, even if they aren't identical to our own (unlike the Golden Rule for example). Other Virtues like Truthfulness, Temperance, Courage will generally hold, but there will be times when they lead to consequences which harm the interests of others or the virtuous person herself. They aren't foolproof from the perspective of consequences for subjects with interests. And should be tested against that touchstone imo.

'The wellbeing of conscious creatures' (subjects with interests), as Harris puts it, provides the appropriate consequentialist grounding for morality imo. And Virtue Ethics and Deontology are good for thinking about how to put our moral principles into practice, but without the foundational touchstone of Consequentialism they can go astray.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8265
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

hegel wrote: November 29th, 2020, 11:53 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 28th, 2020, 1:03 pm
So a virtue ethicist is someone who promotes doing what is good. An exemplar of virtue is surely someone - anyone - who believes that they know what is good and right, and is willing to tell others of it. I.e. most humans! This is an arbitrary thing, that many philosophers would style 'subjective'.

Is the virtue of not being violent subjective? Are there people who think being violent is always good?
Huh? Being violent is empirically observable. Is it a "virtue"? As to the latter, there probably are. 😦
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
hegel
Posts: 77
Joined: March 29th, 2020, 1:17 pm

Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?

Post by hegel »

Pattern-chaser wrote: November 30th, 2020, 5:21 am
hegel wrote: November 29th, 2020, 11:53 pm


Is the virtue of not being violent subjective? Are there people who think being violent is always good?
Huh? Being violent is empirically observable. Is it a "virtue"? As to the latter, there probably are. 😦
Huh?

How do you observe violence empirically? Explain.
hegel
Posts: 77
Joined: March 29th, 2020, 1:17 pm

Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?

Post by hegel »

Gertie wrote: November 30th, 2020, 3:56 am And Virtue Ethics and Deontology are good for thinking about how to put our moral principles into practice, but without the foundational touchstone of Consequentialism they can go astray.
Depends on how virtue ethics is defined. For Aristotle, ethics is not about innate goods but is based on actual observations of people's behavior.

Aristotle associates virtue with happiness. Is President Trump happy? He looks to be miserable all the time. One would conclude that being a jerk and selfish is not virtuous--not a behavior to be copied.
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