How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
AmericanKestrel
Posts: 356
Joined: May 22nd, 2021, 6:26 am
Favorite Philosopher: Yagnyavalkya
Location: US

Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?

Post by AmericanKestrel »

BobS wrote: June 28th, 2021, 1:50 pm
AmericanKestrel wrote: June 18th, 2021, 9:53 am Moral judgement or an ethical life, a term which I prefer, is not what Smith had in mind. His interest is in economics and business.
I don't believe that's true. Smith was the professor of moral philosophy at Glasgow University, during which time he published The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which he considered his best work. Although I haven't read it myself, and know of it only through secondary sources, my understanding is that it discusses self-interest and its relationship to morality.

The Wealth of Nations is his more famous work, and I haven't read that one either, but my understanding is that, while it's subject is different, it's not inconsistent with the views expressed in Smith's earlier work.
Can you explain why you think ethical life and self-interest are compatible?
"The Serpent did not lie."
BobS
Posts: 75
Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm

Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?

Post by BobS »

AmericanKestrel wrote: June 28th, 2021, 8:25 pmCan you explain why you think ethical life and self-interest are compatible?
I didn't say that I thought that. I said what I understood Adam Smith said.

Don't confuse the messenger with the message.

But very slightly to elaborate on Smith (relying on an admittedly imperfect memory of what I read years ago), I believe that he considered ethics a limit or regulating influence on self-interest.

My own view, since you asked, is that they are indeed compatible. Not only that, but I find the idea that they are incompatible rather astonishing.

Life is a a matter of balance. If someone says that he has absolutely no self-interest, I simply don't believe him. If he also has any belief in ethics (some people do not) then, to the extent that the two considerations are in conflict, he obviously has to balance them. Conflict doesn't mean that one rules out the other, making them incompatible; it means that they have to be made to accommodate each other.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8271
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

BobS wrote: June 29th, 2021, 1:39 pm
AmericanKestrel wrote: June 28th, 2021, 8:25 pmCan you explain why you think ethical life and self-interest are compatible?

My own view, since you asked, is that they are indeed compatible. Not only that, but I find the idea that they are incompatible rather astonishing.
If one is an (American) Individualist, I can see that it might be hard to see the incompatibility. But if one acknowledges that we humans are a social species, the friction between ethical behaviour and self-interest becomes more obvious, doesn't it?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?

Post by Terrapin Station »

AmericanKestrel wrote: June 28th, 2021, 8:25 pm
BobS wrote: June 28th, 2021, 1:50 pm
AmericanKestrel wrote: June 18th, 2021, 9:53 am Moral judgement or an ethical life, a term which I prefer, is not what Smith had in mind. His interest is in economics and business.
I don't believe that's true. Smith was the professor of moral philosophy at Glasgow University, during which time he published The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which he considered his best work. Although I haven't read it myself, and know of it only through secondary sources, my understanding is that it discusses self-interest and its relationship to morality.

The Wealth of Nations is his more famous work, and I haven't read that one either, but my understanding is that, while it's subject is different, it's not inconsistent with the views expressed in Smith's earlier work.
Can you explain why you think ethical life and self-interest are compatible?
Did anyone explain why they'd think they'd be incompatible?
BobS
Posts: 75
Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm

Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?

Post by BobS »

Pattern-chaser wrote: June 29th, 2021, 3:31 pm If one is an (American) Individualist, I can see that it might be hard to see the incompatibility.
I doubt that an "(American) Individualist," whatever that is, would have such difficulty.

Perhaps one inclined to caricature different nationalities might conjecture otherwise, but that raises an entirely different category of ethics.
Pattern-chaser wrote: June 29th, 2021, 3:31 pm But if one acknowledges that we humans are a social species, the friction between ethical behaviour and self-interest becomes more obvious, doesn't it?
It's obvious even without the condition. But it's not relevant to what I said earlier. Mere friction and incompatibility are two different things.

Since a mis-statement regarding Adam Smith is what got me into this thread, you might consider going back and reading him, or at least about him. Although The Wealth of Nations is often (incorrectly) cited as urging unadulterated self-interest, Smith explicitly argued that social concerns had to be considered.

But then, he wasn't an American. So you got me there.
User avatar
AmericanKestrel
Posts: 356
Joined: May 22nd, 2021, 6:26 am
Favorite Philosopher: Yagnyavalkya
Location: US

Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?

Post by AmericanKestrel »

BobS wrote: June 29th, 2021, 1:39 pm
AmericanKestrel wrote: June 28th, 2021, 8:25 pmCan you explain why you think ethical life and self-interest are compatible?
I didn't say that I thought that. I said what I understood Adam Smith said.

Don't confuse the messenger with the message.

But very slightly to elaborate on Smith (relying on an admittedly imperfect memory of what I read years ago), I believe that he considered ethics a limit or regulating influence on self-interest.

My own view, since you asked, is that they are indeed compatible. Not only that, but I find the idea that they are incompatible rather astonishing.

Life is a a matter of balance. If someone says that he has absolutely no self-interest, I simply don't believe him. If he also has any belief in ethics (some people do not) then, to the extent that the two considerations are in conflict, he obviously has to balance them. Conflict doesn't mean that one rules out the other, making them incompatible; it means that they have to be made to accommodate each other.
Self interest is maximizing profit to oneself. That is the central point of capitalism, that the combination would promote prosperity and would somehow trickle down to the masses. It has been amply demonstrated that this is not true. The balance that societies then make is between regulating unbridled self interested capitalism with taxation and other regulations such as fair wages, environmental protection, welfare and public works. That is the constant battle in American politics. There is no ethics in capitalism, there is no need for it unless forced to comply. Amazon paid 0 taxes. Enough said.
"The Serpent did not lie."
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8271
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: June 29th, 2021, 3:31 pm If one is an (American) Individualist, I can see that it might be hard to see the incompatibility.
BobS wrote: June 29th, 2021, 8:23 pm I doubt that an "(American) Individualist," whatever that is, would have such difficulty.

Perhaps one inclined to caricature different nationalities might conjecture otherwise, but that raises an entirely different category of ethics.
No caricatures here. "(American) Individualist" refers to 'Libertarian' political views. They feature a very strong theme of Individualism.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
BobS
Posts: 75
Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm

Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?

Post by BobS »

AmericanKestrel wrote: June 30th, 2021, 7:29 am
BobS wrote: June 29th, 2021, 1:39 pm
AmericanKestrel wrote: June 28th, 2021, 8:25 pmCan you explain why you think ethical life and self-interest are compatible?
I didn't say that I thought that. I said what I understood Adam Smith said.

Don't confuse the messenger with the message.

But very slightly to elaborate on Smith (relying on an admittedly imperfect memory of what I read years ago), I believe that he considered ethics a limit or regulating influence on self-interest.

My own view, since you asked, is that they are indeed compatible. Not only that, but I find the idea that they are incompatible rather astonishing.

Life is a a matter of balance. If someone says that he has absolutely no self-interest, I simply don't believe him. If he also has any belief in ethics (some people do not) then, to the extent that the two considerations are in conflict, he obviously has to balance them. Conflict doesn't mean that one rules out the other, making them incompatible; it means that they have to be made to accommodate each other.
Self interest is maximizing profit to oneself. That is the central point of capitalism, that the combination would promote prosperity and would somehow trickle down to the masses. It has been amply demonstrated that this is not true. The balance that societies then make is between regulating unbridled self interested capitalism with taxation and other regulations such as fair wages, environmental protection, welfare and public works. That is the constant battle in American politics. There is no ethics in capitalism, there is no need for it unless forced to comply. Amazon paid 0 taxes. Enough said.
You misunderstood what Adam Smith said, and I corrected you. My reward is to be subjected to a political rant on a subject in which I have no interest.

I agree that you've said enough.
BobS
Posts: 75
Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm

Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?

Post by BobS »

Pattern-chaser wrote: June 30th, 2021, 11:13 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: June 29th, 2021, 3:31 pm If one is an (American) Individualist, I can see that it might be hard to see the incompatibility.
BobS wrote: June 29th, 2021, 8:23 pm I doubt that an "(American) Individualist," whatever that is, would have such difficulty.

Perhaps one inclined to caricature different nationalities might conjecture otherwise, but that raises an entirely different category of ethics.
No caricatures here. "(American) Individualist" refers to 'Libertarian' political views. They feature a very strong theme of Individualism.
"Individualism" covers a broad area, goes beyond Libertarianism as a political philosophy, and isn't limited to Americans. My understanding is that, like most beliefs, it has its own emphasis, but I've never heard of it as arguing for self-interest to the exclusion of all else. (And although I wish that what you brand American Libertarians would simply go away, I've never heard any of them make that argument either.) Claiming the contrary might be useful to someone who has an underlying political agenda, but that doesn't change the fact that it's very clearly a caricature.

I am baffled that you thought that such a silly caricature strengthened your hand in claiming whatever the heck you were claiming in response to my comment that self-interest and ethics obviously had to accommodate each other (the word I used was "balance").

That (virtually?) everyone has self interest is a given. That many such people hope and try to be ethical also is a given. Maybe you think that it's possible to devise an ethical system that doesn't take account of other people, but that's a rather strange one to my mind. Ethics generally involves self-interested people taking other people into account, all without their being confused by a supposed incompatibility.

I find the idea that self-interest and ethics are "incompatible" incoherent.
User avatar
AmericanKestrel
Posts: 356
Joined: May 22nd, 2021, 6:26 am
Favorite Philosopher: Yagnyavalkya
Location: US

Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?

Post by AmericanKestrel »

BobS wrote: June 30th, 2021, 2:18 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: June 30th, 2021, 11:13 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: June 29th, 2021, 3:31 pm If one is an (American) Individualist, I can see that it might be hard to see the incompatibility.
BobS wrote: June 29th, 2021, 8:23 pm I doubt that an "(American) Individualist," whatever that is, would have such difficulty.

Perhaps one inclined to caricature different nationalities might conjecture otherwise, but that raises an entirely different category of ethics.
No caricatures here. "(American) Individualist" refers to 'Libertarian' political views. They feature a very strong theme of Individualism.
"Individualism" covers a broad area, goes beyond Libertarianism as a political philosophy, and isn't limited to Americans. My understanding is that, like most beliefs, it has its own emphasis, but I've never heard of it as arguing for self-interest to the exclusion of all else. (And although I wish that what you brand American Libertarians would simply go away, I've never heard any of them make that argument either.) Claiming the contrary might be useful to someone who has an underlying political agenda, but that doesn't change the fact that it's very clearly a caricature.

I am baffled that you thought that such a silly caricature strengthened your hand in claiming whatever the heck you were claiming in response to my comment that self-interest and ethics obviously had to accommodate each other (the word I used was "balance").

That (virtually?) everyone has self interest is a given. That many such people hope and try to be ethical also is a given. Maybe you think that it's possible to devise an ethical system that doesn't take account of other people, but that's a rather strange one to my mind. Ethics generally involves self-interested people taking other people into account, all without their being confused by a supposed incompatibility.

I find the idea that self-interest and ethics are "incompatible" incoherent.
Hitler’s self interest had no balance. Please show how it balanced with ethics.
"The Serpent did not lie."
BobS
Posts: 75
Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm

Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?

Post by BobS »

AmericanKestrel wrote: June 30th, 2021, 7:29 amEnough said.
AmericanKestrel wrote: June 30th, 2021, 5:31 pmHitler's self interest had no balance. Please show how it balanced with ethics.
Oh, God. Now we've got Hitler in the discussion. What a surprise, this being the Internet.

I guess your first message wasn't "enough said" after all. So let's deal with your question, childish as it is.

Your language is unclear. Your first sentence, saying “had no balance,” seems to be an inartful of saying that Hitler had no ethical beliefs. Well, since he didn’t, there was nothing to balance, was there?

Your second sentence, asking “how it balanced with ethics,” thus contradicts the first sentence. Further, your reference to "ethics" in a void is unclear. Whose ethics? Yours? Who made you the boss of him? Maybe Hitler did have some sort of perverse sense of ethics. For example, assume that, instead of having no ethics, he thought that it was an ethical duty to kill certain categories of people if, in his opinion, it promoted the interests of the German Volk. Well, I hate to tell you, in that case his self-interest (striving for political popularity by appealing to like-minded Pan Germanists) would be compatible with his ethics.

This doesn't mean that the rest of us can't consider him an unethical bastard who should have been squashed like a bug. It just means that the nutty idea that self-interest and ethics (as a general concept) are incompatible doesn't begin to fly. Of course it's true that some people act -- and not just out of self-interest -- in ways that are contrary to other people’s ethics. Maybe that's not nice, but from a philosophical standpoint, so what?

Pick any two activities and ask whether they are incompatible. If we then find a person who doesn't engage in one of those activities, that's not proof of their incompatibility. If you think otherwise, then I see no possibility of anyone's reasoning with you.

Let me illustrate with a homey example.

I have self interest. For example, I need to eat in order to live. But one of my ethical beliefs is that it's wrong to rob people. I therefore don't rob people in order to eat. My self-interest and ethics therefore are consistent and in balance. If I were to violate my ethics by robbing someone after all, that wouldn't mean that my self-interest and ethics were incompatible. It would simply mean that I hadn't properly balanced my self-interest and my ethics, and therefore had behaved unethically by my own lights (or that I in fact didn't have the ethical belief that I claimed I had).

On the other hand, an example of my self-interest and ethics being incompatible would be where my ethics held that I shouldn't eat anything at all, because it's wrong to kill other living things for any reason.

I assume that you claim that you're an ethical person, or that you at least try to be. And you can't dispute that you are self-interested in certain respects, such as eating in order to stay alive. Are you really going to tell me that your self-interest and your ethics are incompatible?

This has been absurdly simple. I hope I have broken it down enough so that you finally understand it. If you don't, then I can't help you.
User avatar
AmericanKestrel
Posts: 356
Joined: May 22nd, 2021, 6:26 am
Favorite Philosopher: Yagnyavalkya
Location: US

Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?

Post by AmericanKestrel »

BobS wrote: July 1st, 2021, 12:57 am
AmericanKestrel wrote: June 30th, 2021, 7:29 amEnough said.
AmericanKestrel wrote: June 30th, 2021, 5:31 pmHitler's self interest had no balance. Please show how it balanced with ethics.
Oh, God. Now we've got Hitler in the discussion. What a surprise, this being the Internet.

I guess your first message wasn't "enough said" after all. So let's deal with your question, childish as it is.

Your language is unclear. Your first sentence, saying “had no balance,” seems to be an inartful of saying that Hitler had no ethical beliefs. Well, since he didn’t, there was nothing to balance, was there?

Your second sentence, asking “how it balanced with ethics,” thus contradicts the first sentence. Further, your reference to "ethics" in a void is unclear. Whose ethics? Yours? Who made you the boss of him? Maybe Hitler did have some sort of perverse sense of ethics. For example, assume that, instead of having no ethics, he thought that it was an ethical duty to kill certain categories of people if, in his opinion, it promoted the interests of the German Volk. Well, I hate to tell you, in that case his self-interest (striving for political popularity by appealing to like-minded Pan Germanists) would be compatible with his ethics.

This doesn't mean that the rest of us can't consider him an unethical bastard who should have been squashed like a bug. It just means that the nutty idea that self-interest and ethics (as a general concept) are incompatible doesn't begin to fly. Of course it's true that some people act -- and not just out of self-interest -- in ways that are contrary to other people’s ethics. Maybe that's not nice, but from a philosophical standpoint, so what?

Pick any two activities and ask whether they are incompatible. If we then find a person who doesn't engage in one of those activities, that's not proof of their incompatibility. If you think otherwise, then I see no possibility of anyone's reasoning with you.

Let me illustrate with a homey example.

I have self interest. For example, I need to eat in order to live. But one of my ethical beliefs is that it's wrong to rob people. I therefore don't rob people in order to eat. My self-interest and ethics therefore are consistent and in balance. If I were to violate my ethics by robbing someone after all, that wouldn't mean that my self-interest and ethics were incompatible. It would simply mean that I hadn't properly balanced my self-interest and my ethics, and therefore had behaved unethically by my own lights (or that I in fact didn't have the ethical belief that I claimed I had).

On the other hand, an example of my self-interest and ethics being incompatible would be where my ethics held that I shouldn't eat anything at all, because it's wrong to kill other living things for any reason.

I assume that you claim that you're an ethical person, or that you at least try to be. And you can't dispute that you are self-interested in certain respects, such as eating in order to stay alive. Are you really going to tell me that your self-interest and your ethics are incompatible?

This has been absurdly simple. I hope I have broken it down enough so that you finally understand it. If you don't, then I can't help you.
You have clearly stated what your idea of ethics is. It is the kind that can explain how Hitler had some ethical sensibility. Good job.
"The Serpent did not lie."
BobS
Posts: 75
Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm

Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?

Post by BobS »

AmericanKestrel wrote: July 1st, 2021, 8:30 am
BobS wrote: July 1st, 2021, 12:57 amYour first sentence, saying “had no balance,” seems to be an inartful of saying that Hitler had no ethical beliefs. Well, since he didn’t, there was nothing to balance, was there?
You have clearly stated what your idea of ethics is. It is the kind that can explain how Hitler had some ethical sensibility. Good job.
Advice for the future: it's not an effective debating technique to quote your opponent and then immediately lie about what he just said.

All I’ve done is point out that ethics are subjective. How you managed never to have encountered such a concept before is anyone's guess.

Yet your concept of ethics is very similar, the only difference being that you think that subjectivity comes from a single person: you. Ethics are simply what you believe, rendering your ethical judgments supreme above all others.

Much the same as what Torquemada and company thought of their judgments.

We even now know two over-arching features of your ethical code.

1. Anyone who disagrees must be sympathetic to Hitler.

2. It is entirely incompatible with anyone's self-interest.

Thus spake AmericanKestrel: Anyone who acts to further his own interests in any respect acts unethically.
User avatar
AmericanKestrel
Posts: 356
Joined: May 22nd, 2021, 6:26 am
Favorite Philosopher: Yagnyavalkya
Location: US

Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?

Post by AmericanKestrel »

BobS wrote: July 1st, 2021, 12:03 pm
AmericanKestrel wrote: July 1st, 2021, 8:30 am
BobS wrote: July 1st, 2021, 12:57 amYour first sentence, saying “had no balance,” seems to be an inartful of saying that Hitler had no ethical beliefs. Well, since he didn’t, there was nothing to balance, was there?
You have clearly stated what your idea of ethics is. It is the kind that can explain how Hitler had some ethical sensibility. Good job.
Advice for the future: it's not an effective debating technique to quote your opponent and then immediately lie about what he just said.

All I’ve done is point out that ethics are subjective. How you managed never to have encountered such a concept before is anyone's guess.

Yet your concept of ethics is very similar, the only difference being that you think that subjectivity comes from a single person: you. Ethics are simply what you believe, rendering your ethical judgments supreme above all others.

Much the same as what Torquemada and company thought of their judgments.

We even now know two over-arching features of your ethical code.

1. Anyone who disagrees must be sympathetic to Hitler.

2. It is entirely incompatible with anyone's self-interest.

Thus spake AmericanKestrel: Anyone who acts to further his own interests in any respect acts unethically.
I think if you set aside your snark and silliness you will be better able to have a conversation.
Ultimately ethics is subjective, it is innate. When laws are made to correct social injustice and inequality, the impetus comes from that same innate sense of ethics collectively within the community. To act otherwise is self interest.
Self-interest is also subjective. Yes you may rob a piece of bread because you are starving and pennyless. But the shopkeeper may forgives you and add cheese to it because you are starving and pennyless. He chooses to act against his self interest. That kind of altruism comes from his sense of ethics.
While self interest is a basic instinct for survival ethics is not about survival. That is why they are incompatible. That is why we have heroes like a mother who would throw herself in front of a train to save her child or a man who jumps into the currents to save a someone and drowns in the effort.
A bit sad that all this needs to be explained to you.
"The Serpent did not lie."
BobS
Posts: 75
Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm

Re: How is it possible to have self-interest and to be able to form moral judgements?

Post by BobS »

AmericanKestrel wrote: July 1st, 2021, 2:15 pmI think if you set aside your snark and silliness you will be better able to have a conversation.
We haven't been having a "conversation" in any meaningful sense of the term. You haven't been trying to have one.

I entered this thread merely to point out that you had obviously mischaracterized what Adam Smith had said. That set you off on a boring, unrelated political rant, which you concluded by stating that it was all that needed to be said.

You then had second thoughts. I had had the temerity to point out your ignorance regarding Adam Smith. Well, you now handled that one by dropping the Hitler bomb, of all things.

Snark was an entirely appropriate response to such a childishness maneuver by someone who I assume is an adult.

Bear in mind that I never said anything about what my ethics were, other than that I believed that it was wrong to rob people. For all you knew, my ethics and notions of social behavior were the same as yours. But was that good enough for you? Oh, no way. Because, as an abstract proposition, I look at ethics and self-interest as being "compatible." Oh my! You just hate that! So what's the solution? After I just finished saying that Hitler had no ethical beliefs, so there was nothing for hm to "balance" with self-interest, you lie and say that I had just said that my ethics "explain how Hitler had some ethical sensibility."

That's childish at best. It's actually considerably worse. That's the kind of tactic that's employed by political ideologies that you no doubt would claim to hate, despite your similar methods.

And this is how you react to a mere difference of opinion regarding how the word "incompatible" should be applied.

So here are some differences between your ethics and mine. You think that lying to win a cheap debating point is just the thing; I don't. You think that disagreeing with you over what is ultimately a stupid issue about semantics, not ethics, puts someone who disagrees with you in the camp that sympathizes with Hitler. I disagree with that approach too. Hitler believed in using the Big Lie to accomplish his purposes; you're not averse to lying either. So am I now supposed to accuse you of being a Nazi sympathizer? Is that the way that "conversations" are supposed to go as far as your concerned?

So snark? You don't like it? It's the mildest thing that I could have issued in response to your contemptible approach to what you now glibly call a "conversation."
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