Is Ethics a Puzzle of Uncertainties?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is Ethics a Puzzle of Uncertainties?

Post by GE Morton »

Gertie wrote: June 4th, 2022, 5:34 pm
Really? She went a bit off the rails with Eliminativism, but I think she and others with similar accounts have nailed the gist of the significance of our ancient ancestors' shift from focus on self-care to becoming social mammals. It's early days, but must be on the right track.
I don't understand the ins and out of the technicalities, but it makes sense and she ties it in with the patches of evidence we have.
But that's the point --- there was no "shift." Humans, like all primates, have been social animals since their appearance on Earth, just as were our Australopithecus ancestors and their primate ancestors. I.e., we came into the world as social animals, a trait inherited from a long primate lineage.
Our lil mammal ancestors got smart, and that eventually ended up as super-smart humans' evolutionary niche. Who could ponder abstract notions like right and wrong.
Yes indeed, along with pondering such questions as, "Why am I here, and how did I get here?," "What is the Sun made of, and how far away is it?," "What is lightning, and what causes thunder?," etc., etc. Morality begins with the pondering, not the instinctive behavioral propensities of mammals or social animals. The morality of those propensities is itself open to question, the propensity to nurture young as much as the propensity among tribal primates to regard members of other tribes as rivals and enemies.

I.e., as Hume claimed, you can't derive "oughts" (moral principles) from "is" (biological facts).
A favourite experiment I read (lost the link sorry) showed that if you ask people to judge a scenario where something wrong is being done, they judge more harshly if there's a bad smell in the room. Our disgust mechanism for unhealthy/yuck must get tangled up with our moral disgust bits. Presumably because that's what the moral disgust impulse adapted from. Our 'moral intuitions' are a kludge adapted from what was there to work from, and their primary purpose was to ensure the survival of the group in a tribal context. They're not a reliable philosophical grounding for eternal moral truths that's for sure.
Agree. Although those intuitions usually have a strong experiential component as well.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Is Ethics a Puzzle of Uncertainties?

Post by Gertie »

GE


Sorry for delay.

Gertie wrote: ↑June 4th, 2022, 5:34 pm
Really? She went a bit off the rails with Eliminativism, but I think she and others with similar accounts have nailed the gist of the significance of our ancient ancestors' shift from focus on self-care to becoming social mammals. It's early days, but must be on the right track.
I don't understand the ins and out of the technicalities, but it makes sense and she ties it in with the patches of evidence we have.
But that's the point --- there was no "shift." Humans, like all primates, have been social animals since their appearance on Earth, just as were our Australopithecus ancestors and their primate ancestors. I.e., we came into the world as social animals, a trait inherited from a long primate lineage.
Yes sorry I wasn't clear, she starts way back with the first shift in the need to care for young, way before primates. That was the paradigmatic shift in our pre-primate history when our first warm-blooded ancestors moved from self-care to caring for helpless off-spring. Once those adaptations, those neural mechanisms, are in place, then further extending the 'circle of care' has the genetic raw materials to work with, and branch out in different ways. The human species has its own specific back-story following that, but it's the fact that we are social mammals which lays the foundations for our specific social pre-dispositions. And in humans specifically, our tribal history meant up-close-and-person 'mechanisms of care' and cooperation were evolutionarily useful. Strangers are a very different story.


Later on we conceptualised the abstract notion of right and wrong, of morality, informed by our specific evolutionary history, but also in terms of principles. If it had happened that crocodilles had developed huge brains able to conceptualise abstract notions of right and wrong, it would be based on very different moral intuitions. Same for ants.

Our specific human evolutionary history gave us broad intuitive commonalities about right and wrong ( see Moral Foundations Theory https://moralfoundations.org/ ), which are happenstantial and species-specific. Of course then environment/nurture/culture/learning plays a role, and we can also apply reason. And just because we are a social species doesn't mean our useful older 'lizard brain' selfish instincts disappeared, we obviously need them too. And morality is often where selfish vs social plays out.

That's a very rough n ready version of the ''Is'' of the under-pinnings of human morality. If we hadn't evolved impulses to care for others, to feel guilt or shame, what would human concepts of right and wrong or abstract morality be? Would we even have such a notion?
Our lil mammal ancestors got smart, and that eventually ended up as super-smart humans' evolutionary niche. Who could ponder abstract notions like right and wrong.
Yes indeed, along with pondering such questions as, "Why am I here, and how did I get here?," "What is the Sun made of, and how far away is it?," "What is lightning, and what causes thunder?," etc., etc. Morality begins with the pondering, not the instinctive behavioral propensities of mammals or social animals. The morality of those propensities is itself open to question, the propensity to nurture young as much as the propensity among tribal primates to regard members of other tribes as rivals and enemies.
Right, the abstract concept of morality involves intellectualised pondering, but the framework for that pondering derives from our evolved gut responses.
I.e., as Hume claimed, you can't derive "oughts" (moral principles) from "is" (biological facts).
Yeah agreed. Hume nailed it re the physical facts of the world, including our biology. And we now have a clearer idea why some things disgust us and some feel right. Churchland went off and studied the evolutionary neuroscience of it.
A favourite experiment I read (lost the link sorry) showed that if you ask people to judge a scenario where something wrong is being done, they judge more harshly if there's a bad smell in the room. Our disgust mechanism for unhealthy/yuck must get tangled up with our moral disgust bits. Presumably because that's what the moral disgust impulse adapted from. Our 'moral intuitions' are a kludge adapted from what was there to work from, and their primary purpose was to ensure the survival of the group in a tribal context. They're not a reliable philosophical grounding for eternal moral truths that's for sure.
Agree. Although those intuitions usually have a strong experiential component as well.

Yes and I don't mean to underplay the experiential component, or the immense complexity, but to point out what underlies our human pre-dispositions. Churchland and others are putting together aan account which helps us understand what Hume points to as basically the human yum-yuck natural morality, which others around him were weaving their high-falutin theories about.


-------


Now onto the part we've debated at leeeeength ;)

But if we go back to our moral foundation, to limit our rules to enabling individuals ( and only individuals who qualify as agents) to maximise their own welfare will in practice fall short consequentially. If we don't also try to ensure all sentient creatures (not just moral agents) have a fair chance of flourishing, we're missing a trick. Because we don't all start on a level playing field, and we can all benefit from having the basic toolkit in place to enable us to flourish. This is plain common sense, where you start has consequences regarding where you get, not in a certain predictable way, but in an overall way.
I agree that all sentient beings --- not just moral agents --- have some moral status, with interests which agents must take into account in their behaviors.

Right, the foundation of promoting the wellbeing of sentient creatures is all about agents showing all sentient beings moral consideration.
Forbidding wanton animal cruelty --- inflicting avoidable or gratutous pain on them --- is a no-brainer. But what other constraints should be drawn with regard to non-agents presents a slew of thorny problems, and is a somewhat separate subject.
Yes, it's tricky. But only for practical reasons. But we'll leave that for now.
We disagree, on the other hand, about the goal of "leveling the playing field." It is not level, for any species, and cannot be made level without sacrificing the interests --- and thus welfare --- of some agents to promote those of others. In my view it is for each agent to decide what sacrifices he will make for that purpose, if any.

But we've debated this point at length before.

Here's where I think consequentialism and common sense come in. It seems to me if we are genuinely committed to a foundation of promoting the well-being of sentient creatures we are inevitably in the moral business of making sacrifices when others' welfare is at stake. We don't need special provisos for it, or to make a public/private distinction about where it applies, it's inherent in the foundation.

One (public) aspect of that is we live in inter-dependant societies where we have to organise ourselves somehow or other, and if we want to do that morally we should try to ensure all members of that society have the opportunity to flourish. That is basic to this moral foundation. We are never going to be able to do that perfectly, but we have a moral obligation to try to provide everyone with the basic flourishing toolkit. It says that on the tin. Freedom and choice are goods required for flourishing too, but are in play as means of flourishing just like having a home or healthcare or education and enough food.


If however we say we are a society where each individual's choice to do so is the higher moral principle, not just one of many aspects of flourishing, that has to rely on a different moral foundation. Because in practice if eg you sent everyone a form saying would you like to pay any tax yes/no, then many would end up without the basic necessities to flourish.

So I'm arguing that a consequentialist approach to a wellbeing foundation puts individual freedom and choice in the same category as regards flourishing as other basic wellbeing needs, to be (imperfectly) weighed against each other. I think that's an in principle difference between us. Do you agree?
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Is Ethics a Puzzle of Uncertainties?

Post by Gertie »

snt

Sorry for delay.
Gertie wrote: ↑June 4th, 2022, 12:43 amThe reason what I do to you, or another experiencing being, matters, is that it affects your experience and quality of life. If I chop a carrot in half or smash a rock, that has no consequences for the carrot or rock, it doesn't matter to them, I can't harm them, cause them suffering. If I did that to you, the consequences would very likely matter to you.
The consideration of Affection of experience is a ground for morality however the issue is that it is impossible to grasp experience in others. Humans can only imagine other humans to have a similar experience potential and that is a meager ground.

In a technologically advancing world in which God is declared dead it would provide an ill foundation to secure morality.
I think we just have to accept that morality isn't going to be perfectly applied. It's about experiencing Subjects, whose experience is private and can't be measured with a calculator. And even then, there will still be dilemmas. The good thing is we have a long way to go before we need to worry about perfection...
In today's world leadership is still performed by humans and as the podcast that I shared indicated, morality is a concept very high on the list with primary interests (perhaps in the top 3) because it is vital for performance.

The number one business book of recent years, by an author that is considered the new father of leadership, is named 'True North' and is about a moral compass.

The problem is that the interest in morality, and its application, comes from within in individual people.

This leaves the possibility open that a future situation would reduce the interest of human experience in groups of people.
I'd say morality is relevant to governments more-so than businesses, and governments can impose moral constraints on businesses. In fact they do.
Gertie wrote: ↑June 4th, 2022, 12:43 amI believe that gives us an appropriate mattering-based route to derive a moral foundation, which something like To Promote the Well-being of Conscious Creatures tries to capture.

Once we have such a foundation, we have a source for moral rules of thumb (to help us create rules, rights and mores), and a touchstone for checking back that the outcomes, the consequences of following the guidelines, actually meet the foundational goal.
I believe that its result would be politics. The setting of goals (on moral ground) and the ensuring of achieving such goals, when it concerns matters relative to humanity, concerns politics.
Right.

Gertie wrote: ↑June 4th, 2022, 12:43 am snt

Perhaps it would be time to re-frame the problem instead of reposing the questions.

How would you re-frame it?
From my perspective, what is required is a factor to spur urgency to enhance the potential for moral consideration. Ignorance of morality has caused grave and fatal problems, besides grave suffering.

Only when the potential for moral consideration is present, someone can be considered responsible in the face of his/her dignity.

When humanity is to secure its future and to achieve an optimal path, it would be case that humanity is set to enhance its moral consideration potential with everlasting urgency to be certain that whatever path it has chosen, has been given the right chance to have been the right path.

The problem at hand is not an answer to morality, but an answer to the potential required for moral consideration.

I largely agree. I think philosophy has a role in making the case for what a universal morality people can cohere around could look like. It's up to us what we do with that tho. People in positions of leadership can play a vital role I agree -
The trend in leadership today is a focus on authenticity and a moral compass. My suggestion would be to help secure interest for morality in a more robust sense beyond the scope of human ego. It wouldn't be just intended to be kind to other conscious beings, morality can be seen as a form of long-term intelligence that could help stave off disaster and secure progress in ways that could prove to be vital.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is Ethics a Puzzle of Uncertainties?

Post by GE Morton »

Gertie wrote: June 14th, 2022, 10:42 am
Yes sorry I wasn't clear, she starts way back with the first shift in the need to care for young, way before primates. That was the paradigmatic shift in our pre-primate history when our first warm-blooded ancestors moved from self-care to caring for helpless off-spring.
Maternal care is not confined to warm-blooded animals. Hymenoptera (bees and wasps) insects do it; non-social octopuses (mollusks) do it. Most likely some dinosaurs --- cold-blooded reptiles, did it --- which is why most birds now do it. It is a trait that evolved separately in several animal lineages (though it's not certain that all prehistoric reptiles were cold-blooded).
Once those adaptations, those neural mechanisms, are in place, then further extending the 'circle of care' has the genetic raw materials to work with, and branch out in different ways. The human species has its own specific back-story following that, but it's the fact that we are social mammals which lays the foundations for our specific social pre-dispositions. And in humans specifically, our tribal history meant up-close-and-person 'mechanisms of care' and cooperation were evolutionarily useful. Strangers are a very different story.
As I mentioned before, sociality and maternal care are separate traits; they don't always occur together. So it is unlikely one evolved from the other. Moreover, maternal care and and social "ethics" don't produce the same behaviors. Herd animals, for example, while social, do not feed or protect one another. They all fend for themselves (except the young, who are fed and protected by their mothers, among mammals). Only kinship-based groups, wolves, primates, eusocial insects) exhibit care for one another (likely attributable to life-long familiarity and relationships, not an "outgrowth" of maternal care). There is no "circle of care."
Later on we conceptualised the abstract notion of right and wrong, of morality, informed by our specific evolutionary history, but also in terms of principles. If it had happened that crocodilles had developed huge brains able to conceptualise abstract notions of right and wrong, it would be based on very different moral intuitions. Same for ants.
I agree that many animals have some sense of right and wrong, not only with respect to relationships with other members of their tribe or species, but with respect to many things. "Right" and "wrong" are not confined to interpersonal behaviors ("morality"). E.g., don't try to swim a river that is too turbulent and fast-flowing; don't jump from a cliff that is too high; don't eat food that smells bad; don't challenge animals bigger and meaner than you. Some of those do's and dont's are likely built-in and reinforced through experience, others acquired entirely through experience, i.e., the experienced consequences of various behaviors.

Crocodiles, BTW, not being social animals, would have no need for a morality (they do tolerate one another for the most part, peaceably occupying a common area, but they don't cooperate in any way and even occasionally cannibalize each other).
Our specific human evolutionary history gave us broad intuitive commonalities about right and wrong ( see Moral Foundations Theory https://moralfoundations.org/ ), which are happenstantial and species-specific. Of course then environment/nurture/culture/learning plays a role, and we can also apply reason. And just because we are a social species doesn't mean our useful older 'lizard brain' selfish instincts disappeared, we obviously need them too. And morality is often where selfish vs social plays out.

That's a very rough n ready version of the ''Is'' of the under-pinnings of human morality. If we hadn't evolved impulses to care for others, to feel guilt or shame, what would human concepts of right and wrong or abstract morality be? Would we even have such a notion?
It is only the underpinning of instinctive/intuitive morality. I agree there is a "universal morality" generally observed in all human groups, e.g., "Thou shalt not murder," "Thou shalt not steal," etc. Those prohibitions and a few others are found in all recorded moral or legal codes, some of which long pre-date the Old Testament. They are also observed by illiterate tribes who have no codified moralities. They are universal because social groups in which they were not generally observed would be very short-lived. "Caring for others," however, is not universal. It is common in kinship-based groups, but not in non-kinship-based social groups. And as I said, it seems likely that it arises from the intimacy of those groups, the familarity and interactions of their members from birth, not as an outgrowth of maternal care. There are many cases of animals of different species, mortal enemies or even predator/prey in the wild, who become "best buddies" when raised together.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vKWk6tc2zY

Then there is the sex problem. The maternal nurturing drive --- a very strong one, not only in mammals but in birds, some insects, and even some mollusks --- is exclusive to females. Very few male mammals exhibit any nurturing behaviors. Protective behaviors, yes; nurturing, no. Nor do male bees (drones) or most male birds (though a few birds do). Yet male animals are equally represented in social species.
Right, the abstract concept of morality involves intellectualised pondering, but the framework for that pondering derives from our evolved gut responses.
I disagree. The "framework" for pondering moral issues is the same one we use for pondering all other problems and puzzles, i.e., defining a goal, observing phenomena, such as the predictable consequences of various behaviors, and noting which actions on our part advance us toward that goal and which impede us or divert us from it. It is the same "framework" (approach, or methodology) we use for designing a highway system, locating a mineral deposit, or landing a spacecraft on Mars. Intuitive/instinctive behavioral propensities and judgments prejudice that process, and even when they are consistent with the goal they can't be relied upon, especially as axioms of a rational morality.
I.e., as Hume claimed, you can't derive "oughts" (moral principles) from "is" (biological facts).
Yeah agreed. Hume nailed it re the physical facts of the world, including our biology. And we now have a clearer idea why some things disgust us and some feel right. Churchland went off and studied the evolutionary neuroscience of it.
Well, what disgusts us and what feels right is highly idiosyncratic. And those feelings (in all their variety) likely have origins in individual neural idiosyncracies, not in the maternal instinct (which would be difficult to explain in males). What disgusts us or feels right is not a reliable foundation for morality.
Now onto the part we've debated at leeeeength ;)
We disagree, on the other hand, about the goal of "leveling the playing field." It is not level, for any species, and cannot be made level without sacrificing the interests --- and thus welfare --- of some agents to promote those of others. In my view it is for each agent to decide what sacrifices he will make for that purpose, if any.

But we've debated this point at length before.
Here's where I think consequentialism and common sense come in. It seems to me if we are genuinely committed to a foundation of promoting the well-being of sentient creatures we are inevitably in the moral business of making sacrifices when others' welfare is at stake. We don't need special provisos for it, or to make a public/private distinction about where it applies, it's inherent in the foundation.
Well, I disagree. :-) There is no criterion, no grounds, for favoring Alfie's welfare over Bruno's, nor any independent "scale" for comparing and measuring welfares. Alfie's welfare is advanced to the extent his interests are satisfied; Bruno's to the extent his are satisifed. Their respective interests may have little in common, and there is no basis for claiming that Alfie's interest in X "outweighs" or is "more important" than Bruno's interest in Y.

Now, in many cases Alfie will have an interest in Bruno's welfare, and that interest may override other interests he may have. In that case he will sacrifice one or more of those interests to satisfy that higher-ranking interest. (Interests occur in a hierarchy, and one will always sacrifice a lower-ranking interest to satisfy a higher-ranking one).

We can rank interests within hierarchies, but not between hierarchies.
One (public) aspect of that is we live in inter-dependant societies where we have to organise ourselves somehow or other, and if we want to do that morally we should try to ensure all members of that society have the opportunity to flourish.
I agree. But we can only do that if all members are maximally free to pursue their own interests, since those are what determine each person's welfare, his "flourishing."
That is basic to this moral foundation. We are never going to be able to do that perfectly, but we have a moral obligation to try to provide everyone with the basic flourishing toolkit.
But there is no "basic flourishing tookit"! The "toolkit" Alfie needs to flourish may be very different from one Bruno needs. There are, to be sure, things everyone needs to live, but those fall far short of the things one needs to "flourish" (for most people --- mendicant monks may be an exception). Could a pianist whose passion is music flourish if his piano was seized and sold to feed a hungry drug addict? And, of course, merely feeding the addict would not likely enable him to flourish. How many pianos may be seized from how many musicians, how many paintings from how many artists, how many cameras from how many photographers, may be seized to assure the addict's flourishing?
Good_Egg
Posts: 782
Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am

Re: Is Ethics a Puzzle of Uncertainties?

Post by Good_Egg »

Gertie wrote: June 14th, 2022, 10:42 am If we hadn't evolved impulses to care for others, to feel guilt or shame, what would human concepts of right and wrong or abstract morality be? Would we even have such a notion?
Gertie, this seems to be the core of your argument.

I think it's fair to suggest that culture and evolved instinct combine to give us a range of behaviours which we can choose to apply in any given situation. Morality is about choices - about how some choices are good/right and others are wrong/bad.

How we choose between the instincts that we have in our repertoire cannot, it seems to me, be an instinct. The yardstick we use to judge the aptness of each evolved behaviour has to be something more than one of those behaviours.

I guess the extreme case is an ethic which idolizes the "caring for others" behaviour and asserts that this is always the moral choice.

But that seems pretty clearly inadequate. Part of morality is about judging between the competing claims of other people , and a blanket injunction to care for others falls short of resolving such questions. Life is not a CareBears movie.

It seems to me that an adequate account of morality has to recognise that firstly there are multiple virtues - including self-restraint, courage, prudence, justice, integrity. Virtue does not reduce to compassion.

And secondly that some level of virtue is expected of us. Others have a right to expect us not to murder, rape or rob them. But that we can go further - surpass expectations, display supererogatory virtue, waive our rights. If we so choose.
One (public) aspect of that is we live in inter-dependant societies where we have to organise ourselves somehow or other, and if we want to do that morally we should try to ensure all members of that society have...
People in cities live very socially- interdependent lives. Farmers rather less so. And while the world has changed much in my lifetime, I suspect that there are still many poor farmers who live highly independent lives. Far too busy surviving in their own corner of the world to organise themselves to interfere in the lives of others. With the virtues of self-reliance and hard work and minding one's own business.

Subsistence agriculture is where we came from. A candidate for a "state of nature". Although you could go back further....

It seems very odd to trace morality back to the evolutionary development of humankind and in the same breath talk about the interdependence of modern life.
"Opinions are fiercest.. ..when the evidence to support or refute them is weakest" - Druin Burch
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