Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
EthicsQuestions
New Trial Member
Posts: 10
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 2:44 am

Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?

Post by EthicsQuestions »

Hi guys,

Two Military Officers are trying to decide on the best course of action to repulse an impending attack. Both officers have extensive training in Ethics.

The two military officers are part of a force deployed a foreign land.

A large force of 500 enemy soldiers have surrounded a infantry company of 90 soldiers. One of the officers wants to use artillery fire to break up the attack before it arrives. However, the enemy is moving through a populated township. The officers know that there are people in the town who have not evacuated - but they do not know how many people. If artillery is used, civilians will die - it could be 10 civilians, or 50, or 100. Nobody knows how many civilians are still present.

The other Military officer argues that the potential loss of civilian life is completely unacceptable. The attack must be allowed to occur. In all likelihood this will result in the loss of all 90 of the soldiers.

1. Should the civilian lives be considered more valuable than the soldiers lives?
2. Does not knowing the amount of civilians present (and having no way to even estimate them) justify the Commander in taking a course of action that assumes minimal civilian causalities when there is no basis for this assumption?
3. Would it be wrong for the commander to make a baseless assumption that civilian casualties will be high, when there is a known value (90 soldiers) of lives at stake?
4. Should the commander ignore considerations regarding the number of civilians at risk because he is not able to quantify the information.

1. From the commanders perspective his soldiers are also civilians of his own nation. The civilians in the town are from the same nation as the enemy soldiers. Should this 'degrade' their value? If citizenship should not matter, than should the military commander consider the lives of the enemy soldiers just as much as his own soldiers? Why should the soldiers from one side be considered more important than the soldiers of the other side if not for their citizenship? In which case the answer seems a lot more straight forward (don't resist the enemy - maximum casualties = 90).

2. This one seems hard to me - except when you tie it in with question 3. I don't think the commander should assume higher casualties among civilians any more than he should assume his bed has a snake in it - it could have a snake in it, but should the commander call a snake handler every night before bed to 'remove' the snake that might be there? If the commander should not assume high civilian casualties, his alternative option is to assume lower casualties. You might say that the commander should check that there is no snake before going to bed. But in this situation the commander cannot check the town for civilians and because of the need to remain hidden from the enemy the commander cannot use any lights to check that the bed is safe. I imagine most people will readily get in bed (risking their own life if there is a snake) without checking it first. If you are prepared to risk your own life (with the snake) on the basis of an unknown, is it not at least acceptable (from a Kantian Categorical Imperative perspective) to apply the maxim of " it is okay to take risks with lives when the degree of risk to that life is unknown"?

3. See 2.

4. I have no idea. But keen to hear other thoughts.
User avatar
Mark1955
Posts: 739
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
Location: Nottingham, England.

Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?

Post by Mark1955 »

Reelvant ponits for your appreciation
1. You're in the military to die so that others don't have to.
2. Civilians are protected by the Geneva convention.
3. The offiers in question shouldn't have set up a defensive position so stupidly so they didn't have clear killing zones for the artillery to fire into.

What the miilitary should do and what they do do aren't always the same, but the above should provide the DS solution.
If you think you know the answer you probably don't understand the question.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?

Post by LuckyR »

A couple of things: in most historical conflicts, the number of civilian casualties routinely outnumbered that of soldiers. The enemy soldier's decision to attack under the cover of civilians is prohibited as an example of the human shield concept.

Fire away, would be the typical response.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
EthicsQuestions
New Trial Member
Posts: 10
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 2:44 am

Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?

Post by EthicsQuestions »

2. Civilians are protected by the Geneva convention.
I am still new to philosophy/Ethics, but it seems to me that this is a purely legal argument and not an ethical argument. So the civilians are protected by the law - are they protected by ethics also? Would you see an issue if the Geneva Convention did not exist?
3. The offiers in question shouldn't have set up a defensive position so stupidly so they didn't have clear killing zones for the artillery to fire into.
But that does not really relate to the ethical situation. You can call them tactically stupid, but I am not sure how it helps them deal with the situation they find themselves in. Just as an aside, you often find that decisions that are tactically bad or strategically good and vice versa. Specifically officers need to consider the strategic goals of winning hearts and minds (being close to civilians so you can get to know them and help them with their daily life - this is not always a good tactical decision) as well as the tactical situation (defensive positions on high ground don't really further the strategic goals of hearts and minds and getting amongst the civilians).
1. You're in the military to die so that others don't have to.
Why is this so? Would you still agree if the soldiers were conscripts? Letting your soldiers die does not seem like a good tactical decision. Also, even if I accept that a soldiers job is to die so that others don't - is it to die for their own citizens or any citizens in the world? In the scenario the citizens are of a different country.

I understand what is expected from a soldier - but I want to know if it is 'right'.
A couple of things: in most historical conflicts, the number of civilian casualties routinely outnumbered that of soldiers. The enemy soldier's decision to attack under the cover of civilians is prohibited as an example of the human shield concept.
I am curious about the ethical situation facing the two 'friendly' military officers - not whether what the enemy soldiers have done is prohibited or not. Even if certain actions by the friendly officers can be legally justified, this still does tell me whether the action would be morally/ethically correct.

Thanks to the both of you for your replies.
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?

Post by h_k_s »

EthicsQuestions wrote: June 12th, 2019, 6:48 am Hi guys,

Two Military Officers are trying to decide on the best course of action to repulse an impending attack. Both officers have extensive training in Ethics.

The two military officers are part of a force deployed a foreign land.

A large force of 500 enemy soldiers have surrounded a infantry company of 90 soldiers. One of the officers wants to use artillery fire to break up the attack before it arrives. However, the enemy is moving through a populated township. The officers know that there are people in the town who have not evacuated - but they do not know how many people. If artillery is used, civilians will die - it could be 10 civilians, or 50, or 100. Nobody knows how many civilians are still present.

The other Military officer argues that the potential loss of civilian life is completely unacceptable. The attack must be allowed to occur. In all likelihood this will result in the loss of all 90 of the soldiers.

1. Should the civilian lives be considered more valuable than the soldiers lives?
2. Does not knowing the amount of civilians present (and having no way to even estimate them) justify the Commander in taking a course of action that assumes minimal civilian causalities when there is no basis for this assumption?
3. Would it be wrong for the commander to make a baseless assumption that civilian casualties will be high, when there is a known value (90 soldiers) of lives at stake?
4. Should the commander ignore considerations regarding the number of civilians at risk because he is not able to quantify the information.

1. From the commanders perspective his soldiers are also civilians of his own nation. The civilians in the town are from the same nation as the enemy soldiers. Should this 'degrade' their value? If citizenship should not matter, than should the military commander consider the lives of the enemy soldiers just as much as his own soldiers? Why should the soldiers from one side be considered more important than the soldiers of the other side if not for their citizenship? In which case the answer seems a lot more straight forward (don't resist the enemy - maximum casualties = 90).

2. This one seems hard to me - except when you tie it in with question 3. I don't think the commander should assume higher casualties among civilians any more than he should assume his bed has a snake in it - it could have a snake in it, but should the commander call a snake handler every night before bed to 'remove' the snake that might be there? If the commander should not assume high civilian casualties, his alternative option is to assume lower casualties. You might say that the commander should check that there is no snake before going to bed. But in this situation the commander cannot check the town for civilians and because of the need to remain hidden from the enemy the commander cannot use any lights to check that the bed is safe. I imagine most people will readily get in bed (risking their own life if there is a snake) without checking it first. If you are prepared to risk your own life (with the snake) on the basis of an unknown, is it not at least acceptable (from a Kantian Categorical Imperative perspective) to apply the maxim of " it is okay to take risks with lives when the degree of risk to that life is unknown"?

3. See 2.

4. I have no idea. But keen to hear other thoughts.
There is no such thing as command by committee.

Only one military officer is ever in command and it would be his/her decision alone.
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?

Post by h_k_s »

LuckyR wrote: June 14th, 2019, 1:03 am A couple of things: in most historical conflicts, the number of civilian casualties routinely outnumbered that of soldiers. The enemy soldier's decision to attack under the cover of civilians is prohibited as an example of the human shield concept.

Fire away, would be the typical response.
Insurgents are fond of using civilians as human shields. Happens all the time in Arabia all over now. And in Africa. And in Southwest Asia. And formerly in Southeast Asia. During WW2 it happened in France, Germany, and Italy too. During the Russian Revolution of 1917 it happened there. It may be morally wrong, but as Aristotle pointed out to King Alexander, there are no morals in warfare.
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?

Post by h_k_s »

Mark1955 wrote: June 13th, 2019, 12:03 pm Reelvant ponits for your appreciation
1. You're in the military to die so that others don't have to.
2. Civilians are protected by the Geneva convention.
3. The offiers in question shouldn't have set up a defensive position so stupidly so they didn't have clear killing zones for the artillery to fire into.

What the miilitary should do and what they do do aren't always the same, but the above should provide the DS solution.
The Japanese and Germans of WW2 and North Koreans of the Korean War/Conflict were fond of killing civilians, as I recall from history (both were before I was born). The North Koreans got away with it since there was no final resolution to that war/conflict. The Japanese and Germans who were caught were tried and executed at war's end.

The brutality of the WW2 Japanese and Germans is unmatched anywhere in past history. In the case of the Japanese it was racial. In the case of the Germans it was ethnic. More recently there was ethnic genocide in Southeastern Europe as well, and many of these perpetrators were caught, tried, and executed.
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?

Post by h_k_s »

EthicsQuestions wrote: June 12th, 2019, 6:48 am Hi guys,

Two Military Officers are trying to decide on the best course of action to repulse an impending attack. Both officers have extensive training in Ethics.

The two military officers are part of a force deployed a foreign land.

A large force of 500 enemy soldiers have surrounded a infantry company of 90 soldiers. One of the officers wants to use artillery fire to break up the attack before it arrives. However, the enemy is moving through a populated township. The officers know that there are people in the town who have not evacuated - but they do not know how many people. If artillery is used, civilians will die - it could be 10 civilians, or 50, or 100. Nobody knows how many civilians are still present.

The other Military officer argues that the potential loss of civilian life is completely unacceptable. The attack must be allowed to occur. In all likelihood this will result in the loss of all 90 of the soldiers.

1. Should the civilian lives be considered more valuable than the soldiers lives?
2. Does not knowing the amount of civilians present (and having no way to even estimate them) justify the Commander in taking a course of action that assumes minimal civilian causalities when there is no basis for this assumption?
3. Would it be wrong for the commander to make a baseless assumption that civilian casualties will be high, when there is a known value (90 soldiers) of lives at stake?
4. Should the commander ignore considerations regarding the number of civilians at risk because he is not able to quantify the information.

1. From the commanders perspective his soldiers are also civilians of his own nation. The civilians in the town are from the same nation as the enemy soldiers. Should this 'degrade' their value? If citizenship should not matter, than should the military commander consider the lives of the enemy soldiers just as much as his own soldiers? Why should the soldiers from one side be considered more important than the soldiers of the other side if not for their citizenship? In which case the answer seems a lot more straight forward (don't resist the enemy - maximum casualties = 90).

2. This one seems hard to me - except when you tie it in with question 3. I don't think the commander should assume higher casualties among civilians any more than he should assume his bed has a snake in it - it could have a snake in it, but should the commander call a snake handler every night before bed to 'remove' the snake that might be there? If the commander should not assume high civilian casualties, his alternative option is to assume lower casualties. You might say that the commander should check that there is no snake before going to bed. But in this situation the commander cannot check the town for civilians and because of the need to remain hidden from the enemy the commander cannot use any lights to check that the bed is safe. I imagine most people will readily get in bed (risking their own life if there is a snake) without checking it first. If you are prepared to risk your own life (with the snake) on the basis of an unknown, is it not at least acceptable (from a Kantian Categorical Imperative perspective) to apply the maxim of " it is okay to take risks with lives when the degree of risk to that life is unknown"?

3. See 2.

4. I have no idea. But keen to hear other thoughts.
During WW1 and WW2 when big armies last moved out in the open through built up areas, the built up areas got shelled into the Stone Age.

So what is your question again? And why are you asking it now, 75+ years later?
User avatar
EthicsQuestions
New Trial Member
Posts: 10
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 2:44 am

Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?

Post by EthicsQuestions »

There is no such thing as command by committee.
I am not proposing that this is "command by committee", I am proposing that two military officers are discussing what to do in a given situation. There is variations between countries, but it is not unusual that a company of soldiers would have more than one officer - for example platoon officers reporting to the company commander. In the United States the military decisions are made with input from subordinates.

This is actually a significant difference between Russian and American military decision making. Russian commanders make decisions with little or no input from their subordinate officers. The reason for this is that the Russians prefer adequate decisions that are made quickly. The United States prefers the best decisions possible - but these decisions take longer. The Russians are able to make more decisions in the time it takes for a US Commander to make one - and so in a war, the idea is that the US Commander would not be able to respond to the Russians actions fast enough.

I would actually say that in some countries there is a form of 'Command by Committee' with a group of officers coming up with a plan and then presenting the plan to their commander for approval.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?

Post by LuckyR »

h_k_s wrote: June 14th, 2019, 5:42 am
LuckyR wrote: June 14th, 2019, 1:03 am A couple of things: in most historical conflicts, the number of civilian casualties routinely outnumbered that of soldiers. The enemy soldier's decision to attack under the cover of civilians is prohibited as an example of the human shield concept.

Fire away, would be the typical response.
Insurgents are fond of using civilians as human shields. Happens all the time in Arabia all over now. And in Africa. And in Southwest Asia. And formerly in Southeast Asia. During WW2 it happened in France, Germany, and Italy too. During the Russian Revolution of 1917 it happened there. It may be morally wrong, but as Aristotle pointed out to King Alexander, there are no morals in warfare.
Exactly my point, and this behavior despite the prohibitions is one of the major reasons that the attacking soldiers and their civilian shields would get shelled
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?

Post by h_k_s »

In Afghanistan, the original mission was to get UBL and destroy the Taliban. Now the mission is simply to prop up the US-backed regime.

In Iraq the second time, the original mission was to capture the yellow cake. But there was no yellow cake. So they captured Saddam Hussein instead and hanged him. Now the mission is simply to prop up the US-backed regime.

In Iraq the first time, the original mission was to drive the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. I have friends who were in the tank corps of the 1st Marine Division who did precisely that. They butchered a lot of Iraqi soldiers. Civilian deaths by the US coalition were minimal. Most civilian deaths had been murders by the Iraqi army in Kuwait.

In Lebanon, the original mission was just to show the flag. I had friends who were killed at the Marine Barracks there. Both USMC colonels in charge of that expeditionary force were sacked, and the US withdrew.

In Viet Nam (classic original spelling -- two words -- means South Viet) the original mission was to prop up the US-backed regime. That did not go so well. Millions of civilians were killed by the USAF. Nothing can stop the US Air Force. Death from above. Eventually Nixon got peace with honor, was sacked, and G.Ford did not want to re-enter that conflict when the NVA rolled their tanks into Saigon. It was the first confirmed defeat of the US in a US theatre of war in history. Unless you count the War Of 1812. In which case it was the second US defeat.

Between Viet Nam and WW2, the USAF has probably killed more civilians than anyone else in history. But war is hell (W.T. Sherman).

U.S. Infantry on the ground rarely kills civilians. Occasionally at My Lai sure. But not otherwise.
User avatar
EthicsQuestions
New Trial Member
Posts: 10
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 2:44 am

Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?

Post by EthicsQuestions »

h_k_s wrote: June 14th, 2019, 5:51 am During WW1 and WW2 when big armies last moved out in the open through built up areas, the built up areas got shelled into the Stone Age.

So what is your question again? And why are you asking it now, 75+ years later?
Well, honestly, I thought I was asking an ethics question on an ethics forum. The types of answers I was expecting would be along the lines of "From a Teleological perspective the best option would be..." or "If we apply a Kantian approach you will see..."

Basically I am new to Ethics and still trying to understand what ethics is and how it is applied. As I am new to philosophy, I am still unsure whether many of these answers have anything to do with philosophy/ethics - do they?

Are tactical/strategic/historical lessons relevant to Ethics (serious question)? Are they supposed to be combined?

The answers I am getting to this topic are not the answers that I was expecting - but again, I can't be sure that they don't relate to ethics...
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?

Post by h_k_s »

EthicsQuestions wrote: June 17th, 2019, 2:40 am
h_k_s wrote: June 14th, 2019, 5:51 am During WW1 and WW2 when big armies last moved out in the open through built up areas, the built up areas got shelled into the Stone Age.

So what is your question again? And why are you asking it now, 75+ years later?
Well, honestly, I thought I was asking an ethics question on an ethics forum. The types of answers I was expecting would be along the lines of "From a Teleological perspective the best option would be..." or "If we apply a Kantian approach you will see..."

Basically I am new to Ethics and still trying to understand what ethics is and how it is applied. As I am new to philosophy, I am still unsure whether many of these answers have anything to do with philosophy/ethics - do they?

Are tactical/strategic/historical lessons relevant to Ethics (serious question)? Are they supposed to be combined?

The answers I am getting to this topic are not the answers that I was expecting - but again, I can't be sure that they don't relate to ethics...
As I recall, but I do not know where the specific quote is, it was Aristotle who taught Alexander The Great that "might makes right" especially in warfare. That's why Alexander burned Persepolis to the ground. And Aristotle wrote and spoke and taught extensively on ethics.

https://www.ancient.eu/article/214/alex ... ersepolis/
User avatar
Mark1955
Posts: 739
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
Location: Nottingham, England.

Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?

Post by Mark1955 »

EthicsQuestions wrote: June 14th, 2019, 3:59 am
2. Civilians are protected by the Geneva convention.
I am still new to philosophy/Ethics, but it seems to me that this is a purely legal argument and not an ethical argument. So the civilians are protected by the law - are they protected by ethics also? Would you see an issue if the Geneva Convention did not exist?
3. The offiers in question shouldn't have set up a defensive position so stupidly so they didn't have clear killing zones for the artillery to fire into.
But that does not really relate to the ethical situation. You can call them tactically stupid, but I am not sure how it helps them deal with the situation they find themselves in. Just as an aside, you often find that decisions that are tactically bad or strategically good and vice versa. Specifically officers need to consider the strategic goals of winning hearts and minds (being close to civilians so you can get to know them and help them with their daily life - this is not always a good tactical decision) as well as the tactical situation (defensive positions on high ground don't really further the strategic goals of hearts and minds and getting amongst the civilians).
1. You're in the military to die so that others don't have to.
Why is this so? Would you still agree if the soldiers were conscripts? Letting your soldiers die does not seem like a good tactical decision. Also, even if I accept that a soldiers job is to die so that others don't - is it to die for their own citizens or any citizens in the world? In the scenario the citizens are of a different country.

I understand what is expected from a soldier - but I want to know if it is 'right'.
A couple of things: in most historical conflicts, the number of civilian casualties routinely outnumbered that of soldiers. The enemy soldier's decision to attack under the cover of civilians is prohibited as an example of the human shield concept.
I am curious about the ethical situation facing the two 'friendly' military officers - not whether what the enemy soldiers have done is prohibited or not. Even if certain actions by the friendly officers can be legally justified, this still does tell me whether the action would be morally/ethically correct.
To deal with your points in order
1) Ethics are just laws by another name. The idea of the Geneva Convention is to fight wars in an ethical manner, which we define as minimising the suffering of non combatants and even in some circumstances combatants.
2) I'm interested in your belief that you must camp among the civilians to win hearts and minds. If by camping amongst them you bring the war to their front door I don’t think you will hearts and minds; you certainly wouldn’t win mine. This is a common fault of both the US and the UK military, who, unable to find insurgents, have to set themselves up as targets for the insurgents in the belief they can still win the body count and thus the conflict. The list of operations in which this hasn’t worked is long and ongoing.
3) The reason we have an army as opposed to expecting everyone to fight for themselves is that the army consists of the expendable. The civilians are either your less expendable population, plus those you think ethically should be spared the horrors of war like 80 year olds and children; or they are a population you are defending because for political reasons you are treating them as your friends. If they are your friends you should be treating them the same way as you would your own people. If you are in ‘hostile’ territory you aren’t fighting an ethical war you’re invading other peoples land, if you want to be ethical leave.
4) I’m not sure you’re correct about the relative numbers of casualties, what were your sources for this; I can’t find any serious data for much before 1900. However if we accept that in more recent conflict this is the case all it really indicates is that most wars are not fought by ethical people [unsurprisingly]. Wars are about greed, ego and fear, none of which are really ethical emotions, which is why I said that what the military should do and what they do do are rarely the same thing.
If you think you know the answer you probably don't understand the question.
User avatar
Mark1955
Posts: 739
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
Location: Nottingham, England.

Re: Military Commander Decision - Protect the civilians at the lives of your soldiers?

Post by Mark1955 »

EthicsQuestions wrote: June 17th, 2019, 2:40 amWell, honestly, I thought I was asking an ethics question on an ethics forum. The types of answers I was expecting would be along the lines of "From a Teleological perspective the best option would be..." or "If we apply a Kantian approach you will see..."

Basically I am new to Ethics and still trying to understand what ethics is and how it is applied. As I am new to philosophy, I am still unsure whether many of these answers have anything to do with philosophy/ethics - do they?

Are tactical/strategic/historical lessons relevant to Ethics (serious question)? Are they supposed to be combined?

The answers I am getting to this topic are not the answers that I was expecting - but again, I can't be sure that they don't relate to ethics...
I think the point being made is that ethics is what academics discuss over the port after a large lunch/dinner. Soldiers on the ground deal in practicalities one of which is that the Geneva Convention renders them liable for prosecution for their actions, another of which is that they don’t want to die.
If you think you know the answer you probably don't understand the question.
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