TennesseeTicket.com

Ford proposed that everyone born in America should get 500.00$ at birth. then to be used for education or something when it receives interest.
Now is that a Liberal proposal?
Does he want me to pay (taxes) to every one?
Is he just a little bit liberal, heck, shouldn't we pay 5,000,000.00$ to every one.
If we can pay 1.00$ then we can pay millions.
Ford is a liberal.

Maybe you should lay off the koolade for a while?

"A liberal's sense of right and wrong is innate, and therefore doesn't need to be delivered via preacher and book."

Mr. Public,

I hate to point this out to you but that position is only defensible if one accepts the existence of some Absolute source. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that right and wrong are relative. In which case, Right and Wrong are just words.

From the Wikipedia article on Moral Absolutism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism):

Many religions have morally absolutist positions, regarding their system of morality as having been set by a deity or deities, except, of course, when the acts are done by the deities. They therefore regard such a moral system as absolute, (usually) perfect, and unchangeable. Many philosophies also take a morally absolutist stance, arguing that the laws of morality are inherent in the nature of human beings, the nature of life in general, or the universe itself. For example, someone who believes absolutely in nonviolence considers it wrong to use violence even in self-defense. For another example, under some religious moral absolutist beliefs, homosexual behavior is considered fundamentally wrong, even in a committed monogamous relationship. Many who make such claims often disregard evolving norms within their own communities. For example, today almost no religious group endorses slavery, whereas in the past many communities held it to be perfectly ethical. The historical character of religious belief provides strong grounds for criticism of religious moral absolutism.

Humanity has wrestled with questions of moral absolutism in religion for thousands of years. The notion of the dangers of judging good from evil is central in the story of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the book of Genesis from the Pentateuch.

Mark, I appreciate your comment. I made my obviously sweeping statement while holding my tongue just barely in my cheek -- but that doesn't preclude my saying this, in response:

The ship of one's morals/ethics can be steadied without being anchored and moored. It's one thing to list wildly in a sea of relativism (i.e., be very lazy), and another to set sail into the Unknown with a firm hand on the tiller, even while knowing there is not such a thing as a moral Absolute. Our collective human experience, our zeitgeist, and plain old common sense are the stars that guide us.

Joe I have three things:

1. I'm sorry Joe but Harold is very much a liberal. All you have to do is look at his ENTIRE voting record in Congress.

2. This is in response to Left Wing Crackers question from last week about Rochelle. A sweet lady friend of mine thats close to the state Dem party told me they have a poll showing Rochelle in "very good shape" to beat Mae. The bad news for Dems is that according to her the McLeary and Ketron races aren't close. So that means another two years of a GOP Majority in the Vol State.

3. John Wilder named GOP State Senator Steve Southerland as the new Commerce Committee Chairman. He replaces the indicted Democrat Jerry Cooper. I wonder if good old John cut a deal with Southerland to get his vote for Speaker in January? Hmmmmm...time will tell I guess. On a side note that gives the GOP a majority of the top Chairmanships in the Senate for the first time ever.

One final thing, have either of the parties been having any free BBQ or fish dinners yet this fall? I've been on the road a lot the past few months with my job....so I havent followed Tn politics much. Jeb Bush and the GOP put on one heck of a dinner in Pensacola a few weeks ago. Katharine harris and nearly every other north Florida Neocon was there but that was one heck of a FREE fish dinner. To be non partisan, I went to a FREE BBQ dinner thrown by some kook democrats in south Alabama. Their food was great as well....John Tyson the Attorney General nominee was there...did u know his brother played the bad guy in Kindergarten Cop with Governor Arnold? Anyway the thing that gets me mad about Democrats is they spend way too much time talking about the past. The speakers at that event went on and on for nearly two hours ranting about the good old days of FDR and Truman.

Joe,

Thanks for the very thoughtful post.

First, there is an important distinction here. As a Christian, I believe in an Absolute source for all Values. For me any other option would be Relativism However, I also believe that, as humans, we can only imperfectly see those Values and our decisions are, as a result, imperfect. Different people may find contrasting choices in search of those Universal Values.

This is profoundly different from the Relativism of the 20th Century which started with the observation that 'we cannot know for certain what the Absolute Values are,' and ended with 'there are no Absolute Values.'

Good people can disagree on what is the Right or Good or Just action and agree that we need to search for the Absolute. Denial of that Absolute inevitably leads to relativism.

Ford - not a conservative - too liberal on some issues. Not a liberal - too conservative on some issues. Not a moderate - too liberal on some issues & too conservative on some issues. He's a politician. I prefer him because he will caucus with the Democrats & will vote the way I think he should on a few issues (as opposed to Corker, who will caucus with the Republicans and vote against my views on practically everything).

On moral relativity: euthyphro's dilemma is very instructive. It shows the weakness of the belief that Absolute or Objective ethics can be a product of the Divine. It does not show that right and wrong cannot be objective or absolute. It simply shows that if they are objective or absolute, it is not because of the will of God (or, if it is, then that they are arbitrary and have no real meaning). So, right and wrong can be taken as Objective/absolute as a matter of faith - with or without belief in God - or they can be taken as subjective/relative - again, with or without belief in God.

Ummm... a more readable explanation of Euthyphro's dilemma"... That first is kind of dense.