Aristotle-to-Ricardo-to-Hayek turn the double play way better than Plato-to-Rousseau-to-Rawls
BTW, my answers were:1) Yes2) No3) D4) D-F5) A6) Yes7) Yes
1) yes2)no3) D4) D-F5) A6) yes7) yes ** defined as "moral" by Judeo-Christian morality standards. No doubt they have their own standard, but as far as I can determine there's no way to define them and therefore no way for them to be immoral by those standards. They are amoral. I'm sure the Aztecs were very moral by their standards when they sacrificed virgins to the gods, but they were _immoral_ by J-C standards. The US is generally a country of J-C standards of morality, hence my judgement that liberals are less moral by generally accepted standards.
On question 1 - Originally I didn't think Sanford should resign. He messed up in his personal life, and while I questioned his "dereliction of duty" for the time he was absent, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.At this point, it seems like he can't shut up and move on - to be honest, it seems to me as if he's had a breakdown of some sort. He should resign - because I doubt he can govern effectively after his public groveling and the extent of his personal revelations. I have to wonder - if he resigned and moved to Argentina...what would he do? would the love of his life welcome him as a dependent?? He has _really_ blown it...
suek:Agreed. I didn't think he should resign until I read his press conference where he sounded as if he had had a breakdown. Were he my Governor, I'd be worried.
Post a Comment