Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Agreed, all people are biased and prob. all sites are biased b/c someone has to write the articles and those people come with a biased view. But I'm sure you agree that certain sites favor the extreme left/right and some try to maintain an "unbiased view".
|
"Try" being the operative word. They may try, but they cannot, and should not succeed. Bias is inherent in our nature. Though it may result in immoral views and outcomes, it is necessary in preserving the good and the moral. We are all biased toward our own point of view, and we should be or we should change it. It is important, not to eliminate bias, but to have a bias toward the good. Ultimately, according to my bias, that is not relative. Moral relativity (moral equivalence) equalizes all bias. Its problem is that it reduces bias, morality, and individualism to an irrelevant monotone, to non-existence.
What we have been given in this country by the Founders is the moral imperative of freedom. It is the basis for everything they constructed. It was freedom that they sought, not wealth (they already had that), not social equality (the reduction of all and everything to a "level playing field" is most insidious to individual freedom), certainly not a government that provided all personal necessities (that would limit the personal freedom to create your unique being), certainly not a government that could rule over the individual by dictatorial legislation and TAXATION (that is what they revolted against.) They drafted a Constitution whose moral imperative is to preserve individual freedom and to ensure that any action/legislation/judicial "interpretation" would not impinge on that freedom.
My bias is toward that original Constitution, toward individual freedom within its framework. I admit wholeheartedly to that bias, and I believe that it is a good and moral bias, and I cherish that bias as equal to or better than most other biases I possess. And we are about to have another Supreme Court Justice confirmed who, I think, is biased against that original Constitution and toward one that requires relativistic "interpretation" and that does not
restrict Government from acting
against the individual but, rather, approves of what Government
can do for various, and chosen, groups, usually at at the expense of others. The effect of such activist decisions is to enlarge the power of Government and diminish the freedom of the individual. Obviously, there are many who have a bias favoring this new type of Constitution. If we have come to that point where preserving individual freedom is not the moral imperative, the foundation upon which our Government, our Society, rests, but, rather that we must use the force of Government to favor various groups over others, we have not only abolished the original Constitution, but have ushered in an era of conflict that makes Government King and the individual a pauper.