1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaPrecisely.
It is not society as a whole.
Until you open your eyes to recognise this fact you will forever be stuck in your cave.
KN uses the term "society" as if society was some kind of super-entity that is somehow separate from the group of individuals that comprise it, complete with it's own separate rights. As such, in his mind, society can be owed the housewife's time and resources. This is the fallacy that leads this discussion round and round.
To be fair to KN though, he has stopped short of claiming that society has a right to just take whatever he claims is owed from the housewife, and seems to understand that doing so would be tyranny. Instead he is merely insisting on his own judgment that the housewife is somehow immoral for choosing to live her life the way she does.
KN is of course free to hold his opinion, even if he is worrying about something that is none of his business, and it's fine with me as long as he doesn't support actions or laws that would punish the woman based on this moral judgment. It's exactly the same as if some devout Christian held the opinion that KN doesn't go to church enough, has an immoral sex life, drinks too much, and doesn't give enough to the collection plate. The devout Christian is free to hold opinions about things that are none of his business, as long he doesn't support actions or laws that punish KN for it, because that would be tyranny.
I think KN gets the tyranny part, but I'm not so sure he gets the "none of his business" part.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraShe isn't taking it from society she is taking it from her husband, who in this scenario must be happy to so, otherwise he would not be doing it.
Yes, but the housewife could still choose to return something to society for what she is taking.
From her husband
Not from society.
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't think this is easily established, but I commented earlier:
Define this 'burden'.
Is working 8 instead of 11 hours per day "riding on society's back"?
"Well, people don't need to work 100 hours per week. But they at least have to have some good intentions, there must be good balance between hedonism and morality."
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat doesn't explain anything, unless you think pleasure itself is immoral.
I don't think this is easily established, but I commented earlier:
"Well, people don't need to work 100 hours per week. But they at least have to have some good intentions, there must be good balance between hedonism and morality."
Where is the immorality?