Originally posted by ZahlanziThen we are agreed, as I've been saying the whole time that I do not want to enforce these kind of morals on anyone!
not doing harm is what society can enforce. nobody can force you to jump in a lake to save a drowning person. nobody can force you to donate half of your 1 gazilion fortune to greenpeace and save the children.
you can discuss of course what is moral and what is not and guidelines to a fulfilling life. but you cannot enforce morals on anyone.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThis is obviously false.
It's impossible to argue that the housewife is doing the morally right thing, and the lazy freeloader on benefits isn't. Either both are, or both are not. I'd say both are not.
The husband agreed to her behaviour, while most voters would agree that benefits should not be free-loading gifts, but a helping hand in tough times.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaWhat voters believe is irrelevant to the question of what the right moral choice is for the people in question. The difference is that the government can impose certain conditions on the aid.
This is obviously false.
The husband agreed to her behaviour, while most voters would agree that benefits should not be free-loading gifts, but a helping hand in tough times.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOf course it's not irrelevant. One is simply accepting a gift given with full information, while the other is exploiting the good-will of the givers by taking advantage of their lack of information.
What voters believe is irrelevant to the question of what the right moral choice is for the people in question. The difference is that the government can impose certain conditions on the aid.
Originally posted by Palynkayes, but finally we understood each other that he doesn't say it is illegal for the housewife to stay home. rather he views her choice as rather immoral if there are no children involved and the "housewife job" doesn't require 8 hours of work per day, 40 hours per week.
Of course it's not irrelevant. One is simply accepting a gift given with full information, while the other is exploiting the good-will of the givers by taking advantage of their lack of information.
it is quite difficult to label what is moral and what is not. is the housewife that doesn't have children immoral for staying home? is the housewife who has quintuplets, immoral for staying home and looking after them? is the heir inheriting a zillion dollars immoral for spending it without going to work? or is he immoral for going to work and taking the job position of someone who doesn't have the money and actually needs a job? is the millionaire who doesn't give to charity immoral? how about the guy having 10000 dollars in saving who doesn't give to charity?
society can frown upon certain things. but cannot impose anything other than precise rules that threaten its stability.
Originally posted by ZahlanziSure, I think we can all agree there.
yes, but finally we understood each other that he doesn't say it is illegal for the housewife to stay home. rather he views her choice as rather immoral if there are no children involved and the "housewife job" doesn't require 8 hours of work per day, 40 hours per week.
it is quite difficult to label what is moral and what is not. is the housewife that ...[text shortened]... things. but cannot impose anything other than precise rules that threaten its stability.
For the record, I am a non-cognitivist myself, so my statements should be interpreted as the expression of preferences over actions. I am definitely not a moral absolutist.
What I contend is that it is not necessarily so that I have to accept both or reject both. Personally, I also don't attach any moral value to "work" in itself. If someone is content to work less and live with less I have no problem with that. If he doesn't contribute to the rest of society's wealth, it's his choice. What I dislike is taking advantage of society's welfare mechanisms in ways for which the weren't intended.
Originally posted by KazetNagorrayes, and that is why we argued. the housewife of my example is not riding riding on her husbands back, she is providing services to him. the rich heir is using money given to him by another person who worked at one time and gathered enough so that the heir wouldn't have too. so him too is not hurting anyone.
Sure, but in both cases people decide to ride on the backs of others even when they are able to provide for themselves.
with of course the difference that the heir is not doing any good either whereas the housewife is employed to her family.