Welcome to my substack! This newsletter is about many things, but it's mostly about practical philosophy, so yes, I'm going to use the word "should" a lot. If you're asking this question, I'm guessing you haven't read many of my earlier pieces. I believe that morality has an objective basis, so it's not about what I want, it's about what is objectively right and just. I've discussed Aristotle's account of the basis of morality in my earlier pieces; I think he's largely correct.
> A 1200-hour work year would be 2400 hours a year per family if both parents work, so that is still providing more hours to employers than the typical breadwinner of 1970 did.
I get what you’re going for here but this doesn’t really follow, except in the sense that the employer is getting more work out of “the family” which is an unnatural way of looking at things.
Thank you for reading my piece. If that's the worst you can say about it, then I'm encouraged! But I don't know what you mean by "unnatural" in this context. It's perfectly reasonable to look at the family or household as unit of analysis, whether in economics, other social sciences, or moral philosophy. The notion that all such questions must framed in terms of atomized individuals is an artifact of liberal ideology. There is nothing "natural" about abstracting the individual away from the real relationships in which human beings live.
This is really tightly reasoned. Is a table or flowchart of options anticipated?
Thanks. I suppose I could use a small table instead of bullet points for the list of sample work schedules.
Infographic is the way. Pick a Canva template
The use of the word "should" is inappropriate. On what basis should things be the way you want? Because you think so? Because you deserve it?
My kids should be more helpful. See how that works?
Welcome to my substack! This newsletter is about many things, but it's mostly about practical philosophy, so yes, I'm going to use the word "should" a lot. If you're asking this question, I'm guessing you haven't read many of my earlier pieces. I believe that morality has an objective basis, so it's not about what I want, it's about what is objectively right and just. I've discussed Aristotle's account of the basis of morality in my earlier pieces; I think he's largely correct.
> A 1200-hour work year would be 2400 hours a year per family if both parents work, so that is still providing more hours to employers than the typical breadwinner of 1970 did.
I get what you’re going for here but this doesn’t really follow, except in the sense that the employer is getting more work out of “the family” which is an unnatural way of looking at things.
Thank you for reading my piece. If that's the worst you can say about it, then I'm encouraged! But I don't know what you mean by "unnatural" in this context. It's perfectly reasonable to look at the family or household as unit of analysis, whether in economics, other social sciences, or moral philosophy. The notion that all such questions must framed in terms of atomized individuals is an artifact of liberal ideology. There is nothing "natural" about abstracting the individual away from the real relationships in which human beings live.
Try an infographic