Very old arguement that has no merit
It seems to have merit though: if there is no moral code, a person can choose as their moral code abusive supremacy
Very old arguement that has no merit
It seems to have merit though: if there is no moral code, a person can choose as their moral code abusive supremacy
Such as? Don't the non-religious have no basis for morality?
The moral principles are held to still stand today, just as you might still read something by a scientist like Newton on physics from some time ago, which may have some validity; moral principles like that it is "wrong to steal" are still as true today as thousands of years ago, just as the formula for the area of a circle hasn't changed throughout the centuries
Yeah I often see people discussing minimum wages and living wages, this was a different concept I stumbled upon for people to think about, which makes sense for society to consider because if workers have families they're not simply trying to earn a "living wage" (enough for them) but also enough for kids and/or spouse, etc.
family wage: enough to support a whole family by one breadwinner (traditionally thought of as an individual male; even with dual breadwinners you could still have an idea of how much a "family wage" would be that pays for the costs of the whole family)
living wage: enough to support an individual
minimum legal wage: legally allowed minimum to pay per hour (I don't know how common it has been for a minimum wage to be enough to raise a family)