“Workplace Wars. How Much Should I be Required to Meet the Needs of Your Children” Claudia Mills, pp?
401-406
Do non-parent employees have an obligation to pay for the needs of the children of parent-employees? One might say, of course, not. If the employee chooses to have children, it is his or her choice, Why should other employees have to pay for these benefits or work extra hours for the parent-employees? Wouldn’t it be unfair to the non-parent employees?
Questions:
- How does Claudia Mills then argue that there is a moral obligation for non-parents to pay for the needs of
other peoples’ children in principle (i.e. in society)? - She claims that the person who claims not to have any interest in the well-being of children in society
becomes a kind of free-rider like the person who benefits from the national defense, but refuses to pay for it.
Is this a good argument? Why or why not? - Is there an argument that a company does have a responsibility to the children of employees such that employee-parents ought to be given certain benefits that other employees don’t enjoy? Why or why not? Is
Is this argument different if there is no government support for families?
Preferred language style Simple (Easy vocabulary, simple grammar constructions)