Jump to content

Welcome to the Freedomain Radio Message Board


Sign In 

Create Account
If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with your Paypal email/Bitcoin address/etc as well as your board account name and the situation will be addressed ASAP.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

DONATOR ONLY PREMIUM CONTENT - For more information on donator levels click here

67 Philosopher King files - 74 Gold files - 48 Silver files - 51 Bronze files

If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information.


Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom


Photo

Is inheritance injustice


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1
efioptv

efioptv
  • 46 posts

that was what I had to read in my business ethics class this week. The author said inheritance doesn't follow the rule of capitalism since it does not create equal opportunity for everyone, which decrease incentive for the less wealthy people to be productive. And, the more wealthy people has more freedom because they have more money. 

 

Thats what I've got from reading the article and my first impression is "what the **** is this"

 

inheritance is just another word for private properties and how is it giving someone else your properties is injustice? And of course, his solution is to run to the state to limit our freedom. He propose the solution to only able to give those wealth to ones spouse. If one does not has a spouse, the wealth belongs to the government after death. Another exception is orphans, disabled and the old will get a sufficient amount of wealth to live their lives.

 

Sorry if I'm all over the place. It feel like I disagree everything he says...

 

He gives me an impression that maybe he know the problem is the biological randomness that created this unfairness, but this is something we cannot change. 

 

(I'm regretting my choice of taking another philosophy class in university)


  • 1

#2
Matthew Ed Moran

Matthew Ed Moran
  • 522 posts

We should violently redistribute organs and limbs because some people have disease or deformation.

 

We should force marriage so that low IQ people can marry high IQ people because some people are born smarter.

 

We should force beautiful people to marry ugly people because some people are born prettier.

 

All these things are inherited and it's so fucking unfair, so the government should start carving up the population until we all look and act the same.


  • 0

#3
efioptv

efioptv
  • 46 posts

We should violently redistribute organs and limbs because some people have disease or deformation.

 

We should force marriage so that low IQ people can marry high IQ people because some people are born smarter.

 

We should force beautiful people to marry ugly people because some people are born prettier.

 

All these things are inherited and it's so fucking unfair, so the government should start carving up the population until we all look and act the same.

 

aww, should've thought of this examples when I'm reading the article. Instead, I was focusing on how he is cherrypicking part of the capitalism theory to develop his argument...


  • 0

#4
aviet

aviet

    Circumstance trumps ideals #war

  • 438 posts

We should violently redistribute organs and limbs because some people have disease or deformation.

 

We should force marriage so that low IQ people can marry high IQ people because some people are born smarter.

 

We should force beautiful people to marry ugly people because some people are born prettier.

 

All these things are inherited and it's so fucking unfair, so the government should start carving up the population until we all look and act the same.

 

Brilliant.

 

 

The author said inheritance doesn't follow the rule of capitalism since it does not create equal opportunity for everyone

Only an academic who has never had to respond to anything could come up with such a bird brain statement.

"create equal opportunity for everyone"

I forgot that part of capitalism. I must have missed it when I skipped over the social egalitarianism section in The Wealth of Nations.

Capitalism is a system where the majority of production is held privately. The more that is held privately, the more capitalist the system is. Not being able to bequest a single possession after you die would be less capitalist.

 

 

I'm regretting my choice of taking another philosophy class in university

Sounds more like burke studies than philosophy.


  • 0

#5
RoseCodex

RoseCodex
  • 1147 posts

has "injustice" been defined in the first place?

 

that was what I had to read in my business ethics class this week. The author said inheritance doesn't follow the rule of capitalism since it does not create equal opportunity for everyone, which decrease incentive for the less wealthy people to be productive. And, the more wealthy people has more freedom because they have more money.

 

  This is completely nonsensical.  What is the "rule of capitalism"?  Every transaction has to "create equal opportunity for everyone"???  I don't remember any advocates of capitalism ever saying anything like that. 

 

  Inheritance is a gift.  It follows from the biological impulse to provide resources for one's children.  I can see how it can be considered "unfair" in a cosmic sense, but that's not the same as injustice.  Injustice implies someone has been harmed, and is now owed restitution.


  • 0

#6
efioptv

efioptv
  • 46 posts

has "injustice" been defined in the first place?

 

 

  This is completely nonsensical.  What is the "rule of capitalism"?  Every transaction has to "create equal opportunity for everyone"???  I don't remember any advocates of capitalism ever saying anything like that. 

 

  Inheritance is a gift.  It follows from the biological impulse to provide resources for one's children.  I can see how it can be considered "unfair" in a cosmic sense, but that's not the same as injustice.  Injustice implies someone has been harmed, and is now owed restitution.

 

agree. It has nothing to do with capitalism. <-- That might be a good statement to present next time when they continue the discussion...I tried to explain the logic to the discussion group and yet, they just don't seem to care. The people in my group said something such as "ya its unfair" "agree its only a problem when a person dies".


  • 0

#7
NotDarkYet

NotDarkYet
  • 836 posts

If giving money voluntarily (charity, inheritance) is

unjust and giving money involuntarily is moral...

then Big Brother won.

 

2+2=5


  • 1