As we've been learning about Nozick's entitlement theory and his principles of justice in holdings, it seems that most people agree with these basic ideas. If someone acquires a holding in a just manner, such as by buying it with his own money, he is entitled to that holding. If a holding is transferred to him in a just way, such as in the form of a gift or inheritance, he is entitled to it. This appears to coincide with the general idea of property acquisition.
However, when we got into a discussion about the entitlement of one's children to his wealth, some dissent arose. Going solely by Nozick's principle of justice in transfer, they are certainly justified in their holdings. In spite of this, there seemed to be a general feeling that they still should not have that property. Of course, the children did nothing to deserve their inheritance, as they were involuntarily born into their family. They had no control over what their parent did to amass or diminish his wealth. He was the one to bequeath his earnings to his children, which is a just transfer.
I can see this disagreement as stemming from two different sources. When we think of fair systems of distribution, two of the main ones that come to mind are systems of both equality and merit. Well, in this example, the children are clearly not on an equal level as everyone else in terms of wealth. It seems unfair that they have so much more than everyone else, and thus more opportunities; they should all start out at the same baseline. Another aspect that puts people off is the fact that the children do not merit the holdings that have been transferred to them. American society tends to think that everyone must put in hard work to achieve their goals, that nothing should be handed out. Thus, a lot of us were inclined to feel that the children should not maintain their holdings.
While I definitely think that these are understandable points of contention, and can personally sympathize with them, they cannot overturn the principle of justice in transfer. There is nothing about the way in which the children acquired their holdings that is unjust; they didn't steal anything, but were willingly bequeathed it be their parent. Even though we may be inclined to disallow them of their advantage, based upon the way we were raised, our views on equality, society's views on merit, etc., there is no logical argument in support of this. In fact, it would itself be an unjust transfer of holdings if we were to somehow strip the children of these holdings.
Allison,
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with what you are saying. Nevertheless, I would like to comment on what you wrote about children deserving their the heritage. Is it really the case that they don't deserve it? I mean, of course we have to accept that nature is not equal and humans are not capable to restore equality, maybe also because it would be unjust. So, imagine you as a parent, don't you have a kind of an inner pressure to work hard so that your children will have a good life and good chances? And if you did, don't they deserve the wealth that you achieved also for them?
For the most part I agree, but for some reason that I have no evidence to support, I think there may be a logical counter argument to this. I say this because there has been one to every other philosopher, so I can't possibly accept that Nozick is any different. The fact that children are entitled to their parents' wealth did not sit well with any of us, yet by using Nozick's points the distribution was just, which is what the theory sets out to prove. Like I said I personally haven't come up with anything yet, but I don't agree with the statement that there is not a logical argument that can counter the merit/inheritance issue.
ReplyDeleteDestiny, I agree with you that there must be some logical argument against Nozick's stance on transfer and entitlement, and several of us seem to be struggling to articulate it but none of us really can. I think one reason why so many of us have a problem with Nozick, specifically the inheritance issue, is that we all know someone with wealthy parents who has never had a job, has never had to work for any of his/her luxuries, and has an overall very easy time in life due to his/her family wealth. We all might also know someone with poor parents who is extremely hard-working, smart, and determined but struggles with educational/occupational opportunities, due solely to their family's cycle of poverty. Comparing these two individuals, at least in my mind, causes significant problems with Nozick's claim that children are entitled to their parents' wealth.
ReplyDeleteI think that people are entitled to their inheritance. People who earn their money have a right to do with it whatever they want. If they chose to pass it along to their children they have a right to do so and therefore their children are entitled to it. The children my not have earned it themselves but they came about it justly. Also it could be said that children earn their inheritance by being good sons and daughters. Parents who feel their children don't deserve their money or think it could be better used elsewhere won't leave an inheritance. This could still be seen as unfair though because there are plenty of good sons and daughters who's parents just don't have anything to leave them.
ReplyDeleteLeanne, that's the exact reason I can't accept that there isn't an alternative argument. You nailed it.
ReplyDeleteFlo: I think this goes back to what we talked about in class, namely that the family one is born into is an accident of nature. I had absolutely no say in who my parents are, what jobs they have, how wealthy they are, etc. In this way, kids don't merit their inheritance, although they are entitled to it in Nozick's view.
ReplyDeleteDestiny & Leanne: Sorry, I realize that I was ambiguous in my post. I, too, feel that there may be a valid counterargument out there, otherwise I don't think so many people would feel uneasy about the issue. However, based solely upon Nozick's entitlement theory, there doesn't seem to be a logical way to get around it. I think it would take a different theory to disprove Nozick in order for us to call such entitlement unjust.
Laura: While I agree that, by Nozick's theory, kids are entitled to their inheritance, I still don't think you can generally say that they've earned it. If someone dies without a will, his estate automatically goes to his next of kin (of which children are first or second). This clearly does not take into account the parent's feelings toward the kids. Plus, I'm sure there are plenty of horrid kids whose parents simply bequeath their wealth because it's the norm or they'd feel bad about it otherwise.