I also thought it was interesting when Dr. J asked
us if we thought that people were entitled to inheritance from their parents and
most of us agreed that that was just. However, I think that if she asked a
class of students whose parents did not have money, then they would respond
differently (I know that everyone that goes to Rhodes does not have money, but
I think we all assume that we will have money one day to give to our children).
If they do not think that they will get inheritance or have money to give to
their children, then I don’t think that they would want this rule to be agreed
upon by society. I also believe that behind the veil of ignorance, which I
realize is a Rawls concept, people would not agree that others are entitled to
their parents’ money. If you assume that you are going to be the lowest level,
then you would want money from these people to be distributed fairly. This could
just be my opinion, so I should not assume that all people would feel this way,
but I would not agree to this arrangement.
Do you agree with my assumptions? Do
you think that students with different backgrounds would feel the same way as
us? What about the people behind the veil of ignorance?
During class, I too had a problem with the inheritance question. Does a teenager with rich parents deserve a Mercedes, a smart phone and the nicest clothes, not to mention the educational and occupational opportunities that accompany wealth? Inherently, no. That individual has done nothing to DESERVE what s(he) has. Does a teenager with poor parents deserve to be living in poverty with significantly less opportunity for access to higher education and less mobility in the workforce? Inherently, no. S(he) also had no say in what type of socioeconomic family s(he) was born into. Therefore, I have a hard time saying anyone is ENTITLED to wealth versus poverty. At the same time, I cannot prove Nozick wrong because I cannot think of an alternative solution. I can think of no rational, fair explanation for how we would distribute what would be inherited wealth. So basically, I have complaints about the system but have no solution to propose, which seems to be a theme in our current society! Someone somewhere come up with some solutions to something, please!
ReplyDeleteI would first like to say, as a student who is not expecting much of an inheritance if anything at all, I believe that a child is fully entitled to their inheritance. A child's parents use their money while they are alive to care for their children. I would assume that it is just to say that every child is deserving in their parents' fiscal support. Depending on their age, it may or may not be considered socially acceptable (No one want to be the 40 year old living in the basement) but I believe you would be hard pressed to find someone who says a child is not deserving of their parents' charity. Inheritance, I would say, is an extension of that charity. If one of the primary goals of parenthood is to care and provide for a child, then would not inheritance fall under that umbrella?
ReplyDeleteBehind a veil of ignorance, I would say that, if one is to have no assumptions about future happenings, then the family unit would be the most important unit, as it represents the most readily available social unit (Besides the individual, but you can't necessarily have a society of one.) Therefore, I would argue that those behind a veil of ignorance would say that a family is entitled to keep their own money, rather than have it dispersed each generation.
Should something happen to my parents today, the only thing that I would probably inherit is their debts; however, I still believe that children are entitled to inherit from their parents to some extent. Like you said, when children inherit massive amounts of money they abuse it. To accomodate your complaints and Leanne's I would give the children who inherited more money than they need enough to live off of and maybe spoil themselves a little. But the rest I would invedst in welfare programs for the children who dn't inherit anything and whose parents are too poor to take care of their needs or provide adequate education. I guess that wuld be kind of Marxist: "To each according to his need."
ReplyDeleteI think any interference of a government in the inheritance of individuals is completely and utterly unjust and will inevitably lead to injustice. Although this is clearly a slippery slope fallacy, recent history would lead one to agree that it is within reason to believe this. I do not believe the forced redistribution of goods by a government could ever be just by virtue of the fact that they must first unjustly take goods from those that owned them justly. I think a combination of Nozick and Rawls would lead to an ideal society with the goal being to raise the level of the lower end of society to the highest possible standard of living.
ReplyDelete