efioptv Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Ed Moran Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
efioptv Posted February 16, 2017 Author Share Posted February 16, 2017 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviet Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Mister Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
efioptv Posted February 18, 2017 Author Share Posted February 18, 2017 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". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotDarkYet Posted February 18, 2017 Share Posted February 18, 2017 If giving money voluntarily (charity, inheritance) is unjust and giving money involuntarily is moral... then Big Brother won. 2+2=5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
violet Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 The essence of capitalism is that resources/wealth are controlled by individual people and all trade is voluntary. That means that an individual can choose how to serve others in some way in order to gain resources, and also choose how to invest earnings. Choosing to invest resources in your children is therefore not contrary to capitalism. There is a fundamental unfairness in this, but it isn't man-made. It's a fact of life that some parents won't have much to invest, or (less often) won't be willing to invest. It does creates inequality, but what is the alternative? To mandate forced redistribution of wealth is the opposite of capitalism. I would suggest that capitalism is about removing force from the equation, which often leads to equal opportunity situations. The biggest brute doesn't win the resources if you have a system that doesn't allow physical violence and stealing. However, equal opportunity is not the fundamental principle. Most like to see some equalizing though, and that can be done through charity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troubador Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Capitalism self-corrects, ok so someone inherits a large sum. If they are a dingbat with it they won't have it very long and voila it's redistributed. If they invest and grow it prudently the wealth is grown and its physically impossible to accomplish with that without other people also working hard and generating wealth for themselves. Thus creating more resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laforge Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Try getting the argument from the theoretical to the practical. "Okay so suppose i agree with the 'unfairness', how do we effectively enforce a law that bans inheritances?"- do you think simply registering what people have in the bank is sufficient? *cough* precious metals *cough* cryptocurrencies *cough*- do you think putting cameras and microphones inside of peoples private homes should be a tool for law enforcement?and of course the golden oldie:- if I don't agree or don't comply, do you personally support the initiation of force against me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts