[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Yes. Probably because their parents earned it and have a right to look after theory children. Money makes you favored because you can buy things that increase your favor.

Their parents earned it. But why should that advantage the child who hasn't actually done anything but be born into said family? How does this make the child more deserving than any other? And I know how money advantages people. I asked why it should


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[G56]

(Original post by SleepySheep)
Well, that's a bit of an unfair generalisation. Lots of poor people do take education seriously, and I'm sure there are many rich people who don't.

You may be right about rich people, but if you study and work hard you will make money.

(Original post by SleepySheep)
Poor people do not have the same help and opportunities as rich people, so it is more difficult for poor people to do well. Some universities are also biased towards a certain 'type' of person- someone who seems as though they are fresh out of private school, even if they are not. It's just hurdle after hurdle after hurdle for poor people- that doesn't mean it's impossible for poor people to become rich, it just means it's very difficult.

That is a load of rubbish, even universities like cambridge and oxford (i can say from personal experience) do not care if you are public or privately educated as long as you have worked hard in and out of school and are motivated.
For example oxbridge and durham have a policy of taking GCSE scores into context, so you have bad GCSE's they will compare them with the average at your school; because at GCSE your learning is based much more on the teachers than revision and work at home.
The whole hurdle after hurdle crap doesn't mean anything, its easy not to be poor if you have the right method and motivation.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by NYU2012)
What's actually being claimed, in case you couldn't understand it the first time, which it's apparent that you could not, is that the opportunities available to an individual greatly effect their socioeconomic status. Their access to opportunity is, in turn, greatly affected by the wealth of their family.

They are not rich because they were born rich (although this is true in a number cases, but we are ignoring those people who were merely born into and inherited their wealth); they are rich and remain rich because of the opportunities afforded to them by their parents due to their wealth and ability to buy such opportunity.

Haha, are you honestly claiming that I am wrong for summarizing your argument as 'those who were born rich tend to be rich and those who are born poor tend to be poor'. Where did I say it was about inheritance? The opportunities afforded by wealth are kind of implicit in being born into a rich family.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Their parents earned it. But why should that advantage the child who hasn't actually done anything but be born into said family? How does this make the child more deserving than any other? And I know how money advantages people. I asked why it should


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

I just see improving the opportunities of your own kids and leaving a legacy as a luxury, that's all Just like buying a new car, a new house, etc.. I feel that being able to pay for opportunities to improve your family is actually a massive incentive for many people to reach success.

[Bella_trixxx]

It's not rocket science, this?
Say we have two children, child A and child B, both with the same amount of natural talent/intelligence.

Child A goes to an inner city state school, and although he may be near the top of his class his learning is constantly disrupted by other misbehaving students around him, and the teachers are too overworked and stressed to have much time to dedicate to each pupil. The school is focussed on helping the weaker students to reach their grade Cs at GCSE, rather than stretching the minds of their brightest students. The facilities available to him are not the best.
At home, child A lives in a small council flat with some brothers and sisters. The flat may be crowded, maybe he doesn't have a desk to study at, maybe he has to share a room with a sibling so has no personal space in which to study. He might live in a rough area and be kept awake all night by noises on the street. He certainly doesn't have enough money to buy all the textbooks he might like, and internet access might also be limited. His mother might support him and want him to learn, but she works long hours to provide for the family and is usually too tired when she gets home to be able to provide any sort of stimulating intellectual atmosphere in the house.

Now, child B has exactly the same intellect. He goes to a good school, where class sizes are smaller and teachers have more time to devote to each individual pupil. His school is well equipped and able to provide its students with the best opportunities (entering the brightest pupils in maths competitions etc.). His house is big, and his parents are able to provide him with everything he needs to be successful. He has his own desk, all the books he needs, and his own computer. His father is a successful businessman, and has enough contacts to be able to help his son's career.

Say these children are both equally ambitious and hard-working. Which one of them is going to do better in life?

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by ForKicks)
I just see improving the opportunities of your own kids and leaving a legacy as a luxury, that's all Just like buying a new car, a new house, etc.. I feel that being able to pay for opportunities to improve your family is actually a massive incentive for many people to reach success.

But you can't treat them the same because that implies that there is going to be some set standard will give a person success but that is not true. And you can't even say that all child have the opportunity to reach this success. Your analysis is highly flawed.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[NYU2012]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Haha, are you honestly claiming that I am wrong for summarizing your argument as 'those who were born rich tend to be rich and those who are born poor tend to be poor'. Where did I say it was about inheritance? The opportunities afforded by wealth are kind of implicit in being born into a rich family.

Yes because attempting to summarize something in such simplistic form as you have done does actually convey what was said.

Saying: "those who were born rich tend to be rich and those who are born poor tend to be poor"

Merely tells me about an observable pattern which happens to be the case. It offers no explanation as to why this is case.

If you were to offer that summary to a political or moral theorist, they would look at you like an idiot.

(Original post by ForKicks)
I just see improving the opportunities of your own kids and leaving a legacy as a luxury, that's all Just like buying a new car, a new house, etc.. I feel that being able to pay for opportunities to improve your family is actually a massive incentive for many people to reach success.

While it may be a luxury and it may be an incentive, you've ignored the question of whether or not this is morally acceptable or the way it ought to be.

For example, I believe it was Robert Nozick who highlighted the question as to what role does incentive play in morality? He knew that lower tax rates for the wealthy were said to create harder working wealthy people who are more willing to create jobs, etc. because they get to keep their money. But, as Nozick pointed out, they could work just as hard for not as much money and still pay the higher tax rate (which would the most beneficial to everyone), which therefore led him to conclude that while having a low tax rate may incentivize rich people to create more jobs, work harder, etc. it's not the moral thing to do; and that rich people who acted in such a way more acting immorally.

[Terence_A.]

Whilst top universities only discrimintate the students marks and achievements, who is more likely to achieve? That individual with an excellent education (public or private) a family that supports them financially and via their owwn experince in higher education and decent jobs. Or, somebody born into a family that does not encourage learnong early or who have no experience in higher education? There is plenty of oppertunities for social mobility but the problem is often ideoological, they are conditioned badly. Thus, in capitalism especially, but generally anway, 'poor' people are more likely to remain so, whilst those who are more advataged (even though they may be naturally less talented) will always have a better chance at suceeding. A person could be born into a disadvataged family and even if they are naturally very intellegent they may never actually develope or apply these skills in their lives. Someone who is of very avarage abilities but was born in a very advantaged family will have levels of encouragment that mean they will do well regardless, the Prime Minister for example lol

cba PROOFREADING

[ForKicks]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
But you can't treat them the same because that implies that there is going to be some set standard will give a person success but that is not true. And you can't even say that all child have the opportunity to reach this success. Your analysis is highly flawed.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Technically they do, statistically they don't. An able child from a poorer background can make it, but it is much less likely. I don't treat them the same. Like I said, improving the life of your children is a luxury, of course there is inequality in that. That doesn't have to stop the government funding high quality state schools through tax, but if individuals want to spend extra money to keep their kids 1 step ahead, then let them.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Technically they do, statistically they don't. An able child from a poorer background can make it, but it is much less likely. I don't treat them the same. Like I said, improving the life of your children is a luxury, of course there is inequality in that. That doesn't have to stop the government funding high quality state schools through tax, but if individuals want to spend extra money to keep their kids 1 step ahead, then let them.

But you're still missing out on the moral questions of this.

Why should someone be advantaged merely because they were born into a well-to-do family?

You're saying: "You're rich, so it's okay that your children have better and more opportunities than other children." But you've yet to justify how this is morally acceptable.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by NYU2012)
Yes because attempting to summarize something in such simplistic form as you have done does actually convey what was said.

Saying: "those who were born rich tend to be rich and those who are born poor tend to be poor"

Merely tells me about an observable pattern which happens to be the case. It offers no explanation as to why this is case.

If you were to offer that summary to a political or moral theorist, they would look at you like an idiot.




While it may be a luxury and it may be an incentive, you've ignored the question of whether or not this is morally acceptable or the way it ought to be.

The rest can be filled in with common sense really. You don't need to expand on something so needlessly when it can be reached by the individual with ease?

Hurrah! Yes, I do think it is (to me).

[ForKicks]

(Original post by NYU2012)
But you're still missing out on the moral questions of this.

Why should someone be advantaged merely because they were born into a well-to-do family?

You're saying: "You're rich, so it's okay that your children have better and more opportunities than other children." But you've yet to justify how this is morally acceptable.

As above..

[SleepySheep]

(Original post by G56)
You may be right about rich people, but if you study and work hard you will make money.

That is a load of rubbish, even universities like cambridge and oxford (i can say from personal experience) do not care if you are public or privately educated as long as you have worked hard in and out of school and are motivated.
For example oxbridge and durham have a policy of taking GCSE scores into context, so you have bad GCSE's they will compare them with the average at your school; because at GCSE your learning is based much more on the teachers than revision and work at home.
The whole hurdle after hurdle crap doesn't mean anything, its easy not to be poor if you have the right method and motivation.

Wrong. If you study and work hard there is no guarantee you will make money.

You've misinterpreted what I said completely. I specifically said it does not matter if they go to a state school (but probably only because universities' state school intakes are monitored tbh), as long as you behave as though you are fresh out of private school. There is a particular type of person they are looking for and that is not necessarily the most intelligent.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Technically they do, statistically they don't. An able child from a poorer background can make it, but it is much less likely. I don't treat them the same. Like I said, improving the life of your children is a luxury, of course there is inequality in that. That doesn't have to stop the government funding high quality state schools through tax, but if individuals want to spend extra money to keep their kids 1 step ahead, then let them.

That isn't necessarily true, a child from a poorer background doesn't seem to be able to make it without special opportunities afforded to them. As you said statistically not all children have the same opportunities. Statistics can't lie. You have also failed to justify your reasoning as to why the advantage for merely being born into a family with money is ok, or morally acceptable.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
That isn't necessarily true, a child from a poorer background doesn't seem to be able to make it without special opportunities afforded to them. As you said statistically not all children have the same opportunities. Statistics can't lie. You have also failed to justify your reasoning as to why the advantage for merely being born into a family with money is ok, or morally acceptable.

My morals are just what I like and believe in, so to me it is ok.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by ForKicks)
My morals are just what I like and believe in, so to me it is ok.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)

There is nothing wrong with self-interest! Obviously I wouldn't want it to the point of complete social breakdown (because society benefits me).

[NYU2012]

(Original post by ForKicks)
There is nothing wrong with self-interest! Obviously I wouldn't want it to the point of complete social breakdown (because society benefits me).

Actually, pretty much every contemporary moral philosopher would state that (1) there is a lot wrong with being self-interested, (2) being self-interested does not follow from your moral principles (3) being self-interested is contrary to the ideal of morality.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by NYU2012)
Actually, pretty much every contemporary moral philosopher would state that (1) there is a lot wrong with being self-interested, (2) being self-interested does not follow from your moral principles (3) being self-interested is contrary to the ideal of morality.

(1) I don't care
(2) No, my moral principles follow my self-interest a la ethical egoism
(3) I don't care

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by ForKicks)
There is nothing wrong with self-interest! Obviously I wouldn't want it to the point of complete social breakdown (because society benefits me).

Just to be clear that isn't really a justification for what we were talking about...you can say in your specific case you would prefer to benefit but what about all the others and what if you were in the lesser opportunistic position? Your whole position is then arbitrary and seemingly pointless