Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Of course it's not fair, but neither is life.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No it's not, and anyone who says otherwise is a communist.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think what you want is essentially a socialist/communist state.. :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FrogInABog)
    Good, I'm glad we've established our respective positions on the rest of the matter.

    Burning the money is quite different to giving it to your children. It is a moral duty of any parent to look after their children (or indeed other members of their family) to the best of their ability, and if this includes passing on their possessions when they die, then the morality stands.

    If it is possible to say that giving the money to your children instead of a charity is morally wrong, one could equally argue that it is morally wrong to spend a single penny on items that are not absolutely necessary to life. One could say that the mere fact that I spent ~£500 on the laptop I am using to write this message is morally wrong, as it could have been put to better use in a third world country.

    To me, at least, morality has to be treated as a balance. Perhaps it would be best to give all your money to charitable causes, but I do not think that this necessarily makes it morally wrong to do otherwise. Undoubtedly, it is a very complex issue, but essentially I would not feel that I had done wrong in providing an inheritance for my children.
    I would disagree with the laptop spending etc. or for the sake of argument at least.

    When you buy things for yourself, that's using your own hard-earned money and it is simply a result of meritocracy - you chose to work hard, you got money, you spent it etc.

    When you give money to others, it's now in breach of meritocracy as you are giving head starts to undeserving members of society. What would be fairer and more moral then, would be to either locate those who are below the 'fair starting position' (i.e. in extreme poverty), or to simply split it evenly across society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PerArduaAdAstra)
    Of course it's not fair, but neither is life.
    Would you be happy to walk into a hospitals nursery and select several new born babies to have all of the money and opportunities they can get and choose another group which will grow up in relative poverty with less opportunities.

    Stating that life is not fair is a common sense explanation and common sense explanations should never be trusted.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Upper Echelons)

    When you give money to others, it's now in breach of meritocracy as you are giving head starts to undeserving members of society. What would be fairer and more moral then, would be to either locate those who are below the 'fair starting position' (i.e. in extreme poverty), or to simply split it evenly across society.
    So, if I give my children money that is unacceptable in your view?

    I pay taxes and some of that money goes to students in terms of grants
    Next year I will be giving money to my own student daughter as she is not entitled to a grant ... is that ok ... or does she not deserve to go to university because I have money

    I pay part of the rent on my son's flat because his salary is less than he needs ... I assume that you would prefer him to be unemployed and on welfare

    Or are these different to the examples where my choosing to give my money to my adult children offends you
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noobynoo)
    Imagine an island....

    Three clans and an Emperor (and his soldiers) live on this island.

    The Monkey Clan lives on one third which contains a coconut tree. They own this part of the island.

    The Zebra Clan lives on one third which contains a fish pond. They own this part of the island.

    The Fool Clan lives on one third which contains barren rocks. They own this part of the island.


    The Monkey Clan and Zebra Clan trade each other coconut and fish and that satisfies there daily needs. (They also give some of their produce to the Emperor who takes care of law and order).

    The Fool Clan have no produce to trade. Sometimes they sell themselves into slavery for the other two clans for scraps of food. Which makes the other two clans even more fat and lazy.

    The law of inheritance says that land passes from father to son.

    Every year the Emperor is voted in by 2 votes to 1.

    The Fool Clan have a new baby boy. For no fault of its own it is destined to live in poverty or death.

    Does this example mean that inheritance is wrong and that capitalism is unfair? Even though there is nothing undemocratic about this scenario. Does it just mean life is unfair? Or maybe it means welfare is unfair and the Fool Clan should just be allowed to starve?
    That is a stupid example, it doesn't take into account the other side of inheritance. You can choose to give your possessions to whoever you want, you've paid for it.

    You also only use the example of rich people passing on land to say that inheritance as a system is "extremely immoral" - what about normal people passing down possessions?

    To stop those people starving we have a welfare state


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TenOfThem)
    So, if I give my children money that is unacceptable in your view?

    I pay taxes and some of that money goes to students in terms of grants
    Next year I will be giving money to my own student daughter as she is not entitled to a grant ... is that ok ... or does she not deserve to go to university because I have money

    I pay part of the rent on my son's flat because his salary is less than he needs ... I assume that you would prefer him to be unemployed and on welfare

    Or are these different to the examples where my choosing to give my money to my adult children offends you
    You seem to be taking this quite personally, please calm down - I'm just having a discussion.

    As for your post, yes, a lot of what is mentioned could be seen as wrong. Why should your child benefit from having you to fund them through university and to pay for their rent, when other children don't even have parents who can afford to provide them with bread and water?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Upper Echelons)
    You seem to be taking this quite personally, please calm down - I'm just having a discussion.
    I am perfectly calm

    The point is ... having the discussion in isolation is easy but you need to consider the reality


    As for your post, yes, a lot of what is mentioned could be seen as wrong. Why should your child benefit from having you to fund them through university and to pay for their rent, when other children don't even have parents who can afford to provide them with bread and water?
    So .. to clarify

    you would prefer that my daughter had a grant from the government rather than money from me

    and

    you would prefer that my son claimed benefits to pay his rent

    So you think that it is better if my children take money from the system (meaning there is less for other people in need) and that I spend my money just on me

    Have I understood correctly
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TenOfThem)
    I am perfectly calm

    The point is ... having the discussion in isolation is easy but you need to consider the reality

    So .. to clarify

    you would prefer that my daughter had a grant from the government rather than money from me

    and

    you would prefer that my son claimed benefits to pay his rent

    So you think that it is better if my children take money from the system (meaning there is less for other people in need) and that I spend my money just on me

    Have I understood correctly
    I think some would rather have it such that you gave your money to a starving child and the government gave the grant.

    Why doesn't your son find somewhere cheaper to live instead? You could argue that we should live within our means, and ask for benefits only when we are truly in need of them.

    Essentially, in this system, it seems moral to give enough to your children such that they can have a decent childhood, a state education and be able to scrape their way through university, like any other child. Any more than that is putting them ahead in the game when they don't deserve it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Upper Echelons)
    I think some would rather have it such that you gave your money to a starving child and the government gave the grant.
    And that would indeed provide a different argument ... the issue that I took with your post was that you said it was perfectly acceptable for me to spend the money on me but not to give it to my children ... that makes no sense imo

    Why doesn't your son find somewhere cheaper to live instead? You could argue that we should live within our means, and ask for benefits only when we are truly in need of them.
    As a family we do live within our means ... when we had children we accepted that we had a financial responsibility for them ... you suggest that a family unit should not continue to support each other financially ... from when ... age 16/18/leaving education ... where do you determine the cut-off
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Upper Echelons)
    I would disagree with the laptop spending etc. or for the sake of argument at least.

    When you buy things for yourself, that's using your own hard-earned money and it is simply a result of meritocracy - you chose to work hard, you got money, you spent it etc.

    When you give money to others, it's now in breach of meritocracy as you are giving head starts to undeserving members of society. What would be fairer and more moral then, would be to either locate those who are below the 'fair starting position' (i.e. in extreme poverty), or to simply split it evenly across society.
    To change my example, then, I could look at spending money on my children. When I have children (if I do, that is), should I then exclude them from the benefits of any success I have had in life? I would like to be able to buy myself a nice house, a nice car, go on nice holidays, and wear nice clothes. Should I therefore deny the same things to my children, as it would be 'in breach of meritocracy'?

    To go back to what I said, I think it is a question of balance. Every parent wants to provide for their children, and it is morally right that they can; this should extend into inheritance. Of course, siphoning off a portion of your money to go to charitable causes is a good thing, but I don't think it is in any way immoral to give the majority of your money to your children. After all, they may choose to use it in a charitable way; either by donating it directly, or by using it to pay for something (eg. extra education, some investments) which would in turn help them to make more money for themselves, thereby allowing them to donate more to good causes than the original amount.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TenOfThem)
    And that would indeed provide a different argument ... the issue that I took with your post was that you said it was perfectly acceptable for me to spend the money on me but not to give it to my children ... that makes no sense imo

    As a family we do live within our means ... when we had children we accepted that we had a financial responsibility for them ... you suggest that a family unit should not continue to support each other financially ... from when ... age 16/18/leaving education ... where do you determine the cut-off
    Ah, but that's not what I said. Children are in most cases below the 'fair starting position' which I mentioned, and so until they're of an appropriate age they need to be supported of course. It could be seen as unfair to then load them with £100,000 inheritance as a perfectly self-sufficient adult, as they're no longer in need, when others are.

    (Original post by Upper Echelons)
    When you give money to others, it's now in breach of meritocracy as you are giving head starts to undeserving members of society. What would be fairer and more moral then, would be to either locate those who are below the 'fair starting position' (i.e. in extreme poverty), or to simply split it evenly across society.
    As for the cut off, I'm not too sure. I suppose it would be roughly 16-21, but the finer details aren't clear. I think probably up to 18 in terms of full support, and then up to 21 in terms of covering the basics with some responsibility for the student to work or take on debt themselves. Certainly no longer than 21 - after that point the 'fair level' would be very basic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FrogInABog)
    To change my example, then, I could look at spending money on my children. When I have children (if I do, that is), should I then exclude them from the benefits of any success I have had in life? I would like to be able to buy myself a nice house, a nice car, go on nice holidays, and wear nice clothes. Should I therefore deny the same things to my children, as it would be 'in breach of meritocracy'?

    To go back to what I said, I think it is a question of balance. Every parent wants to provide for their children, and it is morally right that they can; this should extend into inheritance. Of course, siphoning off a portion of your money to go to charitable causes is a good thing, but I don't think it is in any way immoral to give the majority of your money to your children. After all, they may choose to use it in a charitable way; either by donating it directly, or by using it to pay for something (eg. extra education, some investments) which would in turn help them to make more money for themselves, thereby allowing them to donate more to good causes than the original amount.
    What you've outlined is a problem with implementing morality, and I agree that that problem exists, yes.

    What has been suggested in the past (**I'm not saying I agree**) is that children are not the responsibility of parents, and that they would be raised by the state in boarding schools to leave them all on equal footing when they begin adult life.

    Of course it's moral at the moment to give money to your children, as outlined in my last post - it's about how much you're giving, whether you're pampering them, and when you stop providing for them at that sort of level.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TenOfThem)
    I disagree

    The OP devised the extreme scenario ... he talked of the Fool Child starving ... in fact he thinks that it is better to starve than to accept welfare and he does not even want the Fool child to work for a living

    If he is not willing to accept that there are alternatives to starvation that do not require the re-distriution of all wealth and land then of course he will see inheritance as immoral ... my question was designed to point out that there are alternatives to starvation and the the Fool child's parents must be taking advantage of these alternatives
    I don't think you can really call slavery a 'living'.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Upper Echelons)
    As for the cut off, I'm not too sure. I suppose it would be roughly 16-21, but the finer details aren't clear. I think probably up to 18 in terms of full support, and then up to 21 in terms of covering the basics with some responsibility for the student to work or take on debt themselves. Certainly no longer than 21 - after that point the 'fair level' would be very basic.
    I still do not see how an increase in the number of people who would need to be on benefits would be an advantage ... since you place no expectation on people to do good with their money that would be the net effect of your proposals


    If you suggested that I pay more tax and that the system would offer more support to my (and other children) I would be in favour but, as it stands, my direct financial intervention is needed (indeed expected by the government)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by josh_cook)
    I don't think you can really call slavery a 'living'.
    I agree ... as you will see in my posts ... post 6
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TenOfThem)
    I still do not see how an increase in the number of people who would need to be on benefits would be an advantage ... since you place no expectation on people to do good with their money that would be the net effect of your proposals

    If you suggested that I pay more tax and that the system would offer more support to my (and other children) I would be in favour but, as it stands, my direct financial intervention is needed (indeed expected by the government)
    Yes, it would require some changes in policy, I agree.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Upper Echelons)
    Yes, it would require some changes in policy, I agree.
    Major changes, that would not be supported

    Imagine if the government said they would provide housing for everyone over the age of 18 with the benefits to live independently ... even without the complexity of forcing people to move out of the parental home and into this social housing ... how is it going to be paid for

    Then there would have to be the extreme enforcement of the "bedroom" tax as people in social housing or claiming benefits would all need to live in properties that are exactly the right size

    Major changes indeed
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by luca-cunn)
    Would you be happy to walk into a hospitals nursery and select several new born babies to have all of the money and opportunities they can get and choose another group which will grow up in relative poverty with less opportunities.

    Stating that life is not fair is a common sense explanation and common sense explanations should never be trusted.
    I would be completely ok with someone being far wealthier than me through inheritance. Absolutely fair play in my opinion.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.