I haven't been able to find the source since but I learned in a philosophy class ages ago that one of the classic philosophers (Plato? Aristotle?) said that a society can never be perfectly fair and just.
* To be just, parents should be free to provide for their own children.
* To be fair, every person should be given an equal opportunity to succeed.
These are fundamentally in opposition: every extra dollar a parent gives to their child is an unfair (in the sense that the child only earned by virtue of "choosing" that parent) benefit.
This was one of those moments that really turned on a lightbulb in my head when I think about how a society collectively raises each generation. I now think that a healthy society shouldn't "solve" this problem, they should just try to find the sweet spot that balances these two opposing forces.
And, interestingly, this is something that really affects me in a material way. My kids go to a public elementary school. My taxes fund schooling for all children in the area. The school also does donation drives and other things that let me opt in to giving money to benefit all children. But I also can choose to spend money on private classes, tutors, and other extra-curricular activities that only benefit my own children. So I have a very direct set of levers where I can choose my own particular moral position on this continuum.
Personally, my feeling is that we should mostly lean towards justice and equal opportunity. Most resources spent towards educating children should go in ways that benefit all kids. Fewer private schools, more public funding. My argument is that being a child of wealthy parents is already a tremendous ambient benefit. The child has a more comfortable, stable home environment, and fewer worries around material needs. They are more likely to get quality, prompt mental and physical healthcare. All of those give them a huge advantage compared to other kids.
* To be just, parents should be free to provide for their own children.
* To be fair, every person should be given an equal opportunity to succeed.
These are fundamentally in opposition: every extra dollar a parent gives to their child is an unfair (in the sense that the child only earned by virtue of "choosing" that parent) benefit.
This was one of those moments that really turned on a lightbulb in my head when I think about how a society collectively raises each generation. I now think that a healthy society shouldn't "solve" this problem, they should just try to find the sweet spot that balances these two opposing forces.
And, interestingly, this is something that really affects me in a material way. My kids go to a public elementary school. My taxes fund schooling for all children in the area. The school also does donation drives and other things that let me opt in to giving money to benefit all children. But I also can choose to spend money on private classes, tutors, and other extra-curricular activities that only benefit my own children. So I have a very direct set of levers where I can choose my own particular moral position on this continuum.
Personally, my feeling is that we should mostly lean towards justice and equal opportunity. Most resources spent towards educating children should go in ways that benefit all kids. Fewer private schools, more public funding. My argument is that being a child of wealthy parents is already a tremendous ambient benefit. The child has a more comfortable, stable home environment, and fewer worries around material needs. They are more likely to get quality, prompt mental and physical healthcare. All of those give them a huge advantage compared to other kids.