Taskiss wrote:
Just to play devils advocate, what has one's descendants done to deserve one's estate that the government hasn't done?
I would prefer to be able to direct the disposition of my estate without penalty or interference from the government... but that's my only gripe. I don't think my kids deserve a thing they haven't earned for themselves.
The problem with the question is that it assumes the question is one of "who deserves it"?
This has nothing to do with it; you are essentially asking the wrong question. The question is, what are the wishes of the person who's estate it was? If they wish to will it to the government, so be it. If they will it to their descendants, so be it. If they leave no will, society should assume they left it to their loved ones in accordance with normal human conduct.
Utilitarians might argue since the person is dead, that their interests no longer exist and can no longer be harmed, and that the ethical thing to do is confiscate it for the public good. This has 3 problems however:
1) Like most utilitarian arguments, it assumes that taking for the good of the many is ok whenever a person is unaware of it
2) It ignores the fact that if this is public policy, any person will be aware of it while alive, and thud the harm to their desire to take care of their family when gone is not actually avoided
3) It presumes that the public benefit from their wealth is greater than the benefit that their family will realize for no better reason than that the family is fewer people that the public. Like most utilitarian arguments, it violates its own precepts because simply counting people does not accurately weigh benefit and harm. A few descendants are likely to benefit significantly from 867 million dollars, but the size of the country as a whole is such that this money makes no meaningful difference to the public at large.
4) It ignores the public good in being able to provide for one's family.
You may not believe your kids deserve what they haven't earned, but society at large disagrees.