30 ms·

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 s

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.

gandreani 7y ago
Thanks for sharing this. I had similar thoughts/feelings on the philosophical perspective on providing for your children and this is really well presented.
southerndrift 7y ago
This assumes that parents know what's best for their children. Is it just to the children that parents can spend a fortune on miseducating their children? (The Dutch family wasn't rich, but there can be seen that parents can totally go astray. [1]) Being a rich son (70% work for their father according to a linked study in the article) is essentially like being Tim Cook. It's a nice job that pays handsomely but who has the character to walk away and do what they really want to do? This links back to the beginning of my comment: do rich parents prepare their children for that move or do they try everything to lock their children into their heritage? This is not an argument for standardized schooling. I am just wondering if being a rich kid actually comes with a huge price. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21260112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21260112
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> Fewer private schools, more public funding. Those who send their children to private schools also pay taxes that pay for public schools. They just receive no education for their children from it (by choice). Pay the same in, take fewer resources out - that doesn't seem like a negative to me.
- munificent 7y ago
  It's more complex than that, though. There's a whole constellation of things that come when a parent chooses a school for their kid, including the kid themselves. Parents are still paying taxes for public schools, but they aren't joining the PTA, donating at the jog-a-thon, sponsoring the sports team, chaperoning band field trips, networking with other parents, etc.. Wealthy parents have a lot of resources they bring to bear and when their kid doesn't go to a public school, the only resource they leave behind is their taxes.

gandreani 7y ago

Thanks for sharing this. I had similar thoughts/feelings on the philosophical perspective on providing for your children and this is really well presented.

southerndrift 7y ago

This assumes that parents know what's best for their children. Is it just to the children that parents can spend a fortune on miseducating their children? (The Dutch family wasn't rich, but there can be seen that parents can totally go astray. [1]) Being a rich son (70% work for their father according to a linked study in the article) is essentially like being Tim Cook. It's a nice job that pays handsomely but who has the character to walk away and do what they really want to do? This links back to the beginning of my comment: do rich parents prepare their children for that move or do they try everything to lock their children into their heritage? This is not an argument for standardized schooling. I am just wondering if being a rich kid actually comes with a huge price. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21260112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21260112

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

> Fewer private schools, more public funding. Those who send their children to private schools also pay taxes that pay for public schools. They just receive no education for their children from it (by choice). Pay the same in, take fewer resources out - that doesn't seem like a negative to me.

munificent 7y ago
It's more complex than that, though. There's a whole constellation of things that come when a parent chooses a school for their kid, including the kid themselves. Parents are still paying taxes for public schools, but they aren't joining the PTA, donating at the jog-a-thon, sponsoring the sports team, chaperoning band field trips, networking with other parents, etc.. Wealthy parents have a lot of resources they bring to bear and when their kid doesn't go to a public school, the only resource they leave behind is their taxes.