Oh, the age old battle.
In any fair competition (sports, literary awards, even college scholarships), the natural superiority of a few contenders tends to sweep up all the awards for select few. A new champion usually only comes along when the former is too old, too tired, or just not interested anymore. Now what if that skill set which made them the best were transferable. What if Micheal Jordan for example could have passed on ALL of his sports skill to a child. Jordan and his lineage could have dominated basketball for decades. Would that be right, acceptable, moral? I don’t know. But the current social mindset is no.
I hate the gap between the rich and poor as much as the next. I was born into poverty, and continue to struggle even today for my own family. I am very unhappy about the gap and would love wealth to be more evenly dispersed. Brazil is struggling with the enormous gap between the wealthy and poor. Considering history through which this situation was created, I am sickened by humanities disregard and disrespect for others. Bolivia still suffers from the affects of theSpanish occupation with prejudice and economic abuses against the indigenous peoples. The gaps between the wealthy or powerful and the poor or bound are amazingly sad.
However, I am convinced that all of us are the same in our tendency to grab what we can in life and hold on to it at all costs. I make $200 a week and struggle to run my family of 4. I don’t donate to charities or hand out twenties to the local bums. In my head, I can’t afford it, and I justify my greed with the knowledge that many others have more than me. I’m willing to help my peer, to whom I can relate, but I tend to look at the bum as being bad off because of his own life decisions.
The Spanish claiming rule in Bolivia, and the wealthy claiming land in Brazil are both examples of people simply trying to better their own lives. They too are just grabbing what they can and clinging to it. Does it make it fair? No. Does it make it kind? No. Does it make it ethical? Yes. It is ethical topursue gains at the expense of others. It is ethical to try your best to win a championship and hope the opponent fails. Again, it isn’t kind or fair to humanity at large, but it is not morally evil. I tend to side with Evo and the citizens of Bolivia against the american corporations that maintain so much power there. The idea being that they have rights because they own their own country and american corps already have a home. What, though, if we suspend all political boundaries and simply consider that humans are making claims in a geographical globe. Then who has the rights. The corps are then just the best competitors in the league.
This is the ethical dilemma of the police forces and judicial systems of Brazil as they try to mediate between the rich owner and the squatters claiming use of his land. These people say the land should be for all, that his family came to own the lands illegally. Illegal action is unethical, but the ethics of our fathers don’t get passed down to us they way land is. Is that the way it should be? I’m not sure. Maybe if land can be inherited so should punishments for unethical deeds of our fathers. Maybe it is reasonable to be held accountable for the actions of ourpredecessors.
Nonetheless, having never inherited a thing in my life, nor am I ever likely to, I tend to say that the wealthy or politically powerful should have limitations on how they pass on those benefits. But is that perspective too, just my own way of justifying apursuit of their possessions because I want them for myself?