History as past ethics; an introduction to the history of moralsMyers, P. V. N. (Philip Van Ness)
Philosophy
History as past ethics; an introduction to the history of morals
Myers, P. V. N. (Philip Van Ness)
Ethics -- History
Just as the world has got a new conscience in regard to the wrong of
slavery, so is it getting a new conscience in regard to this “great
iniquity,” as Tolstoy calls it, of private monopoly in land. This
growing ethical conviction will ultimately destroy the illusion that
the earth and its resources may, without moral wrong, be monopolized by
a fortunate or favored few and the great masses be dispossessed.[730]
The new conscience will decree that all of nature’s gifts in land and
all increments in its value created by society shall belong to society
and shall be the common heritage of the successive generations of men.
[Sidenote: (_b_) Limitation of
inheritance]
Another of the conventions of our industrial system in which the moral
sense of mankind is beginning to recognize an element of inequity is
the right of unlimited inheritance. So long as land remains the common
property of the community, or so long as there exists substantial
equality in wealth among the members or families of a social group,
the injustice of this is not apparent. But after great extremes of
poverty and wealth have appeared, as in present-day civilization, then
the essential injustice of the institution is disclosed; for there is
thus created an idle class living on the labor of others. When a single
child through the accident of birth becomes the heir of millions, while
hundreds of other children come into the world absolutely portionless
and at the same time shut out from the use of any bit of the earth
even as standing room, then the system becomes a crass denial of human
solidarity and brotherhood. And there is in this law of unlimited
bequest a double wrong. The child of over-great wealth is wronged
as well as the child of poverty. One is born to a life of luxurious
leisure, and the other to a life of unremitting toil. Now, as Professor
Dewey observes, there is moral value in work and there is moral value
in leisure, but “it is beginning to be seen that their values cannot be
divided so that one social class shall perform the labor and the other
enjoy the freedom.”[731]
Therefore the ethical demand for the modification of our laws of
inheritance in such a way that they shall recognize the social as
well as the individual element in wealth must be heeded as much out
of regard for the children of the overrich as out of regard for the
children of the very poor.
[Sidenote: (_c_) Socialism: the
democratization of industry]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account