Are there any good analyses to be found of the stolen car problem?

Are there any good analyses to be found of the stolen car problem?

>Two men are born into relatively equal circumstances
>One manages to procure a car. The other steals that car and is able to obtain a lucrative job in the next town over. The first is still responsible for paying for the car, and must simultaneously accept a lower paying job nearby. He is never able to live above a marginal level.
>In this way, the two men's fortunes diverge, and the sons both have are born into very different circumstances.
>One day, in middle age, the son of the wealthy man visits his family's hometown and meets the son of the poor man. In talking, they realize their connection.
>Under these circumstances, is the wealthy man obligated to do anything? Must he purchase a replacement car? Must he transfer a significant portion of his wealth to the poor man? Or does he not owe anything, because the sin is his father's?
>Additionally, if the wealthy man chooses to do nothing, is it right or wrong for society to force him to do something?

This is going to end up belonging on And not in the "reeee get out" sense, just that the topic isn't going to be literary, it will be political.

I wouldn't see the point of analyzing it in depth. It's obviously not a very realistic scenario, so I assume the point is just to make a rhetorical analogy to another issue which could be addressed on its own.

You're looking mostly for Nozick's historical theory of just distribution.

Oh, and look up moral desert (said like dessert because it's in the sense of deserve) and entitlement.

I put it here instead of on /pol/ in the hopes that even people who realize how easily this thought problem can be politicized would understand that I was looking for either responses or links to analysis that (consciously or not) attempted to address the problem on its ethical merits only.

It's analogous to the trolley problem, focusing on a different ethical dilemma and its dynamic with psychology.

Thanks.

You're in for some Stirner spam, but I honestly don't see why the wealthy son should feel 'obliged' to pay for the sins of his father. That's nigger logic of asking white men for muh reparations. He may choose to do so simply because that's his moral compass, but it should never be a state law

>dat non-spooked moral compass

Man is not obligated, only compelled. It depends entirely on how the wealthy man feels.

I mean, I know you're right (atleast about the not taking on the sins of the father), but I feel a slight irk so to speak. Like maybe theres a piece missing from that answer or atleast more depth is required.
I believe that in terms of bequeathment, the rich son atleast owes the poor son the stolen car or something of equal value to the car in its original condition (right before it was stolen).
The problem is structured in such a way that you could posit the full value of the car is also the entire value of all of the rich father's accumulated earnings from his ill-gotten job. In a sense, If we logically connect the two to be one in the same as it is posed in the problem, the correct answer would be for the rich son to give virtually all his wealth to the poor son because it is the poor son's "true" inheritance.
Just like one may argue that it is unfair that the poor son gets no reparations, in this case it is eqaully unreasonable to assume that it is unfair for the rich son to have to give away all his money, since it is logically not his. He is not giving it away, he merely held it for its rightful owner.
I may also say that although pose your argument as a stirneresque approach, it is probably more ideological, as evidenced by the second half of your post where you talked about:
>That's nigger logic of asking white men for muh reparations. He may choose to do so simply because that's his moral compass, but it should never be a state law
If you include ideology into your arguments they become forfeit. You are no longer debating for an attempt to find truth, but merely for personal vanity.

I may also add that although ideology is present in all arguments since they are all constructed by people who cannot escape its bounds (sorry for the tautalogical reasoning in this case, I can go over in more detail when I wake up), one should always try to do as much introspection as possible to remove as much ideologically driven points as possible while still maintaing a cogent and cohesive argument. In your example you are ostensibly applying your own feeling about race relations in the US to the argument in such a manner (as to use a widely consider racial ephitet) to be considered racist. Being racist does not nessacarily apply to one's skill as a debater but in this case it is too heavy a slant to allow any credence to your argument.

>If you include ideology into your arguments they become forfeit
Funny you say that right after
>I believe that in terms of bequeathment, the rich son atleast owes the poor son the stolen car or something of equal value to the car in its original condition

This kind of reductionist approach leads to nowhere. It's the same as blaming the maker of a gun for all the murders committed with this gun. You can say that the father who stole the car who compelled to do it by his own poverty, imposed on him by some third party family. Should they pay reparations? What if that third party family had some tough shit imposed on them by another agency? And so on to the beginning of life on Earth when some unthinking amoeba consumed another unthinking amoeba.

That image is cringy as shit

He can never pay away the totality of the injustice. He cannot give the guy who had his car stolen back the years and lifestyle he could have had, same for the upbringing of the poor son. You could also say that falling on his own sword is not just to himself. So go for lower hanging fruit bro.

I'd say the theft is a case of moral wrong. But I admire the man for keeping the lucrative job and making his next generation better off. Although he is guilty of theft, this does not detract from his other achievements, though the car caused him to be able to achieve it. It is not the sole cause. If he was gifted the car, he would probably do the same thing. It's possible that if it were a different kind of person, he might end up selling the car and blowing the cash on gambling and end up destitute afterwards.

While I have a strong distaste for petty thieves (probably because stealing is the easy route and signals a lack of other skills), in this case the man, to my moral sensibilities, deserved the car he stole.

>Must he purchase a replacement car?
With interest, perhaps. In an ideal world I think he should be obliged to give something, with both parties being satisfied.

>Must he transfer a significant portion of his wealth to the poor man?
If a man steals a sword and conquers a kingdom, should he give a portion of the kingdom to the man he stole the sword from? Even if the original owner couldn't do the same with just a sword?

>Or does he not owe anything, because the sin is his father's?
I don't think this is about sin, or intergenerational responsibility. It's a matter of reparations for a theft. If inheriting stolen goods from someone renders it yours, then it would lead to parents going on stealing sprees to pass it on to their children.

>Additionally, if the wealthy man chooses to do nothing, is it right or wrong for society to force him to do something?
Society ""forcing"" one to act morally ensures there would be no more need to be moral.

The beauty of morality is that it transcends feels.

Send the poor guy back to Africa.

>Even if the original owner couldn't do the same with just a sword?
Nice bit of Lockean ownership rights there brah.

what's the problem?

I asked to keep /pol/ out of this, please.

>Under these circumstances, is the wealthy man obligated to do anything? Must he purchase a replacement car? Must he transfer a significant portion of his wealth to the poor man? Or does he not owe anything, because the sin is his father's?

No.
A fool and his car are soon parted.

I wonder if there's a middle ground. Some kind of solution based on the following assumptions: a) the value of the car is a base value that b) the efforts of the wealthy man are a multiplier to; c) the wealthy man owes not only the car but a premium for the act of theft, but truly was a value add (though d) to what degree over what the poor man's value add, we'll never know). Finally, e) the wealthy son did not participate in his father's misdeeds and presumably grew wealth on his own, but f) did not do so without the aid of something that was stolen and which clearly lead to the destitution of another innocent.

I think restitution is clearly necessary. Whether it is restitution that equalizes the men's circumstances or not, I'm not sure, but I don't think the wealthy son owes either nothing or everything.

That's not what that idiom means.

Why can't the poor dad just ride some sort of trolley to his well-paying job? I can't see any moral dilemma arising from that.

This looked like it was going to be some interesting paradox or ethical issue until it actually ended. Totally fucking retarded, is right, /thread & edgy sage

There's people laying on the tracks, and some faggot keeps redirecting the trolleys.

>he thinks Stirner is a /pol/ meme
Oh lord!