Hello I’m a reader of your publication from South Korea. Please excuse my poor English and lack of depth in my question. (I’m a curious highschool student) I’ve been trying to find an answer this question for a couple of years but couldn’t find a satisfying answer. Money inherited from parents is normally considered as ‘unfair’ in most societies and thus taxed upon quite heavily because financial status of parents is totally random. However, I want to question: is ‘money’ the only thing we inherit from our parents randomly? Say, some people are innately born with more attractive outlook, extraordinary intelligence, or unusual talent in art. They can become an actor, honored professor or a famous artist much more easily than othets. Can we say those people also have “different starting line”? If so, should we balance out the different starting lines by giving more opportunities to those who have less, just like we do so with ‘money’? Some may say that those qualities need ‘effort’ to transform them into something substantial, so they are diffetent from money. It seems like most people agree with the statement that ‘effort’ is the most fair reason for what people deserve because it is something people can decide by will, unlike innate qualities(I also agree). But it could be argued that qualities such as perseverance, patience and endurance are decided since birth, or at least formed during childhood, in which we are mostly influenced by our parents regardless of our will. If so, then is ‘effort’ still a justifiable yardstick for what people deserve? So the question that concludes the whole text is: what is the yardstick of fairness? (Just saying, I’m very interested in unfairness and minority issues. I’m not a rich guy simply trying to justify what I have and saying that I should not pay tax or whatever.)

Read another response about Justice, Law