Skip to main content
Log in

Historical Entitlement and the Practice of Bequest: Is There a Moral Right of Bequest?

  • Published:
Law and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Entitlement theorists claim that bequest is a moral right. The aim of this essay is to determine whether entitlement theorists can, on their own grounds, consistently defend that claim. I argue that even if there is a moral right to self-appropriated property and to engage in inter vivos transfers, it is a mistake to contend that there exists an equivalent moral right to make a bequest. Taxing or regulating bequest does not violate an individual’s moral rights because, regardless of whether bequest safeguards certain interests, those interests are not the interests of a living, morally inviolable being. Instead, they are the interests of a deceased entity that has lost the ability to track what it values and pursue projects in accord with those values – a quality that by entitlement theorists’ own arguments renders persons morally significant and deserving of rights in the first place.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Stewart Braun.

Additional information

I would like to thank Loren Lomasky and John Simmons for their helpful discussions and comments on earlier versions of this paper. I am also grateful to the participants of the University of Virginia’s Ethical and Political Thought Workshop along with an anonymous referee for Law and Philosophy for their useful suggestions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Braun, S.S. Historical Entitlement and the Practice of Bequest: Is There a Moral Right of Bequest?. Law and Philos 29, 695–715 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-010-9082-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-010-9082-x

Keywords

Navigation