morally arbitrary Much *politically correct
*moralizing rests on
the supposed axiom that it is *morally ‘unjustified’ (or
indefensible, at least; see *critical rationalism) that people be allowed the
fruits of any of their contingent and undeserved advantages; whether genetic, financial,
social or whatever. In other words, it is assumed that there is a moral default
position of *equality and that any deviations from it require adequate defense before
they can *justly be *tolerated.

However, it does not follow that because one did not
deserve to receive certain advantages, that it is morally arbitrary that one be
allowed to benefit from them. To epitomize: a gift to a friend that he did not
deserve is, nevertheless, *rightfully his. It is morally arbitrary that this be
thought in need of defense from forced redistribution to achieve equality. It
is not as though equality is even a desirable ideal. And any attempts at *proactively
imposing it will destroy *liberty and *welfare.

Further, if it is morally arbitrary that a *person be allowed
the advantages of his greater-than-average inherited intelligence, say, then there
is no reason to restrict this principle to human beings. Those conscious beings
that are born as other *animals, assuming that karmic reincarnation is not to
be taken seriously, are presumably even more in need of ‘just compensation’ for
their relatively poor outcome in the genetic lottery. But this would clearly be
absurd. And this reductio ad absurdum ought to make it even plainer that undeserved
advantages do not entail that it is moral to redistribute on the basis of those
advantages. On the contrary, it is a morally arbitrary whim to hold that any
such thing is desirable.

A Dictionary of Libertarianism