From what I can tell, the argument is that: if your great-great grandfather became extremely wealthy off of slavery, and was then paid by the government to free their slaves, and then eventually you inherit that wealth... well... if the wealth from crimes against humanity can be inherited, why isn't the responsibility to undo the harm not also inherited?
Is your plan to analyze all current wealth for morality based redistribution?
Who argued to apply it selectively?
> Is your plan to analyze all current wealth for morality based redistribution?
It's not about morality, it's seeing what part or your current wealth is due to obscene and unjustifiable (often even for the time) acts.
No one argues to have you do time for your ancestors, but if part of your wealth is due to those acts, what would be wrong about giving it back?
I mean, I agree with your conclusion, but I don't think trying to paint this as some kind of purely rational act is either necessary or helpful.
It is moral to try to redress past wrongs—especially when those past wrongs have created massive current wrongs and inequities.
It is moral to take from those who have built their wealth on the backs of the suffering of the many, and to give to those who suffered to make it possible.
Morality doesn't need to be a dirty word, nor does it need to be something we're not allowed to look to to guide our collective actions.
Don't threaten me with a good time! Jokes aside, I'm generally pro-redistribution to begin with (I'm somewhat of a dirty communist) and I think trying to finagle exactly how much someone's wealth should be redistributed based on the weaving and waning of economic activity over two centuries to be rather a waste of time. Better to just redistribute based on wealth. But if this were something that happened only thirty years ago, I'd absolutely be calling for "morality based redistribution", as you put it, because it is then something that can actually be achieved.