You had me thinking until here. This comes across as scumbag whining...over a dead persons property. No it's not fair that ungrateful children equate their self worth to how much of their parents property they're entitled to. Boo freaking hoo.
This and Zakkat are legal mechanisms which are so personal one should really think before grafting other issues and causes onto them. Why should children get anything at all? Why should it not all go to the poor? What is the responsibility of a person with respect to their less needy family members? Why does our critical thinking, and notions of fairness, end with the concept of "ME" and my genitalia?
How nice to look at a single aspect of a society and not see how it fits into an individual's other responsibilities...it bespeaks of the "me-first" individualism rampant in so-called free-societies. Gee...could THAT be the cause of any unfairness....?
What exactly is your point on this example? That there is no mathematical equality? That's not a concern...I don't make as much as a doctor...doesn't mean I'm less a person. That there is this *numeric *inequality grafted into law....again, not a concern as the 'modern' standard is having parents distribute their wealth in an ad-hoc manner, with no safeguards that a particular person will get a share at all. Never mind, the state will come in and take a large share itself.
Monetizing one's worth as a human is never a good idea...
Or is it that boys will get more than girls in general...is it simply about the money, with no implications on self worth?
Wow. This really takes the cake for being both all over the place and cramming the maximum number of strawman arguments in the least space possible.
You begin with asking why should it go to anyone at all. Interesting point, zero relevance to the topic at hand. Whatever reason there is for inheritance going to one's descendants applies to men and women. Societal responsibilities to the less needy etc have nothing to do with it, the less needy could be men or women. There can be more than one dimensions of unfairness, attempting to point out others does not address the first.
There was a brief detour through individualism and free-societies which I cant see the relevance of so will ignore that.
You then say you dont make as much as a doctor that doesnt mean you're less of a person. Im afraid you're only half correct there. Wages do indicate how much society values a person, which is why interest groups pursue higher wages for one group of people or another. It isnt just about getting more money, its indicative of social valuation.
Similarly it is certainly legitimate to question the rationale behind why women get half the inheritance of men. Just as you do in your strawman argument about how other legal systems allow adhoc distribution of wealth allowing some to get nothing and the state to take lots.