NYT: Disinherit children who don’t follow MSM vaccine narrative

The New York Times urged a woman last week to disinherit her children for their views on the COVID-19 vaccine and 2020 election. 

An 80-year-old woman wrote to the New York Times Magazine’s ethicist, Kwame Anthony Appiah, to ask if she should amend her will to exclude her children because of their politics. 

In the letter, titled “May I Disinherit My Right-Wing Daughters?”, the woman laments the fact that her two daughters, both in their 50s, “have embraced the opposite political side” from her. 

Specifically, she mentions lack of faith in the vaccine as one of her grievances against her children. 

“One of my daughters also does not believe in the vaccine and did not have my granddaughter vaccinated,” the woman wrote. 

To add insult to injury, her daughters don’t even follow the mainstream media. 

“They get all their information from the internet and don’t read the mainstream press,” she complained. 

But the gravest atrocity, she said, is that they doubt the outcome of the 2020 election. 

“The worst thing of all to me is that they believe the election was stolen,” she wrote. “I am distraught by this and have considered changing my will and leaving it all to a good cause.” 

In response, the ethicist sounded like he was going to empathize with the woman and advise her to maintain important family ties. 

“We can acknowledge that we’re all prone to tribalism (and that we all have false beliefs) without lazily supposing that the different positions are epistemically and morally equivalent,” Appiah said. “I’m on your side — and, when it comes to the particulars you mention, so is the evidence,” he claimed. 

Then, to reinforce faith in the COVID vaccine, Appiah said it's not just safe and effective, as claimed by Pfizer, the FDA and the CDC, but remarkably so. 

“Biden did win the election; Covid vaccines are remarkably safe and effective at preventing severe illness,” he said. 

“What’s more, our close relationships have many facets,” Appiah continued. “A woman I know in your situation does what you do: She avoids talking politics with her far-right progeny. It’s not always easy, but there are plenty of other things to talk about.” 

But instead of assuring the woman that family relationships take priority over politics, he advised her to disinherit her children, not because she’s upset at them, but out of kindness for others. 

“So don’t change your will because you’re angry and upset with your prospective heirs,” he said. “A better reason is that people with their views are doing a great deal of harm.” 

“Even if your daughters are, in some sense, more sinned against than sinning, you could reasonably worry that putting resources in their hands will allow them to support destructive causes,” Appiah virtue signaled. 

Then he suggested that the woman use the money instead to causes that share her agenda. 

“Here’s a proposal: Why not leave some money for your granddaughter to use when she reaches adulthood — she might very well defect from her mother’s political orientation, as her mother defected from yours — and give the rest to causes you care about, perhaps including ones that are working to fortify voting participation and strengthen effective public health education.”