\subsection{Swift's response}

Swift's (2004b, p335) likely response is that Clayton and Stevens are underestimating the value of legitimate parental partiality. That is, in an example where there are only beyond adequate private schools or inadequate state schools, even poor parents might impersonally believe that parents are allowed to be legitimately partial as to opt-out of an inadequate state school. He can argue that neither card game is sufficiently analogous as the value of 'a fair chance' in our game is not as significant as a parents care towards their children's education. In this sense, Swift would argue that parents would impersonally agree for some others to opt-out of the inadequate state school, even if it makes everyone else …show more content…
However we note that with the second rule, not only do we help the poor rise up, we \textit{also} help to mitigate the unfair advantage gained from private school children. Further, if our assumption holds, then I argue in agreement with Swift (2004a p20) that an individual parent is morally obligated to help mitigate this educational injustice.

I will now argue that this positive influence from our children is deserved more by poor children as opposed to other well off children. Suppose we are a parent who is tasked with making the decision whether to go private, essentially how we should distribute this positive influence. Consider two worlds, one where we went private and one where we did not. In the first world, it can be thought that we are essentially taking a potential benefit given to poorer children and instead giving it to richer children, vice versa in the second world. Now are these choices morally equivalent in both cases? I think this unlikely, instead it seems reasonable to think that our act in the first world is comparatively unfair. This seems more evident when we note that richer children in private schools are already being complicit with an act of injustice that hurts the poorer children. Perhaps believe that neither student has any right to our children's influence, and …show more content…
If the only option however is a beyond adequate private school or an inadequate state school, I have argued that parents may have to accept an inadequate education for their children. I have provided two main reasons for this: the first is to avoid further harming of those even more disadvantaged than ourselves. The second is to ensure that the positive influence of our children is shared fairly with those who are more in need of it. Further, Swift is too lenient in allowing parents to send their children to private schools. If it is genuinely the case that the private schools system is morally wrong, then parents have a moral obligation to do a part in addressing this, perhaps to the extent that their children must accept an inadequate