Q: Which Ethical Framework Justifies Stealing Your Autistic Son's Inheritance? A: None!

By Michael Kelman Portney

I. Introduction: The Personal Made Universal

When I discovered my mother had lied about my grandfather's business being "defunct" while secretly maintaining it until she tried to sell it to Century Gaming in 2017, I didn't just feel betrayed. I felt philosophically unmoored. Every ethical framework I'd studied suggested parents owe special duties to their children, particularly disabled children. Yet here was evidence of systematic deception designed to steal what was explicitly promised to me.

This isn't just about my family. It's about how power operates when it thinks no one's watching. It's about what happens when those entrusted with fiduciary duties choose self-interest over obligation. And it's about how every ethical framework humanity has developed condemns this behavior—yet it happens anyway.

So let's do what I did with Israel's actions in Gaza: apply moral philosophy systematically. Let's see which ethical framework could possibly justify a parent stealing from their autistic child. Spoiler: none of them do.

II. The Facts of the Case

Before we apply ethical frameworks, let's establish what happened:

My grandfather Zollie Kelman made a specific deal with me: change your degree path, study business, and you'll inherit Freeno/Green Machine. This wasn't casual conversation—it was a negotiated agreement made in his office with my mother Abby present as witness. I have reason to believe he memorialized this deal in my aunt Natalee's will, which was signed less than 15 minutes after our handshake in that same office.

I upheld my end. I changed my degree path. I studied business. I graduated with a B.B.A. in 2010, prepared to take over the promised company.

Upon graduating, my mother told me the business was gone. Defunct. Dissolved. She called me "entitled" and told me to "go get a job." I believed her and restructured my entire life around this loss.

In 2024, I discovered through public records that the business wasn't defunct. It had been renewed in 2012 by my mother's employee. She attempted to sell it to Century Gaming in 2017. When I confronted her, she deflected by saying "Century Gaming didn't even want it when I sold them American Music"—casually admitting to another family business transaction I'd been excluded from, connected to Natalee's mysteriously "disappeared" will. Of course she couldn't sell the business she stole, it had been at least 7 years since any work had been done on it! It was profitable and well positioned in 2006 when the deal was made, and sometime between Zollie's death in 2007 and my graduation in 2010, Abby either mismanaged it into irrelevance or decided to keep the assets for herself.

My autism is relevant because it affects how I process trust and deception. I take statements literally. When my mother said "defunct," I didn't imagine she meant "hidden from you until I can sell it." This neurological difference was exploited.

III. Utilitarianism: The Mathematics of Harm

Let's start with utilitarian analysis—the greatest good for the greatest number, consequences over intentions.

A. The Harm Calculation

Harm to me:

• Lost inheritance explicitly negotiated with grandfather

• Fourteen years living in poverty while entitled to business assets

• Wasted education specifically obtained for this role

• Career decisions based on deliberate misinformation

• Psychological trauma from parental betrayal

• Exploitation of autism for financial gain

Benefit to them:

• Seven years of asset control (2010-2017)

• Whatever Century Gaming paid (admittedly minimal)

• Avoided honoring grandfather's deal

The utilitarian calculus is devastating: I suffered life-altering harm for their minimal, temporary gain. They couldn't even sell the business for much, yet denied me the chance to revive what my grandfather built.

B. The Ripple Effects

My impoverishment created cascading harms:

• Reduced economic contribution to society

• Mental health struggles requiring social resources

• Strained relationships due to financial stress

• Lost innovation (what I might have built with the business)

• Erosion of public trust when such betrayals surface

Their benefit created nothing positive:

• No new value generated

• No jobs created

• No innovation fostered

• Only value extraction until assets became worthless

C. The Precedent Problem

Utilitarian ethics demands we consider what happens if everyone acts this way. If parents routinely deceive disabled children about inheritance, society faces:

• Increased vulnerability of disabled populations

• Breakdown of family trust structures

• Reduced incentive for education and preparation

• Normalized exploitation of neurological differences

The social cost massively outweighs any individual benefit.

Utilitarian verdict: Extreme net harm with catastrophic precedent effects. Completely unjustifiable.

IV. Deontological Ethics: Duties Violated

Kant's categorical imperative demands we act only according to maxims we could will as universal law. Let's examine this betrayal through Kantian ethics.

A. The Universal Law Test

Could we will a universal law that parents may lie to disabled children about negotiated inheritances?

Such a law would create logical contradictions:

• Promises would become meaningless (destroying the concept of promise)

• Education for specific roles would be irrational (why prepare for lies?)

• Family structures would collapse (no trust possible)

• Disability would become automatic disadvantage (incentivizing eugenics)

This maxim self-destructs under universalization.

B. The Humanity Formula

Kant demanded we treat people as ends in themselves, never merely as means.

How my parents treated me:

• As means: My trust enabled their deception

• As means: My autism made me easier to manipulate

• As means: My education gave cover to their scheme

• As means: My absence from the business prevented questions

I was never treated as an end—a person with inherent dignity deserving truth—but as an obstacle to circumvent.

C. Special Duties and Perfect Obligations

Kantian ethics recognizes special duties arising from relationships and circumstances:

• Parental duty: To protect and provide for children

• Fiduciary duty: To act in beneficiary's best interest

• Witness duty: To honor agreements witnessed

• Caregiver duty: To protect vulnerable individuals

My mother violated all four simultaneously. She was parent, witness to the deal, fiduciary of family assets, and caregiver to an autistic son. Each role demanded honoring the agreement. She violated all.

Deontological verdict: Multiple categorical violations of perfect duties. Ethically indefensible.

V. Virtue Ethics: Character Revealed

Aristotle's virtue ethics asks not about rules or outcomes but character. What virtues or vices does stealing from your autistic child reveal?

A. Justice or Injustice?

Justice means giving each their due. I was due what my grandfather explicitly promised in exchange for changing my life path. Taking that through deception isn't just injustice—it's the perfect example of injustice Aristotle warned against.

B. Courage or Cowardice?

It takes no courage to lie to someone who trusts you implicitly. It takes no courage to exploit autism's literal thinking. This is cowardice—choosing deception over difficult honesty.

C. Temperance or Greed?

Temperance counsels moderation. Taking everything while leaving your child nothing—especially when the assets proved nearly worthless anyway—reveals uncontrolled greed even for minimal gain.

D. Honesty or Duplicity?

Maintaining a lie from 2010 to 2024, through countless family interactions, demonstrates commitment to deception as a character trait. This isn't a momentary lapse but sustained dishonesty.

E. Wisdom or Foolishness?

Wisdom recognizes long-term consequences. Destroying your relationship with your child for assets Century Gaming barely wanted? That's profound foolishness masquerading as cleverness.

Virtue ethics verdict: The act reveals absence of every cardinal virtue while demonstrating every corresponding vice.

VI. Religious and Cultural Ethics: Universal Condemnation

While I'm not religious, it's worth noting that every major ethical tradition condemns this behavior.

Judaism

The tradition Zollie came from emphasizes honoring agreements and protecting the vulnerable. The Talmud specifically discusses obligations to disabled family members. This violates both letter and spirit of Jewish ethics.

Christianity

"Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith" (1 Timothy 5:8). Using my disability to steal inheritance violates core Christian teaching.

Islam

Islamic inheritance law is precise about rightful heirs. Deception to deny inheritance is considered among the gravest sins, especially regarding orphans and the disabled.

Secular Humanism

Even without religious framework, humanism demands respect for human dignity and special protection for vulnerable populations. This violates both principles.

VII. Contract Theory: The Broken Deal

From a contractual ethics perspective, I had an agreement with my grandfather:

• Offer: The business in exchange for changing my degree

• Acceptance: I changed my educational path

• Consideration: Both parties gave something of value

• Witness: My mother observed the handshake

I performed my obligations. The other party's heir (my mother) refused to perform theirs. This isn't just unethical—it's breach of a witnessed contract where I suffered detrimental reliance.

VIII. Feminist Ethics of Care: Relationships Destroyed

Care ethics emphasizes relationships and responsibilities. The mother-child relationship carries unique moral weight, especially when the child is disabled.

My mother's actions destroyed:

• Trust: The foundation of mother-child bonds

• Care: The obligation to protect vulnerable family

• Reciprocity: The mutual support families provide

• Narrative: Our shared story as family

This isn't just violation of abstract principles but destruction of the relationship itself.

IX. The Neurodiversity Consideration

My autism isn't incidental—it's central to the ethical violation. Neurotypical deception exploiting autistic literal thinking represents a particular form of ableist abuse.

When someone knows you process language literally and exploits that for gain, they're weaponizing disability. That's not just unethical—it's discriminatory exploitation of neurological difference.

X. The Only Framework That Works: Power

So if no ethical framework justifies this behavior, what explains it?

Only one thing: raw power dynamics.

My mother had control of information and assets. I had trust and neurological vulnerability. She exploited that power differential for gain, knowing I couldn't detect or respond to the deception.

This isn't ethics. It's realpolitik applied to family—might makes right, take what you can, exploit every advantage. It's the logic of domination, not morality.

XI. But What About Her Perspective?

Some might ask: what about my mother's side? Perhaps she had reasons?

Let's examine possible justifications:

• "The business was failing": Then let me try to save it or fail honestly

• "You weren't ready": After four years of business school per the agreement?

• "I needed the money": Stealing from your disabled child for personal gain?

• "Father shouldn't have promised": But he did, with you as witness

• "You're entitled": For expecting what was explicitly promised?

No justification survives scrutiny. There's no ethical framework where deceiving your autistic child about inheritance becomes acceptable.

XII. The Broader Implications

This isn't just about one family's dysfunction. It's about how society treats disabled individuals, how power operates in families, and how ethical principles collapse when self-interest dominates.

Every time parents steal from disabled children through deception, they contribute to systemic ableism. They normalize exploitation of neurological difference. They demonstrate that might makes right when the victim can't fight back.

XIII. Conclusion: The Verdict of Philosophy

I've applied every major ethical framework to my mother's deception about my inheritance. Utilitarian, deontological, virtue ethics, religious ethics, contract theory, care ethics—all reach the same conclusion: unjustifiable.

The only explanation isn't ethical but power-based. She could, so she did. I trusted, so I lost. My autism made me vulnerable, so it was exploited.

But here's what she didn't count on: I kept the receipts. I learned the law. I found my voice. And now I'm applying the same systematic analysis that exposed Israel's actions in Gaza to expose what happened in my own family.

Because if ethical philosophy means anything, it means this: You cannot steal your way to righteousness. Not from Palestinians. Not from your autistic son. Not from anyone.

The frameworks are clear. The verdict is unanimous. What my mother did has no ethical justification—only the temporary shield of hidden information and exploited trust.

That shield has shattered. The information is public. And philosophy, in all its frameworks, stands in judgment.

Michael Kelman Portney is a writer, activist, and the founder of MisinformationSucks.com. He studied business at his grandfather's request, ethics because it mattered, and law because he had to. This article is part of his ongoing project to apply philosophical frameworks to real-world injustices.