自由主义者关于赔偿的论点

IF 1.1 3区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
Mark R. Reiff
{"title":"自由主义者关于赔偿的论点","authors":"Mark R. Reiff","doi":"10.1111/josp.12555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h2>1 INTRODUCTION</h2>\n<p>The case for reparations for grievous acts of historical injustice has been getting a lot of attention lately, both within and outside academia (e.g., California Reparations Report <span>2023</span>; Coates, <span>2014</span>; Martin &amp; Yaquinto, <span>2007</span>). Those who advance it claim that the injuries inflicted by these acts are ongoing and severe, and the only way that members of the groups that were the focus of these acts can begin to regain the place they would have held within society had these injustices not occurred, or at least be able and willing to move on from them into the future, is to provide current members of these victimized groups reparations for the wrongs committed against their forebearers. In New World societies, talk of reparations has typically focused on two of these historic wrongs. First, the continuing injury inflicted by slavery and the discrimination against Black people that continued in its aftermath. Second, the injury inflicted through the widespread murder and seizure of land by government and government-sanctioned forces from indigenous peoples. In both the New and Old World, however, other groups—for example, religious or ethnic minorities who have been subjected to centuries of persecution—are also sometimes discussed as being entitled to reparations. Whenever reparations are discussed, however, the claim has generally been that these are required for violations of the principle of equality, a principle to which liberal societies have long paid lip service, but which is now (in some quarters, at least) beginning to be taken more seriously.</p>\n<p>But I am going to talk about reparations in a different way. Not because I think that any of the current arguments for reparations for Black and indigenous people or anyone else for that matter do not lead to the conclusions that their proponents say they do. On the contrary, with perhaps a few exceptions, I find these arguments not only valid but also convincing. Accordingly, nothing I will say in this paper should be taken as an argument against any of these existing claims for reparations. But I do want to broaden the current discussion in two ways.</p>\n<p>First, in part I, I am going to set forth what I call a general theory of reparations. In it, I am not only going to talk about reparations as a means of remedying the injuries inflicted by slavery and by the genocide of indigenous peoples, the theft of their land, and the ongoing ripple effects of these historic wrongs. And I am not merely going to add to this a call for reparations for injuries caused by the long-time persecution of the usual religious, ethnic, and other minority populations. I am going to talk about reparations for an even wider variety of historical injustices, including, most importantly, the long-term economic oppression of women, and the historical exploitation of labor.</p>\n<p>Second, in part II, I am going to set forth my argument for reparations, but not one based on the principle of equality, as most people currently do. Instead, I am going to base it on the principle of liberty. Again, this should not be understood as constituting a claim that demands for reparations based on the principle of equality are wrong. Rather, my point is that the principle of liberty, which is often raised as a defense by those on the political right to claims based on the principle of equality, does not support the position its right-wing proponents think it does. It actually leads us to exactly the same place as arguments based on the principle of equality are claimed to do. Indeed, properly understood, the principle of liberty provides an alternative and in fact stronger basis for such claims.</p>\n<p>Finally, in part III of the paper, I shall put forth a specific proposal for beginning to fulfill our obligations to make reparations under the principle of liberty. But again, I want to make the limits on what I will propose clear from the outset. I will not be suggesting that my proposal offers the <i>only</i> way we can fulfill this obligation—I will merely suggest it is <i>one</i> way. I will not even claim that following my proposal is mandatory in the sense of being one required element in a package of other remedies. And I will not suggest that if even if we were to follow my proposal with gusto, we could completely fulfill our obligation to make reparations and clear the historical decks, leaving us all in a position to go forward together under the grace of justice once again. On the contrary, I will argue that our obligation to make reparations is an ongoing process that must be addressed by various remedies executed in different ways and to different extents over time. What I will offer in this paper is simply an important option that is worthy of consideration, but which has currently been largely neglected. I believe this remedy has a special connection with libertarian principles, but I am not claiming that a remedy <i>must</i> have such a special connection to be libertarian. A remedy merely needs to be consistent with libertarian principles to be acceptable. Finally, note that even if one were to reject my particular remedial suggestion, that would not undermine my overall claim that a remedy is due. Indeed, everything else about my argument would still stand.</p>\n<p>There is one more preliminary matter I want to set forth before I begin addressing all the above. There are many objections raised today to claims for reparations, no matter what their form (see generally Gross, <span>2008</span>). But to understand the libertarian argument for reparations and appreciate what is attractive about it, it will be helpful to keep in mind that these objections are typically driven by two underlying concerns. The first is that many people think any award of reparations necessarily implies that moral blame for the relevant historical wrongs is transferrable, at least in part, from the group to which the original wrongdoers belonged (meaning, in most cases, white people) to people who are members of that group today. Most current whites, however, are not willing to accept transference of any amount of moral guilt associated with wrongdoing in the past (see Parker, <span>2019</span>). They did not personally do any of the things that qualify as historical injustice. Indeed, they claim to recognize that these acts were wrong and would claim that they vigorously support and indeed are primarily responsible for the enactment of rules preventing the repetition of these wrongful acts today. So why should their moral scorecard be tarnished by the original sin of the now-long-dead?</p>\n<p>The second underlying concern that white people typically express is that they do not see how payments to anyone alive today can be anything other than a windfall (Luna, <span>2023</span>). No one alive today (with perhaps a handful of exceptions) was an actual victim of historical injustice. And moral victimhood, they believe, is no more transferable between generations than moral blame. If reparations are going to go to some people who are suffering and not others, then this merely repeats the wrongs of the past by not treating all those who are suffering today equally. Besides, a good number of people (those currently in the middle or upper class) among previously oppressed groups are not suffering today at all, while there are many poor whites who <i>are</i> suffering. No theory of justice worthy of our respect would advocate giving benefits to those who are not suffering and charging this to those who did not cause this suffering and who are in fact suffering themselves. If you want to know what unfairness is, the objection goes, this is a textbook example.</p>\n<p>Obviously, any approach for reparations needs to have an answer to these two concerns if it is to have any hope of getting anywhere in the real world. But any approach to reparations worthy of our support needs to address these concerns in a principled way, and not merely with an eye toward reducing the degree of practical political resistance, although the latter goal is not inappropriate or unimportant. Currently, all the existing approaches to reparations that specifically address these concerns simply take them head on—that is, they argue that moral transference is indeed justified even to those who have not personally committed any wrongdoing and that members of previously oppressed groups are indeed morally entitled to reparations even if they are not personally suffering and those in other groups are suffering more or just as much. Nothing in this paper assumes that these responses are wrong. But clearly, the concerns prevalent today among white people would not continue to be so widely expressed if the arguments for reparations currently on offer were more convincing. It would therefore be helpful to have an approach that instead of dismissing these concerns as unjustified, avoids them, and does so in a principled way. And this, I will argue, is what the libertarian approach I am about to offer does. And with that said, I shall now get on with describing and defending it.</p>","PeriodicalId":46756,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Philosophy","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The libertarian argument for reparations\",\"authors\":\"Mark R. Reiff\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/josp.12555\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h2>1 INTRODUCTION</h2>\\n<p>The case for reparations for grievous acts of historical injustice has been getting a lot of attention lately, both within and outside academia (e.g., California Reparations Report <span>2023</span>; Coates, <span>2014</span>; Martin &amp; Yaquinto, <span>2007</span>). Those who advance it claim that the injuries inflicted by these acts are ongoing and severe, and the only way that members of the groups that were the focus of these acts can begin to regain the place they would have held within society had these injustices not occurred, or at least be able and willing to move on from them into the future, is to provide current members of these victimized groups reparations for the wrongs committed against their forebearers. In New World societies, talk of reparations has typically focused on two of these historic wrongs. First, the continuing injury inflicted by slavery and the discrimination against Black people that continued in its aftermath. Second, the injury inflicted through the widespread murder and seizure of land by government and government-sanctioned forces from indigenous peoples. In both the New and Old World, however, other groups—for example, religious or ethnic minorities who have been subjected to centuries of persecution—are also sometimes discussed as being entitled to reparations. Whenever reparations are discussed, however, the claim has generally been that these are required for violations of the principle of equality, a principle to which liberal societies have long paid lip service, but which is now (in some quarters, at least) beginning to be taken more seriously.</p>\\n<p>But I am going to talk about reparations in a different way. Not because I think that any of the current arguments for reparations for Black and indigenous people or anyone else for that matter do not lead to the conclusions that their proponents say they do. On the contrary, with perhaps a few exceptions, I find these arguments not only valid but also convincing. Accordingly, nothing I will say in this paper should be taken as an argument against any of these existing claims for reparations. But I do want to broaden the current discussion in two ways.</p>\\n<p>First, in part I, I am going to set forth what I call a general theory of reparations. In it, I am not only going to talk about reparations as a means of remedying the injuries inflicted by slavery and by the genocide of indigenous peoples, the theft of their land, and the ongoing ripple effects of these historic wrongs. And I am not merely going to add to this a call for reparations for injuries caused by the long-time persecution of the usual religious, ethnic, and other minority populations. I am going to talk about reparations for an even wider variety of historical injustices, including, most importantly, the long-term economic oppression of women, and the historical exploitation of labor.</p>\\n<p>Second, in part II, I am going to set forth my argument for reparations, but not one based on the principle of equality, as most people currently do. Instead, I am going to base it on the principle of liberty. Again, this should not be understood as constituting a claim that demands for reparations based on the principle of equality are wrong. Rather, my point is that the principle of liberty, which is often raised as a defense by those on the political right to claims based on the principle of equality, does not support the position its right-wing proponents think it does. It actually leads us to exactly the same place as arguments based on the principle of equality are claimed to do. Indeed, properly understood, the principle of liberty provides an alternative and in fact stronger basis for such claims.</p>\\n<p>Finally, in part III of the paper, I shall put forth a specific proposal for beginning to fulfill our obligations to make reparations under the principle of liberty. But again, I want to make the limits on what I will propose clear from the outset. I will not be suggesting that my proposal offers the <i>only</i> way we can fulfill this obligation—I will merely suggest it is <i>one</i> way. I will not even claim that following my proposal is mandatory in the sense of being one required element in a package of other remedies. And I will not suggest that if even if we were to follow my proposal with gusto, we could completely fulfill our obligation to make reparations and clear the historical decks, leaving us all in a position to go forward together under the grace of justice once again. On the contrary, I will argue that our obligation to make reparations is an ongoing process that must be addressed by various remedies executed in different ways and to different extents over time. What I will offer in this paper is simply an important option that is worthy of consideration, but which has currently been largely neglected. I believe this remedy has a special connection with libertarian principles, but I am not claiming that a remedy <i>must</i> have such a special connection to be libertarian. A remedy merely needs to be consistent with libertarian principles to be acceptable. Finally, note that even if one were to reject my particular remedial suggestion, that would not undermine my overall claim that a remedy is due. Indeed, everything else about my argument would still stand.</p>\\n<p>There is one more preliminary matter I want to set forth before I begin addressing all the above. There are many objections raised today to claims for reparations, no matter what their form (see generally Gross, <span>2008</span>). But to understand the libertarian argument for reparations and appreciate what is attractive about it, it will be helpful to keep in mind that these objections are typically driven by two underlying concerns. The first is that many people think any award of reparations necessarily implies that moral blame for the relevant historical wrongs is transferrable, at least in part, from the group to which the original wrongdoers belonged (meaning, in most cases, white people) to people who are members of that group today. Most current whites, however, are not willing to accept transference of any amount of moral guilt associated with wrongdoing in the past (see Parker, <span>2019</span>). They did not personally do any of the things that qualify as historical injustice. Indeed, they claim to recognize that these acts were wrong and would claim that they vigorously support and indeed are primarily responsible for the enactment of rules preventing the repetition of these wrongful acts today. So why should their moral scorecard be tarnished by the original sin of the now-long-dead?</p>\\n<p>The second underlying concern that white people typically express is that they do not see how payments to anyone alive today can be anything other than a windfall (Luna, <span>2023</span>). No one alive today (with perhaps a handful of exceptions) was an actual victim of historical injustice. And moral victimhood, they believe, is no more transferable between generations than moral blame. If reparations are going to go to some people who are suffering and not others, then this merely repeats the wrongs of the past by not treating all those who are suffering today equally. Besides, a good number of people (those currently in the middle or upper class) among previously oppressed groups are not suffering today at all, while there are many poor whites who <i>are</i> suffering. No theory of justice worthy of our respect would advocate giving benefits to those who are not suffering and charging this to those who did not cause this suffering and who are in fact suffering themselves. If you want to know what unfairness is, the objection goes, this is a textbook example.</p>\\n<p>Obviously, any approach for reparations needs to have an answer to these two concerns if it is to have any hope of getting anywhere in the real world. But any approach to reparations worthy of our support needs to address these concerns in a principled way, and not merely with an eye toward reducing the degree of practical political resistance, although the latter goal is not inappropriate or unimportant. Currently, all the existing approaches to reparations that specifically address these concerns simply take them head on—that is, they argue that moral transference is indeed justified even to those who have not personally committed any wrongdoing and that members of previously oppressed groups are indeed morally entitled to reparations even if they are not personally suffering and those in other groups are suffering more or just as much. Nothing in this paper assumes that these responses are wrong. But clearly, the concerns prevalent today among white people would not continue to be so widely expressed if the arguments for reparations currently on offer were more convincing. It would therefore be helpful to have an approach that instead of dismissing these concerns as unjustified, avoids them, and does so in a principled way. And this, I will argue, is what the libertarian approach I am about to offer does. And with that said, I shall now get on with describing and defending it.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46756,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Social Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Social Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12555\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12555","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1 引言 近来,对历史不公正的严重行为进行赔偿的案例在学术界内外受到广泛关注(如《加州 2023 年赔偿报告》;Coates, 2014;Martin &amp; Yaquinto, 2007)。提出这一观点的人声称,这些行为造成的伤害是持续的、严重的,只有为这些受害群体的现任成员对其先辈所犯下的错误提供赔偿,这些群体的成员才能开始重新获得如果这些不公正行为没有发生时他们本应在社会中占据的地位,或者至少能够并愿意从这些不公正行为中走出来,走向未来。在新世界社会中,关于赔偿的讨论通常集中在两个历史性错误上。第一,奴隶制造成的持续伤害以及奴隶制之后对黑人的歧视。第二,政府和政府认可的势力对土著人民的大肆屠杀和强占土地所造成的伤害。然而,无论是在新世界还是在旧世界,其他群体--例如,遭受数百年迫害的宗教或少数民族--有时也被讨论为有权获得赔偿。然而,每当讨论赔偿问题时,人们一般都会说,需要对违反平等原则的行为进行赔偿,长期以来,自由主义社会对这一原则口惠而实不至,但现在(至少在某些方面),人们开始更加认真地对待这一原则。我之所以要以不同的方式谈论赔偿问题,并不是因为我认为目前为黑人和原住民或其他任何人提出的赔偿论点并不能得出支持者所说的结论。相反,除了少数例外,我认为这些论点不仅有效,而且令人信服。因此,我在本文中所说的一切都不应被视为反对任何现有赔偿主张的论据。首先,在第一部分,我将提出一个我称之为赔偿的一般理论。在这一部分中,我不仅要讨论赔偿问题,将其作为补救奴隶制和对土著人民的种族灭绝所造成的伤害、对其土地的掠夺以及这些历史性错误所产生的持续涟漪效应的一种手段。此外,我还将呼吁对长期迫害宗教、种族和其他少数群体所造成的伤害进行赔偿。其次,在第二部分,我将提出我的赔偿论点,但不是像大多数人目前所做的那样,以平等原则为基础。相反,我将以自由原则为基础。再次强调,这不应被理解为基于平等原则的赔偿要求是错误的。相反,我的观点是,政治右翼人士经常以自由原则为由,为基于平等原则的要求辩护,但自由原则并不支持其右翼支持者所认为的立场。它实际上把我们引向了与基于平等原则的论点所声称的完全相同的地方。最后,在本文的第三部分,我将提出一个具体的建议,开始履行我们在自由原则下的赔偿义务。但我还是想从一开始就明确我的建议的局限性。我不会说我的建议是我们履行这一义务的唯一途径,我只是说这是一个途径。我甚至不会声称,按照我的建议去做是强制性的,因为它是一揽子其他补救措施中的一个必要因素。我也不会说,即使我们全心全意地遵循我的建议,我们就能完全履行赔偿义务,清除历史污点,使我们所有人都能在正义的恩典下再次携手前进。相反,我将论证我们的赔偿义务是一个持续的过程,必须随着时间的推移以不同的方式在不同程度上采取各种补救措施。我在本文中提出的只是一个值得考虑的重要方案,但目前在很大程度上被忽视了。我认为这种补救措施与自由主义原则有着特殊的联系,但我并不是说补救措施必须有这种特殊联系才是自由主义的。 补救措施只需符合自由主义原则即可接受。最后,请注意,即使有人拒绝我的特定补救建议,也不会损害我的总体主张,即补救是应该的。事实上,我的其他论点仍然成立。在我开始论述上述所有问题之前,我还想提出一个初步的问题。如今有许多人反对赔偿要求,无论其形式如何(参见格罗斯,2008 年)。但要理解自由主义者的赔偿论点,并领会其吸引人之处,记住这些反对意见通常是由两个基本关切驱动的,会有所帮助。首先,许多人认为任何赔偿都必然意味着相关历史错误的道德责任可以转移,至少是部分转移,从最初犯错者所属的群体(在大多数情况下是指白人)转移到今天属于该群体的人身上。然而,大多数现在的白人并不愿意接受与过去的不法行为相关的任何道德内疚的转移(见 Parker, 2019)。他们本人并没有做过任何被定性为历史不公正的事情。事实上,他们声称认识到这些行为是错误的,并声称他们大力支持制定防止这些不法行为在今天重演的规则,事实上,他们对这些规则的制定负有主要责任。白人通常表达的第二个潜在担忧是,他们不明白向今天还活着的人支付的钱怎么可能不是意外之财(Luna,2023 年)。现在活着的人(也许有少数例外)都不是历史不公正的真正受害者。他们认为,道义上的受害者身份并不比道义上的指责更容易在代际之间转移。如果赔偿只给某些受苦受难的人而不给其他人,那么这只是重复了过去的错误,没有平等对待今天所有受苦受难的人。此外,在过去受压迫的群体中,有相当一部分人(目前处于中产阶级或上层阶级的人)今天根本没有受苦,而有许多贫穷的白人却在受苦。任何值得我们尊重的正义理论都不会主张给那些没有受苦受难的人以好处,而向那些没有造成这种苦难、实际上自己也在受苦受难的人收取这种费用。如果你想知道什么是不公平,反对意见认为,这就是一个教科书式的例子。显然,任何赔偿方法都需要对这两个问题做出回答,这样才有希望在现实世界中取得进展。但是,任何值得我们支持的赔偿方法都需要以一种有原则的方式来解决这些问题,而不仅仅是为了减少实际的政治阻力,尽管后一个目标并非不恰当或不重要。目前,所有专门针对这些问题的现有赔偿方法都只是正面回应了这些问题,也就是说,这些方法认为,即使对那些没有亲身犯下任何错误行为的人来说,道德转移确实是合理的;即使以前受压迫群体的成员没有亲身遭受痛苦,而其他群体的成员遭受了更多或同样多的痛苦,他们在道义上确实有权获得赔偿。本文没有任何内容假定这些回应是错误的。但很显然,如果目前提出的赔偿论据更有说服力,今天白人中普遍存在的担忧就不会继续如此广泛地表达出来。因此,如果有一种方法能够避免这些担忧,而不是将其视为毫无道理,并以一种有原则的方式这样做,那将会很有帮助。我想说的是,这正是我将要提出的自由主义方法所要做的。说到这里,我现在要开始描述并为它辩护了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The libertarian argument for reparations

1 INTRODUCTION

The case for reparations for grievous acts of historical injustice has been getting a lot of attention lately, both within and outside academia (e.g., California Reparations Report 2023; Coates, 2014; Martin & Yaquinto, 2007). Those who advance it claim that the injuries inflicted by these acts are ongoing and severe, and the only way that members of the groups that were the focus of these acts can begin to regain the place they would have held within society had these injustices not occurred, or at least be able and willing to move on from them into the future, is to provide current members of these victimized groups reparations for the wrongs committed against their forebearers. In New World societies, talk of reparations has typically focused on two of these historic wrongs. First, the continuing injury inflicted by slavery and the discrimination against Black people that continued in its aftermath. Second, the injury inflicted through the widespread murder and seizure of land by government and government-sanctioned forces from indigenous peoples. In both the New and Old World, however, other groups—for example, religious or ethnic minorities who have been subjected to centuries of persecution—are also sometimes discussed as being entitled to reparations. Whenever reparations are discussed, however, the claim has generally been that these are required for violations of the principle of equality, a principle to which liberal societies have long paid lip service, but which is now (in some quarters, at least) beginning to be taken more seriously.

But I am going to talk about reparations in a different way. Not because I think that any of the current arguments for reparations for Black and indigenous people or anyone else for that matter do not lead to the conclusions that their proponents say they do. On the contrary, with perhaps a few exceptions, I find these arguments not only valid but also convincing. Accordingly, nothing I will say in this paper should be taken as an argument against any of these existing claims for reparations. But I do want to broaden the current discussion in two ways.

First, in part I, I am going to set forth what I call a general theory of reparations. In it, I am not only going to talk about reparations as a means of remedying the injuries inflicted by slavery and by the genocide of indigenous peoples, the theft of their land, and the ongoing ripple effects of these historic wrongs. And I am not merely going to add to this a call for reparations for injuries caused by the long-time persecution of the usual religious, ethnic, and other minority populations. I am going to talk about reparations for an even wider variety of historical injustices, including, most importantly, the long-term economic oppression of women, and the historical exploitation of labor.

Second, in part II, I am going to set forth my argument for reparations, but not one based on the principle of equality, as most people currently do. Instead, I am going to base it on the principle of liberty. Again, this should not be understood as constituting a claim that demands for reparations based on the principle of equality are wrong. Rather, my point is that the principle of liberty, which is often raised as a defense by those on the political right to claims based on the principle of equality, does not support the position its right-wing proponents think it does. It actually leads us to exactly the same place as arguments based on the principle of equality are claimed to do. Indeed, properly understood, the principle of liberty provides an alternative and in fact stronger basis for such claims.

Finally, in part III of the paper, I shall put forth a specific proposal for beginning to fulfill our obligations to make reparations under the principle of liberty. But again, I want to make the limits on what I will propose clear from the outset. I will not be suggesting that my proposal offers the only way we can fulfill this obligation—I will merely suggest it is one way. I will not even claim that following my proposal is mandatory in the sense of being one required element in a package of other remedies. And I will not suggest that if even if we were to follow my proposal with gusto, we could completely fulfill our obligation to make reparations and clear the historical decks, leaving us all in a position to go forward together under the grace of justice once again. On the contrary, I will argue that our obligation to make reparations is an ongoing process that must be addressed by various remedies executed in different ways and to different extents over time. What I will offer in this paper is simply an important option that is worthy of consideration, but which has currently been largely neglected. I believe this remedy has a special connection with libertarian principles, but I am not claiming that a remedy must have such a special connection to be libertarian. A remedy merely needs to be consistent with libertarian principles to be acceptable. Finally, note that even if one were to reject my particular remedial suggestion, that would not undermine my overall claim that a remedy is due. Indeed, everything else about my argument would still stand.

There is one more preliminary matter I want to set forth before I begin addressing all the above. There are many objections raised today to claims for reparations, no matter what their form (see generally Gross, 2008). But to understand the libertarian argument for reparations and appreciate what is attractive about it, it will be helpful to keep in mind that these objections are typically driven by two underlying concerns. The first is that many people think any award of reparations necessarily implies that moral blame for the relevant historical wrongs is transferrable, at least in part, from the group to which the original wrongdoers belonged (meaning, in most cases, white people) to people who are members of that group today. Most current whites, however, are not willing to accept transference of any amount of moral guilt associated with wrongdoing in the past (see Parker, 2019). They did not personally do any of the things that qualify as historical injustice. Indeed, they claim to recognize that these acts were wrong and would claim that they vigorously support and indeed are primarily responsible for the enactment of rules preventing the repetition of these wrongful acts today. So why should their moral scorecard be tarnished by the original sin of the now-long-dead?

The second underlying concern that white people typically express is that they do not see how payments to anyone alive today can be anything other than a windfall (Luna, 2023). No one alive today (with perhaps a handful of exceptions) was an actual victim of historical injustice. And moral victimhood, they believe, is no more transferable between generations than moral blame. If reparations are going to go to some people who are suffering and not others, then this merely repeats the wrongs of the past by not treating all those who are suffering today equally. Besides, a good number of people (those currently in the middle or upper class) among previously oppressed groups are not suffering today at all, while there are many poor whites who are suffering. No theory of justice worthy of our respect would advocate giving benefits to those who are not suffering and charging this to those who did not cause this suffering and who are in fact suffering themselves. If you want to know what unfairness is, the objection goes, this is a textbook example.

Obviously, any approach for reparations needs to have an answer to these two concerns if it is to have any hope of getting anywhere in the real world. But any approach to reparations worthy of our support needs to address these concerns in a principled way, and not merely with an eye toward reducing the degree of practical political resistance, although the latter goal is not inappropriate or unimportant. Currently, all the existing approaches to reparations that specifically address these concerns simply take them head on—that is, they argue that moral transference is indeed justified even to those who have not personally committed any wrongdoing and that members of previously oppressed groups are indeed morally entitled to reparations even if they are not personally suffering and those in other groups are suffering more or just as much. Nothing in this paper assumes that these responses are wrong. But clearly, the concerns prevalent today among white people would not continue to be so widely expressed if the arguments for reparations currently on offer were more convincing. It would therefore be helpful to have an approach that instead of dismissing these concerns as unjustified, avoids them, and does so in a principled way. And this, I will argue, is what the libertarian approach I am about to offer does. And with that said, I shall now get on with describing and defending it.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
12.50%
发文量
44
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信