https://www.the-pamphlet.com/articles/isreparationunjust
created by The_Pamphlet on 18/02/2025 at 13:41 UTC
0 upvotes, 19 top-level comments (showing 19)
Comment by BernardJOrtcutt at 18/02/2025 at 21:20 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
This thread has been closed due to a high number of rule-breaking[1] comments, leading to a total breakdown of constructive conversation.
1: https://old.reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Comment by Nexus_produces at 18/02/2025 at 14:30 UTC
41 upvotes, 6 direct replies
So, where's the geographical and time limit for these reparations? Why randomly stop at the time of chattel slavery in the US specifically?
I propose the descendants of the Umayyad Caliphate pay reparations to the Portuguese and Spanish. And then the Portuguese and Spanish should pay reparations to all of Latin America, Africa and parts of Asia.
And the Ottomans' descendants should pay reparations to Southeast Europe, West Asia, and North Africa.
Mongols should pay to pretty much all of Asia, Russia and part of Europe and the Middle East.
Greek and Italians are also pretty much screwed.
Or is the morality of reparations only applicable to one single, specific case?
Comment by Hamking7 at 18/02/2025 at 14:32 UTC*
7 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Interesting argument. How do you maintain the clear distinction between personal and institutional in the case where those who would benefit from the reparations, in your case African Americans, would also be expected as citizens to contribute to the reparations via taxation? Also, i think there's a point to be explored around the notion of institutional responsibility: how do institutions bear any moral responsibility at all, if entirely seperated from the moral agency of the individuals who managed them, took decisions etc?
Comment by groveborn at 18/02/2025 at 14:49 UTC
6 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I'm white.
My ancestors walked the trail of tears. I have no idea if any of my ancestors were slaves in the Americas, but certainly it's possible.
There are a lot of people with my own mixed heritage. Many who simply don't know.
Would it be the government's job to hunt down every person who might be due the reparations, or do we have to figure it out?
And how many supporters of Nazi America will be eligible, how many would be paid, and how will that make the people who are meant to benefit feel?
This isn't as simple as black=former slaves.
The system is the problem. Fix the system.
Comment by basesonballs at 18/02/2025 at 21:19 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Comparing reparations to paying off the national debt doesn’t really mesh. The national debt is a legal, binding obligation that comes from decisions made by elected officials, affecting everyone in the country. It’s a straightforward financial agreement. Reparations, on the other hand, deal with historical wrongs that are morally complex and don’t fit neatly into a financial framework. It’s not the same kind of obligation.
The idea that some poor coal miner in Appalachia or some Chinese immigrant in San Jose should be forced to pay additional taxes to foot the bill for reparations is morally ludicrous and logistically nightmarish
Comment by The_Pamphlet at 18/02/2025 at 13:46 UTC
4 upvotes, 0 direct replies
So, the title of the post summarizes this article's argument. However I include as a first comment this excerpt from the conclusion. These are the last three paragraphs (though we recommend reading the whole article). Anyways, the author makes helpful distinctions about responsibilities, citizenship, and so on in order to answer criticisms of reparations. This account is not the author, we just share the articles - and try to get people to read and engage with their content :)
"The distinction between the responsibilities of citizens and the responsibilities of governments helps clarify the point being made throughout this essay. Governments are responsible for paying national expenditures, including reparative ones. Citizens are responsible for financing expenditures. Again, it is nothing personal. Reparation therefore does not ask innocent taxpayers to do the government’s job (personally paying for national expenditures). It simply assumes citizens will keep paying taxes––a responsibility rooted in citizenship, not guilt.
In summary, present-day citizens may not be guilty of historic injustices, but they are citizens of a country whose political institutions committed numerous historic wrongs against African Americans. If the government owes repairs, present-day citizens will help with some of the cost. This is not a matter of personal guilt. It is simply a duty that comes with citizenship and follows from the right of democratic governments to require their citizens to pay taxes. Citizenship makes us responsible to bear a fair share, not just of reparative debts, but of any national debt, whether or not we are at fault.
We all inherit a world wounded by historic injustice. As reparationists argue, a program of repair is due. I have not attempted to defend this claim in full. My goal was simply to cast some doubt on the popular objection that reparation is morally questionable because “no one alive is at fault." If there is anything questionable going on here, it may be in the act of excusing ourselves from supporting reparation on the ground that “we didn’t do it.”"
Comment by RaeReiWay at 18/02/2025 at 14:34 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
There are several things which I find issue with in this article.
1. Much of the argument comes from arguing against the economic position of the justification of using taxes to fund such reparations. The question which I find a lot of philosophers tend not to delve into is what sort of taxes we are talking about? We must understand that taxes are not simply a tool to gain funds, but create rippling effects in other sectors of the economy. For instance, we can use tariffs to fund reparations, but realistically is the government going to make that much money when industries are simply going to shift? Or the fact that tariffs increase consumer costs of the goods being tariffed? And the international relations issue?
2. A question which ought to be asked is to what extent are reparations being paid? When Japanese Americans were placed into internment camps, reparations were able to proceed because there are clear records which can be dispensed. But reparations centuries ago where records are scarce or destroyed? Freed slaves whose histories were erased and left unknown? Not to mention distinguishing between ancestors of slaves and immigrants from Africa, ancestors of slaves from other countries such as the Caribbeans who move into the United States, or those with African ancestries living in other countries moving into the United States. It doesn't make sense for them to receive reparations. Furthermore, at what point are the debts repaid? The author does not go into this and simply says we ought to consider it.
3. The distinction between institutional vs individual loses grounds when funding for institutions are tied to its citizens. When laying responsibility morally it makes sense to lay judgement upon the institutions which I agree with, but ultimately the funding goes back to the first argument of levying taxes. If there is no clean way, you can always print more money to fund the project, which leads to an indirect tax on the citizens. Although the article does mention this as a sort of "insurance payment", they later mention the responsibility of the citizen.
But it doesn't follow that being a member of the citizenry and reaping the benefits means you ought to give back to your country. Homeless people are citizens and the reap the benefits of living in a society not being invaded by foreigners so are protected, but have no responsibility to paying taxes. Children reap the benefits of citizenry and don't pay taxes. And the question is to what extent are people responsible? Are conscription laws truly what people ought to live up to even if they are drafted into an unjust war? To what extent are taxes unjust in this case? You can bring this back to the British controlled colonies. Taxation without representation doesn't hold when each are citizens of the crown and ought to pay taxes because they reap the benefits of protection and citizenry. This argument needs development.
Comment by [deleted] at 18/02/2025 at 13:47 UTC
1 upvotes, 4 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by [deleted] at 18/02/2025 at 14:02 UTC
5 upvotes, 2 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by AutoModerator at 18/02/2025 at 13:41 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Welcome to /r/philosophy! **Please read our updated rules and guidelines[1] before commenting**.
1: https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?
/r/philosophy is a subreddit dedicated to discussing philosophy and philosophical issues. To that end, please keep in mind our commenting rules:
Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Please note that as of July 1 2023, reddit has made it substantially more difficult to moderate subreddits. If you see posts or comments which violate our subreddit rules and guidelines[2], please report them using the report function. For more significant issues, please contact the moderators via modmail[3] (not via private message or chat).
2: https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?
3: https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy
4: /message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy
Comment by Dropcity at 18/02/2025 at 14:38 UTC*
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
EDIT: others have expressed my musings in a much more concise manner, expend your energy on those please..
This is complicated so forgive my oversimplification.. and for the absurd thought exercise, but theres a point..
Suppose we had a supercomputer that could calculate all inequities down to the individual. Every action or inaction taken that resulted in inequitable outcomes (even if desired or intended) whether harmful or not. This computer could then tabulate how "good" you are/were and have a value associated w it. Wouldnt have to be monetary. Is this desirable? Fair?
Again the base philosophical question is mentioned but my basic point is it ONLY reparations for African Americans that are of importance or would you extend this philosophy to all injusticies/inequities? Wouldnt failing to solve it all in one fail swoop also create its own set of inequities? How do you calculate levels of harm? How far back do we go? What if paying reparations causes its own unintended consequences an inequities, are they next in lieu of someone or something else since our direct actions resulted in immeditae and measurable harm? When do you reach equity for all? I think the suggestion you propose is the erasure of reality, if not the best we can do is deconstruction of current infrastructure and institutions, but isnt this solving for the issue in itself?
The examples you give, like our taxes paying the debts our ancestors created, are also arguably immoral or unethical. It isnt about "guilt" (although there is a never ending supply of that to throw around). It's about current injustices to solve for past injustices. If this is ONLY about solving for economic injustices all the same questions and inquiries apply. To what end?
Comment by [deleted] at 18/02/2025 at 13:56 UTC*
-7 upvotes, 3 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by [deleted] at 18/02/2025 at 15:15 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by [deleted] at 18/02/2025 at 13:55 UTC
-2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by Positivity33 at 18/02/2025 at 14:45 UTC
-2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The main points are left out once again:
1. Reparations have ALREADY been paid. WE ENDED THE LEGAL PRACTICE OF SLAVERY ALL OVER THE WORLD by fighting a civil war and setting the moral example. MANY died to free the country from the grips of slavery. Those lives are one hell of a reparation. On top of that the vast majority of slaves were taken in by the very “whites” they accuse of systemic racism. Those whites gave them legal, well-paying employment. Many were given free housing, education and more-as well as their children being brought into those horrible white peoples homes, and educated for FREE, alongside their own children. The government also provided relocation and numerous resources and benefits for freed slaves. It’s time to stop pretending that the freed slaves were thrown to the wolves and given nothing.
2. If you somehow still believe reparations are in order, then why is it limited to blacks? The Irish were slaves who were treated far worse, as they were cheaper and more dispensable. The Chinese were forced to build the majority of our railway infrastructure. The vast majority of our infrastructure in general was built on the backs of poor immigrants and poor citizens- not the black slaves who mostly worked on plantations in the south. You could create an almost infinite list of people “done wrong” by our government and society over the ages- the gross majority involving the POOR- not people based on skin color.
3. It is NOT the responsibility of the taxpayer to give the government the resources to do whatever they want. They have become corrupt. It started a good century ago when the Rockefellers entered the picture and has gotten downright out of control over the last 50 years and downright disgusting and evil since The Clintons. Obama accelerated it to levels never seen before. It’s NOT our responsibility to pay for the corruption. This reparations nonsense is just another example of the hypocrisy of the democrat party- and another way for them to (1) try to buy votes, (2) sow discord in society and (3) launder $ to their other corrupt buddies. We as taxpayers have been being ROBBED for far too long and the only “responsibility” we have is to stand up against it.
Comment by [deleted] at 18/02/2025 at 13:54 UTC
-7 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by ComedicUsernameHere at 18/02/2025 at 15:19 UTC
0 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I think there is a convincing argument regarding the issue of reparations in general being paid by the state, and financed by citizens through taxes. I think the article is correct that objections on that aspect do not seem to hold. Though the question does arise over what specifically the government did to accrue the debt. For instance, should the government be liable to compensate slaves for their unpaid labor, since it largely was not the government but private individuals who owned slaves and compelled them to work and did not justly compensate them, though the government did play a role in the system, and so perhaps is partially liable.
There is more to be considered in the discussion than just whether in principle they deserve some form of restorative justice from the United States government. Namely, in what forms that compensation or restorative justice should or has taken. The idea of compensation or restorative justice is to make the injured party whole to the best of our ability. So what would that look like? The US government already has spent a disproportionate amount of funds on the descendents of slaves, can we apply that balance against the debt? Additionally, can American citizenship itself be considered a part of the reparations? I think most people would agree that on average, the descendents of slaves in America are better off than the current descendents of those in Africa who were either not enslaved or themselves were slavers. So, being allowed to stay and being granted citizenship seem to represent some sort of real benefit that people would be reluctant to give up. How does that work out in relations to the calculation of what more is owed to them?
There are also practical concerns. Is it even possible, practically speaking, for the government to pay out reparations? I've seen a few different proposals, ranging from lump sum payments to all black people, to funding programs to help African Americans generally gain a stronger foothold in American economic society. The question is, how much will any of this actually benefit them, and what negative repercussions will it cause? For example, I can't imagine anything that would destroy race relations in this country more than the US government giving all African Americans today 100k or something. I can't imagine the amount of racial animosity that would generate, and it would surely result in widespread discrimination and probably outright violence against African Americans (not to say it'd be justified, but it's just plainly what would actually happen).
I, personally, do not think that on a practical level there is a way to implement any major form of reparations if it is called reparations and directed solely to African Americans on the basis of race. I think we could institute programs to better help the poor and socially disadvantaged generally, which will disproportionately benefit African Americans. We could hypothetically institute policies to do things like, encourage marriage and discourage absent fathers/having children out of wedlock, which would disproportionately benefit African Americans who have a lower marriage rate and a higher rate of absent fathers (quick Google says something like 70% of African American children are born to single mothers, while approximately 20% of white children. Absent fathers/single motherhood is strongly correlated to poorer outcomes for children), but would also benefit society across the board regardless of race.
Lastly, I think it's fair to ask if any amount of reparations will ever be considered enough. I think there's a real likelihood that no matter what reparations are paid, there will be a certain amount of people who will never be satisfied. How can we essure that if some form of reparations are instituted, they will actually effectively settle the debt in the minds of those who want reparations? Basically, what's the end point? At what point will we consider the problem solved?
Comment by [deleted] at 18/02/2025 at 14:45 UTC
-3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by [deleted] at 18/02/2025 at 14:57 UTC
-2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[removed]