Reparations for Slavery

Boonin's discussion of various alleged morally relevant differences between the art gallery case and the case of reparations

#1 In the argument, Jim committed the morally act and is profiting from it. Even if white Americans profit today, they did not commit a morally wrong act that they are profiting from. #2 Morally relevant Dif. Mark is still alive, but in the case of reparations for slavery, all of the slaves are dead. In the former case, the money can simply be returned to its rightful owner, but in the latter case, it can't. (Not genuine moral difference, revised art gallery case where Mark dies, the money should be returned to his estate or descendants.)

5 steps for the compensation argument

#1 The compensation principle; if someone wrongfully harms another person, then he incurs a moral obligation to compensate his victim from the harms that he has wrongfully caused #2 The historical claim; previous generations of Americans wrongfully harmed previous generations of African Americans (argument is still weak; how do the debts owed to past African Americans support the claim that present African American are owed a debt, and how do the debts owed by past white Americans apply to white Americans today) #3 The casual claim; an act that harms the members of one generation can in turn have lingering consequences that impose cots on subsequent generation, the acts by which previous generations of American citizens wrongfully harmed previous generations of Africans and African Americans continue to cause harmful consequences for black Americans today. (Consider such discrepancies as it relates to health, life expectancy, education, and income due to social environment ) #4 Surviving the public obligation principle; there's an important difference between the moral debts that are created by private acts and the moral debts that are created by public ones. When a representative of the federal government acts in his official capacity and does something that generates an obligation, the government incurs that obligation and that obligation doesn't just go away when that person dies (e.g., the obligations the U.S. government incurred by entering NATO). #5 The unpaid balance claim; the debt hasn't been paid yet. If the debt had been paid, we would expect there to be a level playing field and for there to be no such discrepancies.

The unjust-enrichment argument

1. If Jim owes Mark a debt because he unjustly enriched himself from Mark's labor, then the slave reparations position is correct. 2. Jim owes Mark a debt because he unjustly enriched himself from Mark's labor. 3.Therefore, the slave reparations position is correct.

The Two Challenges for the defender of the slave reparations position that we discussed in class

1. any defender of the slave reparations position must explain why white Americans should have to contribute to making reparations for slavery when they played no role in causing slavery to occur in the first place( none of the original parties are currently alive today) 2. Second, the defender of must explains why the current generation of African Americans should benefit currently because of something that happened in the past to an entirely different group of people.

The compensation argument for reparations

1.If a government wrongfully harms someone as a result of the authorized actions of some of its public officials, then it incurs a moral obligation to compensate its victim for the harms that it has wrongfully caused. 2.In the past, the U.S. government wrongfully harmed previous generations of Africans and African Americans by supporting the institution of slavery and subsequent forms of legalized segregation and discrimination. 3.The acts by which the U.S. government wrongfully harmed previous generations of Africans and African Americans by supporting the institution of slavery and subsequent forms of legalized segregation and discrimination in the past continue to cause harmful consequences for the currently living generation of black Americans today. 4. If a government incurs a moral obligation as a result of the authorized actions of some of its public officials, then this obligation doesn't cease to exist when the officials in question die. 5. The U.S. government has not yet fully compensated the currently living generation of black Americans for the harmful consequences they continue to incur as a result of slavery and its aftermath. 6. Therefore, the U.S. government has a moral obligation to benefit the current generation of African Americans because of the wrongful harms that were inflicted on past generations of Africans and African Americans by the institution of slavery and its aftermath.

Revised art gallery case (shadowy figure), rejoinder to objection #1.

Suppose this time that a shadowy figure breaks into Mark's house and steals his paintings. This shadowy figure then sells them to Jim. Jim doesn't know and has no reason to think that the paintings are stolen. The alleged moral difference from Boonin before is not relevant since Jim still owes Mark the money. Some people think that because Jim did nothing unjust, he does not owe Mark the money he made. It is clear that he should at least return the paintings, but not as clear for the profits.

The Slave Reparations Position

The U.S. government has a moral obligation to benefit the current generation of African Americans because of the wrongful harms that were inflicted on past generations of Africans and African Americans by the institution of slavery and its aftermath.

The Art Gallery Case

The unjust-enrichment principle says that one should not be unjustly enriched at the expense of another. Mark is an artist. While he's away, Jim steals a bunch of Mark's paintings. Jim then displays the paintings at his art gallery and charges people money to view them.It seems clear that Jim owes Mark the money that he got by unjustly enriching himself from Mark's labor.

Boonin's objections to the unjust-enrichment argument (objections #3, #4, and #5 on the slides)

objection #3: The argument rests on the assumption that white Americans are benefiting today from the consequences of slavery and its aftermath. But it's not clear that this is true. We at least should ask for a good reason to think that it's true. (this ignores the social costs of slavery, white privilege OBJECTION #4: The unjust enrichment argument seems to suggest that only that descendants of those particular victims of slavery who were used profitably would be owed reparations (one group of slaves was treated good relative to another group, so they wouldn't be owed reparations, which is wrong according to the proponent) OBJECTION #5: The way in which Jim benefits from the injustice committed against Mark in the shadowy-figure case is relevantly different than the way in which white Americans benefit from the injustice committed against slaves. might be argued that the way in which white Americans benefit from the injustice committed against slaves isn't sufficient to generate a duty to pay reparations.

The unjust-enrichment Principle

one benefiting unfairly at another's expense (one should not be unjustly enriched at the expense of another)