Against Reparations
(Slave sale, Charleston, 1856, Public Domain)
As usual I'll go through a few of the more common arguments and why, given an average set of axiomatic beliefs, they shouldn't be acceptable. A few things to bear in mind:
- I take arguments at their strongest. There are far weaker reasons out there but those do not interest me as much.
- I may be wrong or missing certain important arguments. If I am, comment below or email me.
Historical Debt
How the argument goes:
We did harm to certain groups of people in the past. If you harm someone, you should pay compensation to them. Hence, we should pay compensation to, say, women in the form of a tax credit.
Why it's (usually) wrong:
Sons should not be punished for the sins of the father.
- If you believe that people are owed a debt for crimes done to their ancestors, you must by extension believe that those whose ancestors commuted crimes owe a debt to the victims of those crimes.
- This principle has disturbing implications. For example, it means that you should also believe that a good man who has lived a decent life, but whose father was a criminal, should be punished for his fathers crimes or forced to pay reparations to the victims of those crimes.
Unless you are willing to treat people not as individuals but as members of a group, to punish the innocent for the crimes of their race, class, gender or tribe then you should not believe that reparations are just because they repay a historical debt.
Positive Consequences
How the argument goes:
Paying reparations would have positive effects such as reducing inequality/changing attitudes/improving our international standing etc...
Why it's wrong:
It's not. In certain cases, paying reparations may have practical benefits which outweigh the moral costs. The only way to be sure is to look at the benefits on a case by case basis.
It Increases Average Utility
How the argument goes:
People receiving reparations will, on average, be worse off than most of society. Assuming money has decreasing marginal utility per unit, meaning the more you have the less additional dollar is worth, then transferring money from society to the poor will make more people better off than it makes worse off.
Why it's wrong:
Giving the same amount of money to the most needy individual, rather than to a particular group which is on average more needy, would help more. In other words:
- Group X, the target of reparations, is on average worse off/poorer than the norm for society.
- This does not mean that every individual in group X is below average. Most may be, but some will likely be above.
- Therefore, paying reparations to group X will result in some money going to people who are above average.
- Therefore, paying the same money specifically to poorer individuals, rather than all members of a group, would be better as all, rather than only a proportion, of the money would go to those below average.
Member discussion