Topics Justice

Question Let's say a certain group of people V, from a distant country invaded and colonized another group of people G, in the late 19th century. These people V built mansions for themselves, schools for their children, divided G's land among themselves. They then forced this population of natives to work for them, and built up a vibrant economy from this exploitation Now we are in the 21st century, all the people who invaded G are dead of old age, and their descendants are still benefiting from their father's colonization. G managed to get political independence from V, but the economy is still in the hands of V. What is the just thing to do here, both for V and G?

Accepted:
October 26, 2007

Comments

This sort of case satisfies three conditions: Contemporary Vs enjoy considerably superior starting positions and life conditions than contemporary Gs. The starting positions and life conditions of contemporary Gs and Vs are profoundly affected by the historical wrongs committed by earlier Vs against earlier Gs. And it would be impossible surgically to correct the wrongs (in the way one might correct a recent theft by restoring the stolen object to its rightful owner).

In such cases, I would think that justice makes at least these two demands: Starting positions and life conditions are to be made roughly equal between the two groups. And very poor and very inferior (to the V+G average) starting positions are to be avoided insofar as this is reasonably possible.

To be sure, justice may well make the second demand independently of historical wrongs. But I think the moral reasons for avoiding starting positions and living conditions that are avoidably very poor in absolute or relative terms become even stronger when historical wrongs played an important causal role in "selecting" the persons on whom such severe disadvantages are imposed.