Monday, April 16, 2007
The question of collective responsibility for past actions is a live topic in historical politics even yet. Recently, the states of Virginia and Maryland passed resolutions expressing regret for their involvement in slavery and segregation. North Carolina, Texas, Georgia, and even the US House of Representatives have taken up similar projects. The question being argued all over this country is this: should our contemporary society be held responsible for the actions of our ancestors?
The Pendragon is not as hostile to the idea of collective responsibility as you might think. But there are some very stringent conditions that should be considered before deciding to take that plunge (thanks to John Kekes' Against Liberalism for the articulation of these principles): first of all, the organization being judged must be a moral organization. If a member of a chess-club once shouted a racial slur, it is unfair to penalize all future members of the chess club. But if a church does something of that nature, it may make sense to consider all members of that church, even into the future, as being somewhat tainted. The second step is that the action being condemned must be characteristic of the organization--a doctor's association may be held responsible for one of their number refusing to treat a black man because doctors are supposed to treat sick people. Third, the people committing the crimes must have identified themselves with the group in question, and it must be an enduring indentification. If the group expelled them after they committed the crimes, they have done their duty and bear no responsibility. But the killer element is, would Americans today do the same if put in the same position? This is a very difficult thing to decide, and it would seem fair to concede that we probably would (at least assuming that we were put into the position knowing only what people at the time knew and no more). John Locke popularized the idea of tacit consent--merely the fact that you remained within a group and received its benefits means you are giving silent approval to the group's activities. This may be true if you are talking about the Freemasons, but when dealing with membership in a country, the picture becomes blurry. What about those who would like to leave in protect but cannot afford to do so? The second difficulty with this response is practical in nature: suppose we accept the idea that individuals can be held responsible for others in their group, what obligation does that lay on the individual?
Let's apply this to the debate today. Should states acknowledge past wrongs and express regret? Yes. The criteria fit. Should they take it another step and authorize payment to the descendents of slaves and Indians and the Japanese? No. They should acknowledge past shortcomings and work to reform their systems, but nothing should be said about some kind of repayment to people who never suffered by those who did not inflict the suffering. Even if it is argued, as it is with some merit, that the mistreatment of blacks was a fundamental characteristic of American society, the current public has acknowledged the error of these ways and rejected the values that caused them—therefore, the American public can be assigned no blame in the matter for what their forefathers may or may not have done to black slaves, American Indians, or anybody else. This does mean, as noted above, that the American public cannot make some kind of public apology, but this should be restricted to words and then ensuring the like never happens again. This is likely not to happen as southern apologists will hate the idea of even admitting they ever did anything wrong, and leftists will be unlikely to let it rest merely with moving into the future. After all, the very existence of the NAACP and the jobs of men like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson depend on blacks and whites alike continuing to live in the past.
The Pendragon is not as hostile to the idea of collective responsibility as you might think. But there are some very stringent conditions that should be considered before deciding to take that plunge (thanks to John Kekes' Against Liberalism for the articulation of these principles): first of all, the organization being judged must be a moral organization. If a member of a chess-club once shouted a racial slur, it is unfair to penalize all future members of the chess club. But if a church does something of that nature, it may make sense to consider all members of that church, even into the future, as being somewhat tainted. The second step is that the action being condemned must be characteristic of the organization--a doctor's association may be held responsible for one of their number refusing to treat a black man because doctors are supposed to treat sick people. Third, the people committing the crimes must have identified themselves with the group in question, and it must be an enduring indentification. If the group expelled them after they committed the crimes, they have done their duty and bear no responsibility. But the killer element is, would Americans today do the same if put in the same position? This is a very difficult thing to decide, and it would seem fair to concede that we probably would (at least assuming that we were put into the position knowing only what people at the time knew and no more). John Locke popularized the idea of tacit consent--merely the fact that you remained within a group and received its benefits means you are giving silent approval to the group's activities. This may be true if you are talking about the Freemasons, but when dealing with membership in a country, the picture becomes blurry. What about those who would like to leave in protect but cannot afford to do so? The second difficulty with this response is practical in nature: suppose we accept the idea that individuals can be held responsible for others in their group, what obligation does that lay on the individual?
Let's apply this to the debate today. Should states acknowledge past wrongs and express regret? Yes. The criteria fit. Should they take it another step and authorize payment to the descendents of slaves and Indians and the Japanese? No. They should acknowledge past shortcomings and work to reform their systems, but nothing should be said about some kind of repayment to people who never suffered by those who did not inflict the suffering. Even if it is argued, as it is with some merit, that the mistreatment of blacks was a fundamental characteristic of American society, the current public has acknowledged the error of these ways and rejected the values that caused them—therefore, the American public can be assigned no blame in the matter for what their forefathers may or may not have done to black slaves, American Indians, or anybody else. This does mean, as noted above, that the American public cannot make some kind of public apology, but this should be restricted to words and then ensuring the like never happens again. This is likely not to happen as southern apologists will hate the idea of even admitting they ever did anything wrong, and leftists will be unlikely to let it rest merely with moving into the future. After all, the very existence of the NAACP and the jobs of men like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson depend on blacks and whites alike continuing to live in the past.
// posted by The Pendragon @ 10:41 PM 
