I'd say that Caney's arguments about reparations regarding anthropogenic climate change apply to the issue of reparations for slavery in a very direct way. I say this after looking over the first paragraph under IV. Duty-Ascription 2: The Beneficiary Account. Caney suggests in just the second sentence there that "reparations should be paid by those who have benefited from an injustice." Yes, Caney continues on the topic of climate change and reparations regarding that, but that statement is a general one. It applies to any injustice and anyone who has specifically benefited from such an injustice.
Carney goes on to list multiple ways reparations could be made that could be fair to all parties: The Casual Account, Beneficiary Account, and the Victim. I find that the last two ways he suggests are the most prevalent when dealing with how to make reparations for slavery. He lays out two options that are generalized based on events and such.
Option 1 consists of all parties being alive. In short, it means that the casual account (CA) is alive and the beneficiary account (BA) has well, benefited, from what the CA has done to be unjust towards the victim. Since the CA is still alive, they are responsible of paying reparations toward the victim.
Option 2 consists of the CA being dead, which means that the BA would in turn be responsible for paying back such reparations.
Since many slave owners (CA) are probably deceased by now, those who have benefited off of slavery in any aspect of life (BA) are not responsible for paying reparations toward anyone, black people especially, who have been negatively affected by slavery (victim).
While Caneys argument does not directly target the issue of slavery, it is generalized before being explained under the climate change example. Therefore his argument can be used as a blueprint for any other injustices that need reparations.
No comments:
Post a Comment