Reparative justice, historical injustice, and the nonidentity problem

History is riddled with injustice. Nazi Germany murdered and stole from millions during the Holocaust. Imperial powers expropriated land, relocated populations, and violently maintain(ed) oppressive colonial systems. The slave trade created unimaginable suffering and oppression. These are examples of historical injustice. Historical injustices are unjust actions occurring in the past in which the original individual perpetrators and victims are no longer alive. There is widespread intuition that historical injustices require reparative justice. Yet despite this reparative intuition, reparative justice for historical injustices encounters significant philosophical problems. In this paper, I consider one popular philosophical objection: The Nonidentity Objection.1 The Nonidentity Objection says that contemporary individuals are not owed reparative duties for historical injustices because, without the historical injustice they would not have come to exist.2 I show that the objection does not succeed. I accept the claim that particular individuals would not have come to exist without the injustice but deny that it vitiates their claim to reparative justice. I argue that the Objection only challenges reparations if we assume a model of reparative justice on which claims to reparations are generated by the harms that result from an injustice. If we use a different model of reparative justice, the Nonidentity Objection does not succeed and we can vindicate reparations. I begin (Section 2) by presenting a general understanding of reparative justice, including three questions any model of reparative justice must answer. I sketch a popular model of reparative justice (the Harm Model) that is often used in the context of historical injustice to answer these questions. Next (Section 3), I present the Nonidentity Objection that challenges the possibility of reparative justice for historical injustice. I argue (Section 4) that the Objection only applies to arguments that assume the Harm Model. I offer an alternative model of reparative justice (the Wrongful Interaction Model) on which reparations address the wrongful actions of the injustice. I develop this model by drawing on accounts of relational (second-personal) morality,3 and demonstrate how the model overcomes the Objection.4 I conclude (Section 5) by introducing three new problems that my model faces. I argue that we should prefer my model over the Harm Model because these challenges pose a less intractable threat than the nonidentity problem. Reparative justice starts from the intuition that injustices require repair. Reparative justice is distinct from distributive justice. Distributive justice concerns an allocation of resources, burdens or benefits, or a fair state of affairs. In contrast, reparative justice concerns what is owed to victims of a discrete unjust action. Where distributive justice determines allocations of goods, rights, benefits, and burdens in a society, reparative justice determines what victims of injustice are owed on the grounds of this unjust act. I am concerned with a particular kind of reparative justice that is about unjust interactions between wrongdoers and victims. This kind of reparative justice is about what victims of these unjust interactions are owed because of these unjust interactions. This interactional reparative justice can be distinguished from structural theories of reparative justice (Butt, 2021; Lu, 2017, 114–143). Structural theories determine what ought to be done to promote a more just state of affairs, distribution, or structure. Interactional theories concern what ought to be done about something that occurs in the past because of the morally significant features of this past event itself, not what addressing this past event will do in the future. There is a related distinction between backwards-looking and forward-looking theories of reparative justice. Backwards-looking justice concerns what is owed to respond to some unjust event occurring in the past. Forward-looking justice concerns what would best promote the just state of affairs in the future. One might think that interactional reparative justice is inherently structural reparative justice is this not be the Forward-looking theories of interactional reparative justice and backwards-looking theories can structural 2021; I no on the between and forward-looking justice this in I am concerned with is interactional reparative justice of this or forward-looking reparative justice. The that I my to interactional reparative justice should not be to that I think that of reparative justice structural or forward-looking are or have no the I have I think these of justice are for addressing historical injustice. I my to interactional reparative justice because an of reparative justice interactional justice any of justice. if think that structural justice is the of for past interactional justice is for and for wrongdoers (Butt, 2021; in this is to vindicate this kind of reparative justice from the Objection that challenges I to use this to to The model of reparative justice must be to questions in a that can be to historical model must show how the of reparative justice for injustices for historical injustice despite the of answer to questions show that reparative justice for historical injustice is and to the we to show that the or of reparative justice for injustices for historical injustice. If are no in the present are for the significant features of the unjust that the claim to reparative justice, if are no victims these significant or if it is not to which reparations must address the of reparative justice for the historical injustice is not the with The significant features of the that reparative justice are about the that I stole and to The of reparations is reparations will of and for of the the of the injustice are I must the to The three questions are more The features of the unjust interactions of have and their have is which must be to address the original interactions. The and the of the present in Yet the interactions do not in the present between the individuals and we model of reparative justice we use for the to some in the present reparative justice to three questions are to show that is a model of reparative justice that can be to of historical arguments to the with a Reparative justice is generated a wrongful in the of reparations is by the harms that result from the and the that these harms reparations to the these this the Harm Model of reparative justice The Harm Model of Reparative reparative justice only if it is a wrongful that in harms that some the of reparations is by these and only if a is in some for the wrongful and a the harms from this The is and popular for of historical of the model in their to questions One is the by reparative justice is generated a in harms and reparations must address these are reparations are victims of a this the present individuals are because of the of reparations they and their are is one of the by and this of the individuals in the present harms because their should have reparations. would have this and would have Reparative justice that present individuals reparations for these harms of reparations. is the of victims of historical injustices are in the present because they with their must address these the injustice to is not to any particular of the I consider an objection that challenges any of reparations for historical injustice that the The nonidentity is a general philosophical by that an event an is for an to that does not have a claim this event because, if it not the would not have come to the a I assume for the of the they be to be by the is owed reparations for an injustice only if the is by that injustice If an event is a for an to this be to be by this event Historical injustices are for or present come to exist present is by any historical injustice present is owed reparative justice for historical injustices the nonidentity more on a particular of that an harms only if that than they would have the not This is the of the Nonidentity Objection the to and for the nonidentity to more the must on the I will show that the alternative accounts of to the Nonidentity Objection or be used by the to to reparations for historical injustice. The is says that is by an they are by this to a this would not have The nonidentity because the is not If the not the would not that this that any of will the if it a if an harms it than they to the it encounters the nonidentity in the the One might a of an harms that than they ought to be or have This to be a of that does not on a that is to the nonidentity problem. this than one ought to have is between the is than they ought to have is in to a different that have the is than they ought to is in of The understanding is to the nonidentity problem. the would not exist the not is no that the ought to have that would have the any because is no that have done that would result in the of the only the than one ought to have is in of the nonidentity problem. consider this the is that any of will to the nonidentity in the the of the that is to the nonidentity the we an alternative of that is consider examples of and the Nonidentity the to be to use these accounts of in a that reparative justice for historical injustice. consider in says that an harms it in a some The to the nonidentity problem. are by an this a if they would not exist without this action. are in by and to I but in the if the a of it would not for the of reparative justice. The determines reparations on the harms that result from the do the would have to determine which state harms the result of the actions and would not have if not for the this that the is just a of the the of reparative justice. The alternative to the is the by 2021; The says that an harms if they are than they ought to have to have is in of an The to this the in the context of justice. the is by a The is is to a an this of for a the harms The of the nonidentity for in or would result in a of for the the by the a of reparative justice, it to reparations for of the that the Nonidentity Objection In the it does not a different result than the Nonidentity Objection in of historical injustice. that the on does not to offer a of that reparative justice the my I and this in a to This does not the of to a if the would use the it would that are not owed reparative justice for the because are not address this one might the to use a different that the will of the the the we will be to a in which is but not the which something a This will we the that any that in any will the the the this of the have it with the The result is a harms if that than they would have or some this the The overcomes the can that are by the because are than would have if are not a of it the can be the to claims to reparations. this be by the in a that reparative justice for historical if the for some of justice, it does not vindicate reparations for historical If we to that present individuals are the the encounters the the In of historical present individuals would not have the injustice not they be than they would have on the the only to that present individuals are is to that they are a of in not of historical injustice that the Nonidentity Objection is to this an historical injustices have not present individuals a of for of victims of the from Nazi Germany and to of these a The would that these are not by the historical injustice and not be owed reparative justice to the The applies for any individuals the in any historical individuals are not than they would have they would not have without the and they are not a In of victims of historical injustice the reparative justice for these the which the does not vindicate reparative justice for historical injustices any than the of the might to the to vindicate the possibility of we can that present individuals are by an related to the historical injustice that occurs they are the of not victims reparations reparations harms of victims because it than they would have the reparations to their This might be to the individuals are because they are by the injustice of not with reparations. the that harms (the of not their occurs they are present individuals are by this action. to the they are and are owed reparations. This does not a to the Nonidentity it an that harms present this is not an of the historical injustice. it is an related to the historical injustice that is the result of the injustice. is to vindicate reparations for the unjust interactions of the historical the this reparations on the grounds that the actions of the historical injustice present This reparations for a different action. Reparative justice be but it is not reparative justice for the wrongful of the historical injustice. it is reparations for some (Butt, The Nonidentity Objection is not to reparations for the injustice. The Nonidentity Objection only challenges reparations for the of the historical injustice. This of does not vindicate the kind of interactional reparative justice for historical injustices we are the use this kind of to the Nonidentity to the be the in a that the the Nonidentity to be to accept If an does not an than the would have that not that does not that if an event is a for an to that is not by the says that for present and historical historical injustices are for these come to is in the present is a of their and a Historical injustices are and have the of that they are for the particular are in the present come to is that the of the in the present would have and their the if the injustice not of The slave trade a of that the that the present individuals would not have the injustices not The slave trade in harms including harms to and any individuals in the present we might to be by the slave only because the slave trade The of is that not no individual would have the they that this particular individual This applies to we might is by the injustice. any in the present we might is by the their would not have and their the they not individual would not have come to exist they be to be by the injustice. can in a that to of the historical injustices in the between individuals do not exist in the and have any individual in the historical injustices are for their This is if an or injustice of the by if think the injustice the the original interactions that it have come to for any historical injustice and any individual in the the historical injustice be to that individual this we the Nonidentity in the present harms a result of a historical are no harms in the present that reparations can If reparative justice is generated a in and if reparations address these reparative justice is not for the historical is that reparations would reparative justice for historical injustice is not The Nonidentity Objection challenges reparations generated by the the we can develop a different model of reparations that does not the problems the develop this The Wrongful Interaction Model of Reparative reparative justice if and only if it is a wrongful of it in the of reparations is by the particular features that the and only if a is morally for the wrongful and a is a of this can begin by a distinction between harms and the a I I I an that I ought not have without to of or not this a it is because it with something that ought to have to to This of the or relational understanding of for by and This of says that an is it with the that ought to have to the to determine from the of This on a on which an is owed concern and and ought to be from used a to any that in a that a of concern or for their are morally in a with that to in with this concern and is the of something an to in of this they ought to of on this is a in the that one is to and to from in to an an with the of a the is wrongful because the owed it to the to the determine what do with the of that in of an examples of that this that ought to have between and on this of actions are if they do not wrongful actions are wrongful for which we can from in what to on the that between in of their in what would be for but be wrongful to if the the it if it is the kind of that the ought not have done to use a a an about the action. This is it does not or the is because the with the to not to do the action. the is because it the to that is not to develop this of and do I claim that of is in this that my is to is that in the of or these or is not because these actions would but because they are by the kind of ought to not historical injustices and The is that the of the is different from the harms that result from the action. The the claim to reparative justice of the Reparative justice on the is generated by the wrongful of the injustice. The of the reparations is by the particular features of this the or relational understanding of a in the and that a that ought to have between the and the the the reparations on the address a by the that ought to between the and The of reparations will on the features of the particular in and what it to the that ought to have between the and the particular that the and the this for the to this will in of the and for harms related to the The of the is because the to the the and in a The for harms is because the does not address harms related to their they to the in a that is by the they ought to in and to if it is to have the in that of in is not to a of how the determines the of reparations. my is to show the general that accounts of reparative justice the determine that the is a alternative to the and that the is not to the Nonidentity must the that is because the a and with something that ought to have the a reparations the in which the does not actions their of their to the not to with the of the I I with something that ought to have to I must the because it is in of the have to from can a distinction between the particular of the and the the of the would be the the the the in which the in their to from to from In the of the the I in some it be to the of the if I have or the of be an In that is more to In of the of an the the the must do of this in the context of historical injustice is The says that claims to historical injustices no longer because claims of justice in the present the historical claims The to the possibility of reparations on the wrongful model because it to the of a If is a claim to the of the to in we that The does not the possibility of reparations on the the the of a particular of the it does not the of the that are not to a a to a less of a in the context of expropriated in that the to that is not a to the the to that their a to develop The that not the use of the but the of to have of if the that the (the particular this does not that the to with to develop be (the the can in the to develop and This is because the by the of can be if we the particular of the that used to that the of the There is to the that the that does not the claim to reparations. between and of which are of to the of the to addressing harms that result from the can be owed if is if of the is no longer it is or because a claim to it be owed Reparative justice and because of the of the is not does not that is with a of the reparations is to the Nonidentity we can on distinction between and to reparations on the and how the the of what it for reparations to be for the is that reparations will in the that reparations that address the must address the of this have on the the If I and it for from it in reparations for this be by the reparations must address the this can by of with In reparations on the in to the must address the of harms or that the kind of This that if of the of the the is not reparations will require addressing the by addressing the of harms that it the the and address harms in the the that a in harms is not a for reparative justice to be generated on the the reparative justice is only generated if a in harms we have the is than they would have the reparative justice is generated if a occurs a of the reparations for this be reparations for the of harms that result from this This that the is not to the Nonidentity it does not a of reparations that the is reparative justice be on the grounds that in the present are not a result of historical the the does not to that any harms in would not have if the not for the harms to require The might that harms ought to be if they are the kind of harms that be the result of the This is because the for the harms is owed of general reparations to that the ought not the in the the for harms is not because the in the for harms is because the the kind of that that the does not the of and one the this is because of the kind of it can to sketch the the determines for a not develop a of kind of for wrongful interactions. The a model of reparations that is not to the Nonidentity Objection reparative justice is not generated by the that the would be the not The overcomes the Nonidentity Objection because it The that a is is not a for reparative justice. This that if a historical injustice is a for a present to exist does not the they can be owed reparative justice for the historical injustice they be by the historical injustice. this one might a model in the nonidentity it not be the that the nonidentity applies to if an event is a for to one be to be by If we the Nonidentity Objection to the If present are not by historical they are not owed reparations for the historical injustice. There have this to to the nonidentity I to show that these do not my is to vindicate reparative justice for historical injustices from the Nonidentity not the nonidentity not general original nonidentity they do the Nonidentity Objection to reparations for historical injustice. if arguments to the nonidentity the they do not to the Nonidentity Objection to reparations for historical injustice. demonstrate I will consider to the nonidentity which and original to the nonidentity we will the it to arguments do not in of historical injustice. to the nonidentity by a and that individuals in nonidentity are not because they do not have their The is are not if they their are not if they would have their if they not have an to it If they would have a or to their they do their and an does not the of an to a The to but that a to would this and the does not by In nonidentity individuals would their to the that This is because if they to they would be between a in which they would have a and a in which they would not come they have a to their to the they do their and are not The by would the to the Nonidentity If in the present would their that is by the historical injustice on this they are not and do not have a claim to reparative justice. that historical injustices are to the in the present are between an that to their and an that they do not to exist in the present would their that they can come to on the in the present are not and to not be owed reparative justice. There are to the The is a general that challenges it on the grounds that it and the for that would their on the grounds of a that they would be is a claim about their in a is morally significant because it is an that in a that they ought not to be on what to of their the of is not to from The of is to to for and from these for if the would do actions for that an would that would it does not that do The of is that are the one to the is a to the that applies in of historical injustice. The says are not they would a would to because would be or a would a with a because would not be is an between these in which the is and of historical injustice. The original wrongful interactions in historical injustices are of present These that by the actions of the historical injustice. present have a to their they have a not to their to the if the have a not their ought not their to the the these individuals if does a and does an not a this does not in of historical injustice. this about can In an to the of a If the without the the would The does not have a to the with a would on the grounds that the alternative would be in the in which is that we can that the of is a The a not to can be if would have a to the The historical injustice is to the have a not to their to the unjust actions of the historical injustice and are by the does not the a to the Nonidentity Objection in of historical injustice. I have that a model of reparative justice on can the Nonidentity Objection to reparations for historical injustice. I to conclude by three challenges that this kind of model of which concerns how to the of the of the and the particular features of the in In of historical the original perpetrators and victims are we a to the and the of the injustice despite the that the original and victims are we do encounters significant we the one between we to show how the wrongful of the historical injustice present This that the of the historical injustice must be done some present individuals that they have a claim to reparative justice for This encounters the of how an can or of individuals do not we to the one done to a In of historical the does not to be done to the kind of that can be a something that one owed to a of a must be an only of the for of the of historical injustice do not to be done to these for and the in these the for that if we the done between we historical we to show how can be a in the present reparations for the historical injustice. the individual and the individual we the of how present individuals not the historical injustices for the we the that that to be wrongdoers of historical injustices have not the original injustice. Germany (the for the of the of the it a an with different of and a some of that the that it can reparations for past of these are philosophical that the must despite these we have to prefer the over the The the nonidentity which a and intractable philosophical that to The a to this problem. it problems of it a to the general philosophical we ought to consider are to the problems it faces. the for an for how of historical injustice the of present the an on which of a can be owed reparations on their of the if the is not a for the an for There is more to be done to show how the can these of to develop the of these do not use the and to the Nonidentity the to that we should prefer the over the despite the challenges it faces. I would to and the and the in for and The no of from the of the of in is a by the and of in including and and

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.