Inherited Guilt Vs. Assumed Responsibility
A Question Raised
A few years back a British friend living in the US complained that his daughter was not accepted by some American colleges because, he believed, she was discriminated against due to affirmative action. Whether or not this was true, he questioned why someone who had no historic connection to slavery or Jim Crow or institutional discrimination, and in fact was not even in this country when they were in force, should have to pay a price to make up for these injustices.
This is a legitimate question about how we fairly redress our deeply flawed past, with implications that extend beyond affirmative action to the question of reparations for the descendants of American slaves. At the time I failed to come up with a good answer. I will attempt one here.
A Proposed Approach
I now think the best way of approaching this question is by making a clear distinction between inherited guilt and assumed responsibility. In earlier eras, these two concepts were often inseparable. The law often punished not only those who committed crimes, but their direct descendants, extended families, and even been entire ethnic groups.
(While we might assume this kind of thinking a relic of the past, we need only remember the Americans who attacked Asians because they believed Japanese were “taking their jobs,” or who attacked Muslims after 9/11.)
In modern Western countries, however, these two concepts are strictly separated. Guilt is considered an individual condition, for which only a person directly involved in a crime can be punished. Our Constitution forbids “corruption by blood,” meaning the children of a traitor cannot be penalized for the crime of a parent.
But Much Comes with the Territory
Yet we inherit or assume all kinds of responsibilities and obligations that have nothing to do with our personal actions. In the most immediate sense, heirs inherit the debts of the deceased along with his or her assets. I could say, “But these are Uncle Joe’s debts, not mine.” But to no avail.
I am also responsible for paying off municipal bonds that were issued long before I moved to a municipality or was even born. In an even broader framework, everyone who resides in a society is required to obey all kinds of laws passed decades, even centuries ago by people long dead whom they never had a chance to elect.
Beyond obeying laws, we also share responsibility for the maintenance of society as a whole, even in ways that may not benefit us directly. My taxes go to pay firefighters I never need, to build roads I never travel, educate kids I don’t have, and support the indigent even if I’m not. I may also be required to serve on juries or in the armed forces.
Societal Debts
But societies themselves also bear responsibility for their collective actions, and for the actions of those acting on their behalf. I can sue a municipality if one of its policemen violates my civil rights, or if I’m defrauded by a government official. Local taxpayers may have to pick up the tab for my suit even though they are not responsible for these illicit actions.
This same principle applies to the past actions of a society, particularly serious violations of human rights. Germany paid reparations to Jews and others who suffered during the Third Reich regardless of whether or not they were German citizens. The debt was societal, not governmental; it did not go away when Hitler was defeated but was assumed by the new German republic and funded by German citizens regardless of their Nazi involvement.
So, while I enjoy the prosperity, democratic institutions, rule of law, and opportunities afforded by the decisions, sacrifices, and contributions of countless generations, I also assume the responsibility to rectify, to whatever degree possible, the injustices they committed. And in truth, our national strength and general prosperity owe a great deal to the decimation of the native American population, and to slavery and the slave trade.
I assume these responsibilities not because of my personal culpability, but because I am a part of a society and inherit its blessings along with its debts. And this rule applies to all our residents, not just those whose ancestors owned slaves or settled in land belonging to native Americans, but all who are born or reside here.
In my court, the jury accepts Barrister John’s argument and finds for the prosecution. Pay up, dudes, you owe it, just like you owe taxes.
One of the things that separates human beings from others in the animal kingdom is that we dwell on the past and we think about the future just as much as the present day. Fellow animals seem to be focused almost wholly on the current moment of time. Understandably this causes us to reflect on our societal responsibilities. It comes with past, future and present reflections.
I’m not sure that we have to accept responsibility for actions for which we had no contribution. However, I do think that any of us in a financially and socially strong position have a responsibility for those who are less fortunate. I am of the view that the bed we are born into is a huge gift of luck. This should never be forgotten when we are patting ourselves on the back and thinking that our beneficial position is the result of our dedication and hard work.
This means that we have a responsibility for others less fortunate – not necessarily because of the past actions of our forebears but because of the good luck we have inherited. How much we owe for this good luck, who should benefit and how we rectify the situation, are tough questions and I confess I don’t know the answers.
Paul, thanks for your very thoughtful response. Clearly we disagree about responsibility for actions for which we have no contribution. But I do concur that those of us born into a more comfortable life, or achieving this through our own efforts, advantageous marriage, or just good luck shoulder responsibility for those less fortunate. At the most basic level, this means paying taxes that one way or another contribute to the redistribution of wealth to cover basic needs of the less fortunate. But it also implies finding other ways of “giving back,” through charities, volunteering, speaking up, etc. All these land on the “blessed” personally.
I would also extend this to societies/countries that have the wealth and resources to help those in dire straits, not least because the latter’s situation is often a direct or indirect result of the former’s activities. European colonization gutted many third-world countries’ economies and societies, as did US activity in South America. And the terrible droughts, floods, and famines afflicting many of these same countries can be traced to the industrialized world’s decades of carbon emissions.
Yes, how to rectify centuries of “sins” and others’ just bad luck are tough questions with no easy answers. But acknowledging some degree of responsibility, either personally, or socially, is a good place to start.
Fred