Permit me to insert, in medias res, a concern I have:
Ed Weick wrote:
>
> >Too bad they can't assess liability for lost families,
> >intellectual capital, land use ideas etc. It seems to
> >me that you are using the rules of a divorce without
> >separating.
> >
> >Better you start with the ideas of justice
> >and the rule of law as defined by both groups. The
> >truth is that one group has the power,
>
[snip]
How to provide reparations to persons whose
lives have been adversely impacted by
the exploiters, *without* in turn doing
injustice to the persons (such as most of
ourselves) who are associated with the
exploiting classes but have not themselves
done significant exploiting?
This is, of course, an old problem (reverse
discrimination due to "affirmative action", etc.).
But let me put it pointedly: What motivation
should a person have to help others when there is
nothing in it for the person him or herself? For,
if *that kind of life* is good for some, then
(applying Kant's universalizing logic) it should
be good for all, and, therefore, we should
help the exploited -- not to have reparations, but
to have more deprivation.
Another popular idea I find dubious is
providing reparations to the living for the
harms done to the dead. Should a [black, indian,
etc.] M.D., lawyer, university professor,
etc. be paid reparations for the harm
done to his or her ancestors, who, being
dead, are presumably beyond the ability of
earthly things to affect them any more?
Etc.
These probably are not "popular" thoughts and
questions.
Of course there are many *exploiters* living
among us, who should be brought to justice,
and many exploited among us who are in need
of reparation. But it seems to me that the
objective should be to achieve a "win-win"
situation for as many as possible (again,
taking into account the need for justice
in the cases of those who have used power
not for trusteeship but for exploitation).
If it is a tragedy for a person to be
confined to a wheelchair, it is also
a tragedy for a person to have two good legs and
not be socially enabled to use them. If it
is good for the crippled to be enabled to
walk, it is also good for the able-bodied to
walk, too.
It is popular to rank sufferings, and to
dismiss the problems of the relatively well off.
But no less a figure than Elie Wiesel
said (and I heartily concur):
"Don't compare! Don't compare! All suffering is
intolerable."
-- Elie Wiesel (quoted in TIME, 19Sep94, p.94)
\brad mccormick
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<![%THINK;[XML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
