Comments

Review these ideas and then use the BACK key in your browser to go back to the page you were on.


Some philosophers believe that compensation is limited to cases in which an injustice has occurred. Injustice itself is often limited to cases in which rights have been violated. If we take this familiar approach, we must have at least a rough theory of justice and rights in order to argue for compensation. If you apply this approach to race relations, you might argue first that racial discrimination is (or is not) a violation of the moral rights of black Americans. Then you could argue that there should (or should not) be compensation for such a violation. But it is important that you develop a rationale for whatever rights you ascribe to people.


Loss of information is important in many cases of compensation. In the early 20th century many southern blacks farmed cotton as tenants or sharecroppers. The records of rent, costs, advances, cotton prices, and so on were kept by the white landlord. Many of the farmers could do little arithmetic. Furthermore, custom made it extremely difficult for a tenant to question the landlord's determinations. Tenants often suspected that they were cheated, but had no way to prove it. These might be cases for compensation, but today the information is lost. How are we to properly consider cases in which the relevant information is simply not available or available only at great cost?