Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Vanderbilt Law Review

Abstract

In recent years there have been lively popular and academic debates in the U.S. and elsewhere about whether to redress injustices committed decades and sometimes hundreds of years ago, such as African-American slavery. This article examines whether there is a moral justification for repairing historical injustices. My overall theme is the difficulty of devising a compelling moral argument for redressing such injustices, notwithstanding the moral arguments often invoked by the proponents of redress. I begin by briefly introducing the claims that have been advanced in the U.S. for redressing historical injustices. In particular, I analyze the characteristics of the wrongs for which redress has been claimed, the ways that claims have been advanced, and the remedies requested. Then I specify three moral arguments often made in the U.S. in support of redressing historical injustices, and underscore the difficulties of making out a case for redress using these arguments. To emphasize the moral complexity of claims for redress, I also offer an original case study of a recent claim: the claim against the Swiss banks for profiting from the Holocaust that resulted in a $1.25 billion settlement in 1998. The case study underscores the difficulty of justifying redress for historical injustices by examining whether the program being implemented to address the banks' wrongs is morally justifiable. I conclude by suggesting that the difficulty of justifying claims for redressing historical injustices counsels in favor of focusing more on recent than historical injustices.

First Page

127

Volume

61

Publication Date

2008

Download

Share

COinS