Emmanuel Akingbemi Poli sci 179: (Justice) June 11th, 2021 Final Essay (2000 words) Over the past ten weeks in this course, we studied three principles of Justice: utilitarianism, libertarianism, and the teleological principles of Justice. Each of these principles has different main ideas that help arrive at their definition of a just act. On the issue of reparations, it is essential to know what these principles think about the original sin of slavery to understand what they will decide about reparations and what it would look like in our contemporary times. According to a Utilitarian, the definition of Justice is the act that yields the maximum happiness for society overall. Utilitarianism's main idea is that the highest principle of morality, whether personal or political morality, is to maximize the general welfare or collective happiness or the overall balance of pleasure over pain, in essence, to maximize utility (Sandel, p. 34). The utilitarian always looks to ensure that the maximum happiness is achieved for the greatest number of people by using the cost-benefit analysis to arrive at a decision. "...the utilitarian assumption that morality consists in weighing costs and benefits, and simply wants a fuller reckoning of the social consequences" (Sandel, p.33). For the utilitarian to assert that reparations are justified, a utilitarian must conduct a cost-benefit analysis on whether the decision to support reparations will promote the greatest happiness. On the other hand, the moral crux of libertarian philosophy is the idea of self-ownership, meaning that if one owns one's self, then no one else has the right to one's labor and time (Sandel, p. 65). This very premise of the libertarian principle of Justice is that of anti-coercion. Thus, a libertarian would see slavery as a morally reprehensible act. Still, even though they think slavery is an unjust act, it does not mean that a utilitarian would necessarily support reparations. Lastly, the teleological premise of Justice is that Justice is teleological and honorific. As the father of teleological thought, Aristotle believed that "justice means giving people what they deserve, giving each person his or her due" (Sandel, p. 187). In reasoning about Justice and rights, we have unavoidably to reason about the purpose or the end of the telos of social practices and institutions. Justice requires giving equal things to equal persons—that is equal to the respect of rewarding the virtue of the talented in regards to what is being distributed. Aristotle had the most extensive opinions on slavery which I plan on delving into later. Applying Aristotle's logic to where he would arrive at regarding the issue of reparations, we might assume that the biggest question for Aristotle is whether or not descendants of the enslaved are virtuous enough to receive whatever might be distributed as a result of reparations. To decide whether or not reparations are justified, the thought leaders of these principles of Justice will firstly have to answer whether slavery was a just act. If they believe that slavery was unjust, they might be more inclined to support reparations in some form. A utilitarian is all about maximizing utility or achieving the greatest happiness for the highest number of people. With this premise, a utilitarian might justify slavery as necessary for the betterment of early American society because it led to the greatest happiness for the more significant number of people. For example, the vast majority of white settlers during the years of slavery were content with the fact that enslaved Africans had to do all the labor in the fields without any compensation. Therefore, they justified slavery because it made lives easier for the white settlers, who could attend to whatever else they preferred to do with their free time and profits gained from the slaves' labor. As the father of Utilitarian thought, Jeremy Bentham believed that "the highest principle of morality is to maximize happiness, the overall balance of pleasure over pain." (Sandel, p. 34). This means that the right thing to do is whatever will maximize utility. Now, regarding slavery, Bentham would say that if the majority decides slavery to maximize happiness, then the minority has to be subjugated to be ruled and oppressed by the majority to maximize utility. Thus, one of the most significant objections to utilitarianism is that it violates individual freedom by imposing the majority's opinion upon the minority, as seen in the utilitarian defense of slavery. Now on the question of reparations, a utilitarian would first ponder what the cost-benefit of enacting a reparations law would mean for its citizenry. That is, would a reparations law lead to maximum utility amongst my constituents? A utilitarian must conduct a cost-benefit analysis to answer this question on the issue of reparations. A utilitarian cost-benefit analysis on reparations might conclude that the vast majority of the population does not consent to be charged for the sins of their forefathers. Although some might argue that slavery benefitted every person living in civilized America, others might counter this point by saying that since no one alive experienced slavery nor participated in it; they do not bear the Fault or responsibility to repay the descendants of the enslaved. A utilitarian would argue that reparations blame the majority for something that they did not participate in nor engaged in, so they do not have the onus to repay the proverbial debt for the sins of their ancestors. Ultimately, a law favoring reparations will be the citizenry's responsibility, especially in a monetary form. A utilitarian would argue that placing the atonement for the sin of slavery solely on the citizenry would not maximize happiness. Instead, it places guilt and the financial burden on people who did not directly commit the evil act they are being charged to atone. A libertarian believes that unlike the utilitarian, who is mainly concerned with the majority's collective happiness, the libertarian is primarily concerned with individual rights. Libertarian rejection of utilitarian logic says that the fundamental individual right is the right to liberty precisely because we are separate individual beings (Sandel, p. 59). We are not available to any use that society might desire or devise. While a utilitarian might justify slavery, the libertarian recognizes that slavery is unjust under every circumstance because the individual did not choose to be a slave without coercion. On the question of whether a form of repetitive and dangerous job is, for the libertarian, "...the answer would depend on whether the workers had freely exchanged their labor for a wage; if they did, the work is just" (Sandel, p. 203). Based on this answer, a libertarian would vehemently reject the justification for slavery because it infringed on individual rights and the principle of self-possession. The libertarian, having conceded that slavery was an unjust act, the libertarian will be hesitant to support reparations fully. The topic of reparations will look different for the libertarian because he believes there must be no redistribution of wealth or income. "The libertarian theory of rights rules out any law that requires some people to help others, including taxation for redistribution of wealth" (Sandel, p. 60). Reparations can be seen as a redistributive effort to lessen the generational gap of wealth amongst racial minorities and descendants of the enslaved. As previously stated that libertarians recognize that reparations as a form of an apology to atone for the sins of the past are justified so far as it is not for the sake of bringing about greater equality for its own sake. A famous libertarian, Robert Nozick, argued that "...distributive justice depends on two requirements—justice in initial holdings and justice in transfer" (Sandel, p. 63). The critical thing that libertarians specify is Justice in the acquisition of wealth. A crucial question the libertarian asks to decide if there was Justice in the acquisition is, "did people get the things they use to make their money fairly?" A libertarian might argue that if the state could trace back the family history of slave ownership, then that family is responsible for reparations to the descendants of the slaves that the family owned in the past. The libertarian is against taxing the entire population to atone for the sin of slavery because not everyone in the nation benefited from the institution of slavery. It makes more sense to the libertarian that only the families who have benefitted from owning slaves in the past are responsible for atoning for the sin of slavery. The teleological principle of Justice dictates that Justice is about giving people what they deserve. The teleological approach to Justice laid out the most extensive thought about the morality of slavery. Aristotle stated in the justification of slavery that "justice is a matter of fit...and to fit persons to the roles that suit them...giving persons their due means giving them the offices and honors they deserve and the social roles that accord with their nature" (Sandel, p. 200). Slavery, according to Aristotle, was a necessary natural occurrence because certain people are built to be slaves, and the society to function adequately needed slaves. "Slavery is necessary, Aristotle argues, because someone must look after the household chores if citizens are to spend time in the assembly deliberating about the common good" (Sandel, p. 201). Now, Aristotle makes the distinction by asserting that slaves must fit their role, meaning that if someone were made a slave and were not the right fit for that role, that act would be considered unjust. Critiques of this view on social role and fit say that allocating rights based on fit is not a just act; however, letting people choose their societal role is the ultimate peak of allocating rights. Allocating right based on fit is unjust, and Aristotle does see that his defense of slavery can be struck under certain conditions. He reasons that for slavery to be a just act, some people need to be suited to the role of slaves by nature, and if they somehow were not suited by nature to be slaves, then it is unjust. It is easy to wonder then how one can tell if someone is suited to be a slave by nature; Aristotle answers this by saying you would have to see who flourishes in their roles as slaves, and as long as they are not forced to do it then it is a just act. On the topic of reparations, Aristotle would ask if the slaves were forced into their roles as slaves; if the answer is yes, the teleological principle necessitates a law for reparations. "For Aristotle, coercion is a sign of injustice, not because consent legitimates all roles, but because the need for force suggests an unnatural fit" (Sandel, p. 202). If a nation needs to force a people to be under servitude for generations, then people did not willingly choose to be slaves, which makes it an injustice. Injustices need to be atoned. The teleological mode of thought would argue that because not all slaves were fit to be slaves, especially because many slaves were captured as prisoners of war, they were not fit to be slaves, and the fact that they were slaves was a great injustice. The three principles of Justice: utilitarianism, libertarianism, and teleological principle, have varying views on slavery and reparations. It is clear to see that their opinion on reparations is contingent on their view of slavery. The libertarian approach on reparations of putting the onus on families with a history of slave-ownership seems to be the most feasible and the most persuasive because it is natural for the vast majority of the population to reject the responsibility of slavery. However, it is difficult for a family with a history of slave-ownership to outrightly reject responsibility because it can be argued that their family history of slave-ownership led to their present-day wealth and atone for their family's sin. However, the teleological approach to reparations is also compelling considering that it is an argument that an entire citizenry can understand. The injustice of slavery will fall solely on society because some will say slavery was necessary but still an unjust act.
