> In basketball, if someone gets fouled while trying to make a shot, is it unfair that everyone has to stand back while the person fouled gets to shoot free throws just because they are wearing the same color uniform?
Thank you for your very interesting example! I'll try to address it:
I believe this analogy to be erroneous. An appropriate example would fall somewhere along the lines of the following:
Imagine, in basketball, if a player fouls another player. Or, rather, a team fouls a great number of players on the opposing team. Nothing is done and the opposing team loses.
During a later game—years later, when none of the original players play for either team anymore—the two teams meet up. For an indefinite number of games between two teams, the fouled team is prescribed some number of free throws for all members of their team.
Would you consider that to be an appropriate facility to rectify the past injustice? Perhaps the fouled team's reputation was damaged because of past, persistent losses, so they were no longer able to compete effectively for years. But over time, referees notice the fouls and punish them as they occur, with traditional "fouled player gets free throws".
Should the fouls of the past team be enforced on the new, modern team in such the way described with indefinite, prescribed free throws?
Your example is obvious: yes, those individuals who are harmed are right to have an opportunity to regain advantage after they are fouled upon. But that is an equitable and obvious form of justice that has been—in one form or another—the default perspective throughout history.
What you're talking about, however, is not that. It's a far more complicated scenario the effects of which are far more difficult to quantify.
If one is to assert that harms done to people who no longer exist by people who no longer exist should be rectified by people related to those who were harmed, then I think it is also the responsibility of such a person to clearly outline and justify:
- the limits of who is eligible to receive such justice
- the degree to which harm has "trickled down" to the modern individual
- why others who have been victims of injustice are not eligible for justice
- a prescription for resolution that adequately repairs the harms
- from whom the justice should be paid
Now, this is exceedingly complex, and one could argue that it's not fair to remain complete inactive just because we cannot perfectly balance these variables. Some justice is better than no justice.
The problem is that innocent people are victimized by the decision to do something when it's not possible to quantify the impossible variables. (From which my basketball example stems.)
Now, the predominant argument seems to be something along the lines of, "we don't have to figure out these variables because everyone from the fouling team has benefited from the history."
I will counter this with an admittedly extremely offensive and unpalatable response. Before I do so, I want to be clear that my writing this does not mean that I advocate it. I mention it to show that it's not a simple matter, even if we reduce it to "those who benefit from the injustice."
If we assert that justice should be served by the people who benefited from past injustice, then it would be apt to identify that those whose ancestors faced injustice have—in some way—also benefited from the injustice. That is not to say that they are responsible, but rather to illustrate that such justification for choosing from whom the justice should come is not simple or clear.
I assert that if the principal is to ensure that those who have faced injustice—or have been indirectly harmed by injustice—are adequately "made right", then the onus is on those prescribing resolution to do it without creating further victims. If that is impossible (which it is), then it is their responsibility to identify at least a generalization of who may be victimized by such justice, and to what degree.
What I see, however, is absolute disregard for the fact that someone, anyone, is victimized by retroactive justice. No analysis or discussion of its side effects. I find this to be ethically offensive, if for no other reason than it is hypocritical to the notion of "justice" for which it purports to be.
Anything other than either precision or at least affirmative acknowledgement of side effects is either ignorant, partisan, racial, or emotional. It is not "justice" nor is it ethical.
To assert that it is the "right" thing to do is just as wrong as pretending no injustice occurred at all.
So the current state of things or path to "justice"? Call it for what it is: vengeance. Because justice is not indiscriminate.