What is the just course of action?
In a hypothetical society, there are only two groups of people, each with a distinguishing feature, that sets them apart (doesn't matter what it is, but it is natural and permanent). For some reason, group A believes that they are better than group B, and whilst group B have done nothing wrong to them, group A works with the government to actively discriminate against group B, for their own self gain. This goes on for a long period of time, until eventually, despite being equal in number, group A has 90% of the resources of the society, whilst group B has but 10%.
Finally, the government realises how unjust this system is, and puts policies into place which guarentee equality for all.
But, is it just that group A keeps all of their wealth? Should action be taken to make the two groups truly equal once more, or should nothing be done at all? What would want to happen in that situation?
-
Just to confirm, this action would be taken immediately after the equality policies are put into place. And also, for anyone wondering, I'm not comparing this to any modern dilema, there is no true equivalent. I'm simply interested in what people think would be fair.
|
Collectivism ought not be fought with collectivism. Government created collectivist-based inequality, but this leaded to individual gains and losses; taking from those individuals is wrong. Treat everybody, no matter to which group they belong, as equals not in wealth but in rights. 1
point
What is all individuals acted as a collective group and all individuals of group A are guilty? Then surely it would be justice, and nothing more? Returning the 'stolen' wealth doesn't necessarily have to be unjust, I don't think. By the way, I'm on disputing you so you get a notification, I don't disagree with you here. As I am assuming both group A and group B are both human, and in as much are both equal, both need the resources (basing it on the assumption you mean water, fuel sources, food etc.) it is perfectly acceptable for the government to realign the system for total equality. And since the gain of group A in your scenario is done at the expense of group B (through extortion, slavery, or manipulation of some other sort, why else would group A own 90%) then it is also acceptable to redistribute group A's "wealth". As both groups should have had an equal advantage for the entire time, but through group A's manipulation through government they come out ahead of the game, as a collective it is owed to group B to help them to catch up with group A so that there is a combination, or group C which moves forward. |
