Collective Guilt

Are there such things as collective guilt and collective responsibility? In Black Reparations, I put forth the following principle:

Only those who are victims of a crime are entitled to reparations for the crime, and only those who are the perpetrators of a crime are obliged to pay reparations for it.

A commenter, not impressed by the principle, offers this by way of rebuttal:

(show)

I steal $100,000 from you. I give it to my son, and head for the hills. My son is $100,000 richer than you. Do you have a right to ask for it back? Why? He didn't take it from you - he is no perpetrator. He is innocent. [. . .] Where do you draw the line? One can extrapolate individualism to absurd, unworkable levels - a baby may have no milk that he hasn't earned, for instance. No, if it is possible for your children and friends to benefit from your actions, then by benefiting from unjust actions, they become connected to the injustice.

There are many cases in which one who does not directly commit a crime, aids and bets the commission of a crime. The case mentioned above could be subsumed under 'trafficking in stolen goods.' One who knowingly does this, though not as guilty as the thief, is also guilty. Or suppose two enraged men are engaged in a violent dispute that threatens to become physical. I hand one of the men a loaded revolver, and he shoots the other. Have I done anything wrong? Of course. Even though I have not shot anyone, I have aided an abetted a shooting.

In cases like these the direct perpetrator is not the only guilty party. Accomplices, enablers, inciters are also guilty. Indeed, I would say that someone who incites violence merely by speaking shares some responsibility for any crimes that result.

But now consider this case. I sell you my car in good faith, observing all the local statutes regulating auto sales. I have no reason to suspect you of having any criminal intent. But once title is transferred, you use the car to mow down some kiddies on a school yard, or to commit some other crime. Do I bear any responsibility for the crime? Of course not. My being part of the causal chain that eventuated in the deaths of schoolchildren does not make me morally responsible for the deaths. You alone are morally responsible.

Surely it would be morally absurd to maintain that those involved in the manufacture and sale of automobiles share in the guilt of those who commit crimes using automobiles. And the same goes for those involved in the manufacture and sale of guns. If I hand a loaded revolver to an enraged man who is in an altercation with another man, then of course I bear a considerable amount of responsibility for the outcome. But if I am a gun retailer, and I run the standard background checks and have no reason to suspect criminal intent on the part of my customer, then I bear no responsibility for any crime that said customer might commit with the gun I sold him. And the same holds for the gun manufacturers.

So when liberals want to hold gun manufacturers responsible for crimes committed with 'their' guns, these liberals betray a profound level of moral obtuseness. They demonstrate once again that they simply cannot think in moral categories. Or rather, they cannot think correctly and successfully in such categories. 

Examples can be multiplied ad libitum. A diet consisting solely of hamburgers and cheesecake will lead to arteriosclerosis and an early grave. But if you choose such a diet, you are responsible and not Burger King and The Cheesecake Factory.

Returning to black reparations, it is simply morally obtuse to think that people who were not even alive at the time of slavery are responsible for it in any way. Even if there is a sort of 'collective guilt' in the case of a man who steals and gives the stolen money to his son, this is not a sense of 'collective guilt' sufficiently robust to support the legitimacy of black reparations.

But haven't we contemporary Americans benefited from slavery? That has to be argued, not merely stated. But even if the powerhouse economy of the U. S. is a result of blacks' toiling on Southern plantations, then everyone has benefited, including contemporary blacks. So by this reasoning well-off blacks should pay reparations to poor blacks.

Nevertheless, my above principle needs a little refining. So here is an improved formulation:

Only those who are victims of a crime are entitled to reparations for the crime, and only those who are the perpetrators of a crime or the immediate accessories to the perpetration of a crime are obliged to pay reparations for it.