Janna Thompson

Why should leaders of polities; as representatives of citizens; be required to apologise and make reparations for deeds committed in the historical past? Assumptions commonly made by liberals about the scope of responsibility and the duties of citizens make this question difficult to answer. This paper considers some unsuccessful attempts within a liberal framework to defend obligations of reparation for historical injustices and puts forward an account based on the lifetime-transcending interests of citizens.

Injustices of the past cast a shadow on the present. They are the root cause of much harm, the source of enmity, and increasingly in recent times, the focus of demands for reparation. In this groundbreaking philosophical investigation, Janna Thompson examines the problems raised by reparative demands and puts forward a theory of reparation for historical injustices. The book argues that the problems posed by historical injustices are best resolved by a reconciliatory view of reparative justice and an approach that explains how people acquire intergenerational responsibilities and entitlements. It ranges in its subject matter from the claims of indigenous people to land stolen from their ancestors to the growing movement for reparations for slavery. The book provides an original and convincing answer to the questions of how citizens can have reparative responsibilities for wrongs committed before they were born, and why descendants of victims may be entitled to compensation for historical injustices such as slavery. It also explains how members of nations can make recompense for injustices of the past without ignoring the inequities of the present.Taking Responsibility for the Past is a significant contribution to philosophical and legal debates about reparative justice, and at the same time an accessible and thought-provoking book for general readers.

Some leaders and citizens think it appropriate to apologize for historical injustices like slavery or the dispossession of indigenous people. But can we sincerely say ‘Sorry’ for the deeds of our forebears? By making an apology we are expressing regrets for what they did: we are saying that we prefer that these deeds had not been done. However, if these deeds had not been done, history would have been different, and probably we would not exist. Since most of us are glad to be alive, it seems that our apologies must be insincere. I discuss a number of proposed solutions to this paradox.

According to the relational approach we have obligations to members of future generations not because of their interests or properties but because, and only because, they are our descendants or successors. Common accounts of relational duties do not explain how we can have obligations to people who do not yet exist. In this defence of the relational approach I examine three sources of intergenerational obligations: the concern of parents for their children, including their future children; the desire of community members to pass on a heritage to their descendants; and the relationship of citizens in an intergenerational polity.

The political changes of recent years and the problems of poverty, the environment and nationalism have led to calls for the establishment of a just world order. But what would such a world be like? This book considers the concept of international justice as it has developed in traditional political theory from Hobbes to Marx and in contemporary writing on the subject. It develops a theory of international justice designed to take account of both individual freedom and the differences among communities.

Members of a political society typically regard themselves as participating in intergenerational relationships of obligation and entitlement. They value the inheritance they received from past generations, regard themselves as indebted to their forebears, and accept an obligation to pass on their heritage to their descendants. Liberalism, with its emphasis, on rights, contracts, and welfare of existing people, does not provide an adequate basis for intergenerational obligations. Communitarianism, by stressing communal values of the embedded self, is in a better position to explain why obligations in respect to the past as well as the future should play a central role in conceptions of justice. This chapter critically examines communitarian approaches to intergenerational obligations, and argues for an account of the self in which lifetime-transcending interests play an important role. It presents a theory of intergenerational obligations which makes use of communitarian insights but is also compatible with basic assumptions of liberalism.

Intergenerational justice gives present citizens obligations to past as well as future generations. Present members of a political society have an obligation to respect the contributions of their predecessors. But respect for past generations also means taking their intergenerational objectives into account in political decision-making—giving them weight in determining intergenerational policies—and thus treating past generations as participants in intergenerational policymaking. Neither the inability of the dead to have experiences, nor epistemological difficulties in determining their interests, nor the entitlement of present citizens to make political decisions are reasons for ignoring or discounting the intergenerational concerns of past generations.

Those who believe that they have special obligations to their community — to their family, state or nation, clan, tribe, or cultural group — often insist that they have duties not merely to present and future members. They also claim to have responsibilities to, or in respect to, their predecessors. David Miller, in his defence of ‘nationality,’ claims that the existence of a nation as a historical community is one of the features which make it ‘a community of obligation.’ ‘“Because our forebears have toiled and spilt their blood to build and defend the nation, we who are born into it inherit an obligation to continue their work….’” Being a member of a nation, says Yael Tamir, requires individuals to keep faith with its history. Annette Baier thinks that if we fail to pass on our inherited public goods to our descendants we can be blamed not only for harming their interests but also for not carrying out the intentions of our forebears.

In this timely study, Thompson presents a theory of intergenerational justice that gives citizens duties to past and future generations, showing why people can make legitimate demands of their successors and explaining what relationships between contemporary generations count as fair. What connects these various responsibilities and entitlements is a view about individual interests that both argues that individuals are motivated by intergenerational concerns, and that a polity that appropriately recognizes these interests must support and accept intergenerational responsibilities. The book ranges over the philosophical, ethical, political and environmental questions raised by intergenerational issues: how we can have duties to non-existent people, whether we can wrong the dead or be held responsible for what they did, what sacrifices we should make for our successors, and whether we have duties to people of the remote future. Encompassing the ethical problems created by demographic change, the ethical issues of population control and intergenerational implications of new technologies for creating people, this book will be of interest to those studying philosophy, politics, legal theory, and environmental studies.

Arguments for the preservation of natural objects and environments sometimes appeal to the value of those objects as cultural heritage. Can something be valuable because of its relation to the historical past? I examine and assess arguments for preservation based upon heritage value and defend the thesis that we have an obligation to appreciate what our predecessors valued and to value those thingsthat have played an important role in our history. I show how this conception of our obligations can be used to defend the preservation of natural objects and environments including wilderness areas.

Ethical disagreement is a fact of social life. We disagree about issues such as abortion, euthanasia, the meaning of justice and the treatment of animals, and our debates often fail to reach a consensus. Some philosophers think that this means there is no objective knowledge about morality. _ Discourse and Knowledge_ takes a radically different approach to the defence of ethical rationality. It claims that there is a correct solution to ethical controversies, but that ethical decisions have to be made collectively. Written specifically for those studying or teaching ethics or moral theory,_Discourse and Knowledge_ will also be ideal for those on courses on social theory, ethics or feminist philosophy.