,
9 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
@JoshDaws @scott_m_coley I agree that the principle "we should avoid even the possibility of benefiting from injustice" is a good one. However, in the absence of a particular implementation, this principle is insufficient either to 1) bind Christian's consciences or 2) dictate public policy. 1/
@JoshDaws @scott_m_coley Simple thought experiment. Let's say that the Municipal Bank decides to randomly transfer $1000 from half of its 1M female clients to half of its 1M male clients. However, no one knows from whom the money was taken or to whom it was given. 2/
@JoshDaws @scott_m_coley Can we make a pronouncement about the justice of restitution *independent of a particular implementation*? No. For example, let's say I decide to simply take $500 from every man and give it to every woman. If someone says: 3/
@JoshDaws @scott_m_coley "that's unjust because 75% of the clients will either unfairly benefit or be unfairly penalized by that plan" are they wrong? Or what if some of the men are extremely poor such that a loss of $500 would be devastating? 4/
@JoshDaws @scott_m_coley Given this objection, what if we decide -to avoid that problem- to simply take $500M dollars from one male billionaire? Obviously, it's reasonable to object that implementation is also unjust because he *definitely* didn't gain a $500M advantage from the actions of the bank. 5/
@JoshDaws @scott_m_coley It seems it's very hard to envision an implementation in which *no one* would have reasonable objections, even though they all agreed that injustice was done. Given those objections, it seems impossible to bind Christians' consciences on a the 'justice' of a particular plan. 6/
@JoshDaws @scott_m_coley But even if we *could* bind consciences to a particular plan as a matter of conscience, it wouldn't follow that we should legally compel all people, including non-Christians, to follow that plan: not everything immoral should be illegal. 7/
@JoshDaws @scott_m_coley And the thought experiment is a significant simplification of complex topics like reparations, where it's *extremely* hard to quantify the injustice or its exact beneficiaries/victims. 8/
@JoshDaws @scott_m_coley As @JoshDaws said, I think this is where the issue should stand: we can strongly commend our own ideas about this issue without insisting that anyone who objects to our ideas is committed to injustice or merely wants to retain their privilege. 9/9
