In considering reparations, Waldron first discusses the counterfactual approach where the ultimate aim of reparation is a full demand to rectify the injustice to the extent that the community affected is similarly placed in a situation had it not occur (7). Waldron largely draws from Robert Nozick’s principle of rectification in his theory of historic entitlement, stating that causal laws and subjunctive information may be applied to determine the equivalent future (8). However, Waldron points out the obvious difficulties with such an approach – namely the challenge of determining which outcome is the most appropriate, given that not all actions are attributable to rational-choice theory or by an extension of causal predictions. Critically
…show more content…
Although his argument is logical and extends properly from a heretical analysis to a broader examination of the structural framework of injustice, the key flaw in his argument is his failure to provide a distinction between the rights concerning reparation. His argument fits most convincingly into a case of land claim or right to exclusive residence, but Waldron equivocates this to all aboriginal claims. There are several forms of reparation that would not require the comprehensive redistributive project that he resists. Most notably, the right to territorial sovereignty or degree of political autonomy would have been an important distinction as it does not require necessarily punishing the descendants affected by the “contagion of injustice” (11) by reallocating resources, but simply placing indigenous groups in a similar situation had they had not been forced into the dominion by colonists. Interestingly enough, Waldron, as previously mentioned, commented on the authority that coincides with deciding resource distribution without paying mind at all to the concept of autonomy that indigenous people are also denied. Thus, the counterfactual argument would have been instrumental in the symbolic reparation of injustice – but this is …show more content…
Although Waldron acknowledges that aboriginal communities live whole lives affected by historic injustices, he elaborates on the normative and theoretical implications without addressing the empirical consequences that could be considered within the framework of counterfactual approach and approaches for remission. For example, the day-to-day challenges that many indigenous people face – such as lack of access to water, health care, low education rate, substandard housing, and so forth – do not call for a “substantial [transfer] of land, wealth, and resources in an effort to actually rectify past wrongs” (8). Rather, these actions can be viewed simply as providing the resources to the indigenous community that had otherwise already been provided to the majority of the population but unjustly denied to indigenous populations. Given that Waldron is arguing for the supersession of certain past historical injustice as a matter of circumstances of scarcity, it is an oversight that Waldron does not explicitly recommend how to deal with the scarcity currently faced by the aboriginal
Although his argument is logical and extends properly from a heretical analysis to a broader examination of the structural framework of injustice, the key flaw in his argument is his failure to provide a distinction between the rights concerning reparation. His argument fits most convincingly into a case of land claim or right to exclusive residence, but Waldron equivocates this to all aboriginal claims. There are several forms of reparation that would not require the comprehensive redistributive project that he resists. Most notably, the right to territorial sovereignty or degree of political autonomy would have been an important distinction as it does not require necessarily punishing the descendants affected by the “contagion of injustice” (11) by reallocating resources, but simply placing indigenous groups in a similar situation had they had not been forced into the dominion by colonists. Interestingly enough, Waldron, as previously mentioned, commented on the authority that coincides with deciding resource distribution without paying mind at all to the concept of autonomy that indigenous people are also denied. Thus, the counterfactual argument would have been instrumental in the symbolic reparation of injustice – but this is …show more content…
Although Waldron acknowledges that aboriginal communities live whole lives affected by historic injustices, he elaborates on the normative and theoretical implications without addressing the empirical consequences that could be considered within the framework of counterfactual approach and approaches for remission. For example, the day-to-day challenges that many indigenous people face – such as lack of access to water, health care, low education rate, substandard housing, and so forth – do not call for a “substantial [transfer] of land, wealth, and resources in an effort to actually rectify past wrongs” (8). Rather, these actions can be viewed simply as providing the resources to the indigenous community that had otherwise already been provided to the majority of the population but unjustly denied to indigenous populations. Given that Waldron is arguing for the supersession of certain past historical injustice as a matter of circumstances of scarcity, it is an oversight that Waldron does not explicitly recommend how to deal with the scarcity currently faced by the aboriginal