2019 - 22nd Annual Steven Galovich Memorial Student Symposium

Presentation Title

A Comparative Analysis of the Case for Jewish and African-American Reparations

Student Presenter(s) and Advisor

Corey A. Beckford, Lake Forest CollegeFollow

Department or Major

Philosophy

Location

Lillard 132

Abstract

What explains the (mostly) differential treatment given to the Jewish case for reparations compared to the African-American one? I will argue that unequal moral consideration is mostly to blame. In what follows, I'll propose that in order to diagnose the causes of this difference, we should question all cases for reparations equally, which means asking a difficult question: Should Jews have received and continue to receive reparations? I contend that such a question could aid us in fixing this moral divide by forcing members of all groups to (1) either concede to the moral point in favor of universal reparations for all similarly affected groups, thereby eliminating "special cases," or (2) dissent from the moral assumption underlying most defenses of reparations and explicitly provide argumentation as to why some cases are more deserving of moral support than others.

Presentation Type

Individual Presentation

Start Date

4-9-2019 2:30 PM

End Date

4-9-2019 3:45 PM

Panel

Reframing Conflict in Global Contexts

Panel Moderator

Jim Marquardt

Field of Study for Presentation

African American Studies, Philosophy, Politics

No downloadable materials are available for this event.

Share

COinS
 
Apr 9th, 2:30 PM Apr 9th, 3:45 PM

A Comparative Analysis of the Case for Jewish and African-American Reparations

Lillard 132

What explains the (mostly) differential treatment given to the Jewish case for reparations compared to the African-American one? I will argue that unequal moral consideration is mostly to blame. In what follows, I'll propose that in order to diagnose the causes of this difference, we should question all cases for reparations equally, which means asking a difficult question: Should Jews have received and continue to receive reparations? I contend that such a question could aid us in fixing this moral divide by forcing members of all groups to (1) either concede to the moral point in favor of universal reparations for all similarly affected groups, thereby eliminating "special cases," or (2) dissent from the moral assumption underlying most defenses of reparations and explicitly provide argumentation as to why some cases are more deserving of moral support than others.