Life is full of injustice and individuals are treated unfairly everyday. Individuals harm and wrong others, either through words or actions, and try to normalize their infliction in different ways based on ethics and morals. Ethics focuses on the various concepts of right and wrong behavior defined by a set of code, whereas morals focuses on one’s own values that differentiate from right and wrong. Moral repair consists of an apology, reparation (also known as concrete repair), and repentance (reassurance). Philosophy professors Bernard Boxill and Linda Radzik both analyze past philosophers perceptions on how to repair injustices and have deemed what they perceive as injustice as as well as what the appropriate responses and steps it takes for someone to fix a wrongdoing. I will compare and use their approaches to determine what should be done when someone has damaged another’s personal property.
I borrowed my friend’s expensive lacy dress for a dance and had teared a portion of it when I washed it with my clothes. It got caught on a hook that ripped some of the fabric. This made my friend feel as if she could no longer trust me with her belongings and that I had no respect for her and her possessions.
Philosophy professor Bernard Boxill believes that reparation is in order after the wrongdoer has infringed on the victim by pursuing what they value, after an injustice has already taken place in the past. Reparations are in order when these three conditions are met: there’s an injured party, there’s someone who commited the injustice, and that the committee of the injustice is able to repair the injustice suffered by the victim. The wrongdoer must admit that they have acted wrongly, since that’s the only way to acknowledge that every person is equal in both worth and dignity. He also believes that reparation is inherited to both parties of the descendants if one or both die. Boxill focuses on a “backwards looking” approach which attempts to fix what has been broken in the past. He also believes that If I apply Boxill’s ideals to my wrongdoing, justice demands that do alterations to fix her damaged dress. If that’s not possible, then I would have to repay her by giving something regarded as equivalent to what was lost, such a new dress of equal cost, as well as additional payment for inconveniences caused for my friend’s lost.
Philosophy professor Linda Radzik preferred version of reconciliation theory states believes there’s a moral obligation to repair and normalize relational damage in order to fix the wrongdoing. Individuals can experience resentment and distrust towards those that inflict them harm which threatens the subjective moral relationship of mutual respect between the victim and wrongdoer. Correcting the wrong that was done requires the correction of the psychological and interpersonal consequences of wrongful harming that goes corresponds. One’s duty of corrective justice requires one to repair the moral relationships that were harmed by the infliction, and not merely to pay one’s debts. Victims have a duty to allow the wrong dose to apologize as well as for the victim to recognize that the person who has inflicted harm on them is part of the moral community. Referring back to my situation, by damaging my friend’s dress, my friend felt as if she could no longer trust me with her belongings, perceiving me as careless and irresponsible. So, I would need to not only fix the damage to the dress by fixing it or replacing it, but by normalizing and furthering the strength of our friendship by showing that she can trust me once again. I need to treat as an equal and show her that I can treat her possessions with the proper care I should’ve had with the dress I had broken.
Boxill provides a better approach when stating that more should be repaid to the victim for the inconveniences and that if reparation wasn’t done before the death of the victim or wrongdoer, it must still be done in order to restore the balance of equality. It emphasizes that action is necessary no matter what extreme or unforeseeable circumstance occurs. In the case that I was unable to fix the damage I did to my friend, my children should be able to help me repay for my mistake.
Radzik provides a better approach that leads to rebuilding the moral relationship between me and my friend. I would apologize and express my remorse for not treating her property with the care I should’ve as well as perform an act to confirm this communicate act. We are able to overcome an obstacle together which can lead to a friendship that shows you can commit and work on improving and stabilizing the balances between us. I put in more than if I had just fixed what was physically broken. If I did not try to repair the emotional unstable feelings my friend had about me, it would show that I did not think it was important enough to make an extra effort.
The idea of reparation based on Boxill would only work where victims have been deprived of possessions or of opportunities to acquire possessions. It’s not appropriate to offer monetary compensation for irremediable injustices. It only provides the victim with possessions, money, or new opportunities. It doesn’t restore the moral balance between the two. Boxill focuses on a “backward-looking” approach whereas Radzik focuses on a “forward-looking” approach, fixing the moral relationship between the victim and wrongdoer.
Friendships and relationships include being able to tackle down adversities together in order to form more solid, stable ground and should be oriented on the present and future of the relationship rather than the past. People need to understand how they inflict harm on others, whether intentionally or unintentionally, so they don’t repeat the same mistake in the future to maintain good connections. In some circumstances, all it requires good communication, like an apology, while others require more action, like compensation or public image restoration, to make up for what has been inflicted. Individuals are capable of learning from their mistakes when they take responsibility and repent for their mistakes.
