ethics – The Unchained Library

Should modern-day organisations, who benefitted from the slave trade in the past, be expected to pay reparations today?

This article was written by Sam Chapman for the Exeter essay competition. The judges for this competition are currently reviewing the essays.

Estimated read time of essay: 5 minutes

On the 25^th of March 1807 the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was signed by King George III of England, signalling the end of perhaps the most destructive and inhumane chapters within the history of the British Empire and the United Kingdom itself. It is undeniable that the slave trade has had irreversible impacts upon the world, much of which can still be seen today. This therefore forces us to evaluate whether those whose ancestors benefited from the slave trade should be forced to pay reparations in response today. I hold the belief that these organisations are in no way responsible for the actions of the past, but they must still be held accountable for their unfair advantage within the economy through the use of reparations to redistribute the wealth these companies obtained through privilege.

It can be argued that within the capitalist society in which we operate it is perfectly acceptable to utilise all advantages given to us to strive for success economically, as to many it seems that we must accept privilege is an inevitability that will always be present so we must make the most of the relations and wealth that we have to begin with. A clear example of this mindset is Bill Gates who had access to computers early on in their evolution during his time at Lakeside School Seattle. Gates himself says, “If there had been no Lakeside, there would have been no Microsoft” illustrating that his privilege to afford such a school, setup the foundations for the idea of Microsoft. Therefore, many would argue that successful businesses today which profited from the slave trade in the past cannot be held accountable as they merely use the advantages available to them today, and that they have no connections to slavery themselves. Some view this as the reality of the world we live in, such that there is a ruthless brutality to accepting the cards we are dealt and making the most of what we have. Subsequently, reparations are a ridiculous measure which are too idealistic as forcing payments upon these organisations implies reparations are required for privilege of any kind which has led them to success, and this is simply not realistic.

However, I question this logic, as I propose that it is a mindset of a bleak pessimist to simply accept inequality, and it is ridiculous to call a demand for rebalance idealism. We cannot standby and accept an unfair system, and whilst the world has a magnitude of complex issues, addressing the imbalance due to the slave trade is a clear place to start. The use of reparations is an obvious and acceptable method of rebalancing the inequal ecosystem of the economy. On the 28^th of August 1833 legislation was passed by parliament that fully abolished slavery since the 1807 act had not successfully done so. A significant factor for the passing of this policy was the £20 million in compensation to slave owners who felt they were losing their own property and heavily resisted. According to the Bank of England, £3.4 million was compensated in the form of government stock and large amounts of money was received by London bankers and merchant firms. This was such a vast amount of money that the government only paid back the loans required to make these compensations in 2015, over 200 years later. University College London’s Legacies of British Slave Ownership project calculated that around 10-20% of Britain’s wealth has significant links to slavery. Many of the key British banks accept their part in the slave trade, including HSBC, Barclays, and Lloyds showing many prominent organisations were certainly involved. These figures hopefully provide a greater insight into the enormous impact of slavery, showing that many organisations have had blatant advantages within our economy. This must be accounted for, and reparations would immediately have impact, being a one-time payment, which could hinder businesses with proven ties to the slave trade. Organisations could take accountability of their involvement in the slave trade and the subsequent suffering it caused, allowing them not to forget the past, but to promote a new message of equality. I must reiterate that those who run the companies today are in no way accountable for the actions of their ancestors but accepting these reparations provides the opportunity to condone the atrocities committed and remove the undeniable advantage developed by the slave trade.

The money generated by reparations could then be used to promote new businesses which would have otherwise struggled to thrive in competitive markets where privilege has dominated. It must also be remembered that not only did the slave trade result in vast wealth, but great poverty. In America the average black family has a tenth of the wealth of the average white family, largely due to the consequences of slavery. This makes it blindingly obvious that even after eight generations the effects of the slave trade are apparent. Reparations provide a unique opportunity of redistribution, transferring money from organisations with unfair advantages to those whose relatives suffered from the slave trade and who are in poverty today as a consequence. Therefore, reparations are not just a tool to sanction and harm businesses, but will also help new growth in the economy from those who were unfairly in a worse position due to the lasting impacts of slavery.

Concluding, I strongly believe modern-day organisations have an expectation to pay reparations for their involvement in the slave trade. If anything can be learned from slavery, it is that humanity has the power to shape the world, the potential of absolute internal destruction or total harmony. We must strive for a world of acceptance and love for all people because only then will we have a world which is worth protecting. Reparations of this kind will force a change of mindset and allow equality where there is currently great imbalance. The figures used show undeniable advantage still prevailing today due to the horrors of slavery which must be accounted for.

Bibliography

Royal Museums Greenwich: history of slavery. https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/how-did-slave-trade-end-britain

CNBC: Bill Gates’ advantage due to access to computers. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/24/bill-gates-got-what-he-needed-to-start-microsoft-in-high-school.html#:~:text=Gates%20was%20first%20introduced%20to,placed%20in%20all%2Dgirls%20classes

Bank of England: slavery compensation. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working-paper/2022/the-collection-of-slavery-compensation-1835-43#:~:text=As%20part%20of%20the%20compromise,behalf%20of%20the%20British%20government

The Guardian: Banks linked to slavery. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/18/barclays-hsbc-and-lloyds-among-uk-banks-that-had-links-to-slavery

The Washington Post: Racial Wealth Gap. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/06/19/why-racial-wealth-gap-persists-more-than-years-after-emancipation/

How the criticisms of Utilitarianism underline a fundamental error in our approach to ethical discourse

This article was written by Stuart Brown and was the winning article of the David Garlick essay competition. The judges commented ‘This is a very well written piece with a strong argument, which shows detailed and nuanced understanding of the issues.’

Estimated read time of essay: 6 minutes

Utilitarianism as a normative ethical theory is attacked in a number of different ways, however I hope to show how these criticisms demonstrate a fundamental mistake in the way in which we go about breaking down an ethical theory.

The first criticism which is often asserted is the impracticality of Utilitarianism when it comes to decision making in our daily lives. Even if we accept the idea that we must act in the way that best tends to produce happiness it is impossible to know which actions will cause this. We cannot predict the vast and unforeseeable consequences of our actions and hence Utilitarianism seemingly fails as we cannot effectively and accurately fulfil the task of promoting happiness in the real world. Mill strives to object to this in his book ‘Utilitarianism’ writing ‘that there has been ample time, namely, the whole past duration of the human species.’ His point here is that humans know basically which actions tend to produce more happiness as a result of the cultivated experience of humanity and the general attitudes that we have formed over time to specific actions due to such experience. Therefore, we know which actions to undertake to produce overall greater happiness. However, one must question whether Mill is even obligated to respond to the challenge of impracticality. The truth of the principle of utility and the very ethical theory itself is unaffected and detached from the question of whether it can be usefully applied in the real world. If it is true to seek the happiness of the greatest number, then this remains the case whether or not we able to do so. Hence, we see that when discussing the validity of normative ethical theories, the issue of practicality is unimportant as it has no bearing on the actual truth of the theory. The question of practicality is however not useless but rather misplaced. It should come later once a base ethical theory has been established and we look to how it can be applied.

Another popular yet erroneous approach is to argue from the starting point of a known ethical truth to try and establish or dismiss an ethical theory. To say for example, that murder is always wrong, and then to identify a specific case where Utilitarianism justifies murder is not necessarily a valid argument that Utilitarianism fails as an ethical theory because it appears to justify a wrong action. Whilst this argument may seem logical at first it presupposes that murder, or another action is simply inherently wrong. This is to fall into the fallacy of question begging as it assumes that Utilitarianism is incorrect and that some actions must have inherent value to prove that Utilitarianism is in fact incorrect. This structure of reasoning is common and often used especially in the case of Utilitarianism, but it fails crucially in all cases because it cannot without using circular reasoning establish that any given action is wrong. This problem illustrates a common mistake in how we approach ethics in that we try and find a theory to cohere with our current values. This is problematic as our self-held beliefs cannot act as a firm groundwork for an ethical theory. Instead, we must build up an ethical theory from its very foundation and derive attitudes towards specific actions later.

The trolley problem and how it is discussed often shows our disposition to starting from judgements of specific actions and then working towards an ethical theory to match such assumptions. This is a common introductory thought experiment to the topic of ethics and is one where most start with an opinion on whether it can be right to pull the lever to kill one and save five and work backwards to an ethical position. However, this is foolish as the point of an ethical theory is not to justify our previously held beliefs and judgements but rather to provide a starting framework to build our ethical perspectives anew.

Whilst many of the criticisms of Utilitarianism fail, there is one which is very difficult to overcome and demonstrates the correct way to go about analysing an ethical theory. This criticism is that Utilitarianism fails to successfully establish happiness as having inherent value. Bentham falls victim to the naturalistic fallacy when trying to establish the value of pleasure. This is the fallacy outlined by David Hume that we cannot derive an ought from an is (in this case it is Bentham’s argument that we naturally pursue pain and avoid pleasure and hence we ought to do so). In ‘Introduction to the principle of morals, legislation’ Bentham writes on pleasure and pain ‘it is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do’ showing how his assertion of the principle of utility is fallacious. Most however, accept the inherent value of happiness as a brute fact and do not seek to break down Bentham’s starting assertion although this is exactly what must be done. We must adapt our philosophical approach to examine the foundational assertions of ethical theories and hence decide their merit rather than focusing on the practical application of the theory. This is the key point in the failure of our approach to ethics as it is the starting value assumptions (such as the value of happiness in Utilitarianism) of ethical theories that must be examined as these are the foundations of ethical theories and hence their success is entirely dependent on their truth.

In conclusion, as seen in the mishandled approach to the criticisms of Utilitarianism, we must adapt our approach to the analysis of ethics and shift our focus from the practicalities and repercussions of accepting normative ethical theories. Instead, we must judge their validity on the surety of their foundational claims as only then can we properly assess the truth of an ethical theory.