Speakers:
Eirik Lang Harris, Colorado State University
Brian Wong, The University of Hong Kong
Abstract:
Where authoritarian state actors fail to meet their burdens to redress the consequences of their heinous crimes and injustices, who should step in to take up the ‘slack’ of reparative justice?
One of the panellists posits that citizens who authorise their authoritarian states, in virtue of their governments credibly upholding and protecting their rights as citizens, should bear at least some of the liabilities to repair state-perpetrated injustices. If their government does step up to repair these injustices, then it falls upon these authorising citizens to bear the resultant costs associated with reparation – whether it be in terms of monetary, financial, and social costs. If their state leaves behind a ‘slack’ in virtue of inaction, then these individuals must repair the victims of wrongdoings in place of their state. Authorisation can take place across two fronts – objective and subjective; across neither of these conditions is the presence of democracy a necessary condition.
The other, drawing upon the writings and thoughts of Han Feizi, would reason that the justification for liabilities should be separated from any concept of desert. Individuals are not punished because they morally “deserve” to be punished (nor because such punishment expresses society’s anger, disgust, etc.). Instead, it is because punishment of rule violators eliminates rule violators. So long as the actions proscribed by a system of rules are in fact actions that, if avoided, will contribute to the long-term strength, stability, and flourishing of the state, then punishing only and all violators will have the desired positive social and political consequences, on Han Feizi’s account.
Join in on an enriching and invigorating discussion on a highly timely topic!
