Introduction
Professor Michael Sandel, in Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?, first introduces theories, and then gives his opinion on justice. This is to express my opinion on that specific part of the book.
Communitarianism: How much should we accept this?
This, this is puzzling.
It feels correct to some extent. Yes, my identity is that I am Korean. I am a member of my family. I am a member of my friend group.
I feel pride. I cheered when Hwang scored that goal against Portugal. That is part of who I am.
That raises the question. Should I apologize for the wrong actions of what my country did in the past? Here, obligation is not a simple sign of empathy, it is acknowledging that I have a moral responsibility to say sorry.
I’m still not either for or against it. However, I believe that there is a strong reason to say no. I’ll use some wording that says “no” to the question, but know that I’m not too sure yet.
I’ll use me as an example. Being a Korean is indeed my identity. Does that directly mean I have an obligation to apologize? The link is surely weak there.
What would be the link then? That I feel proud of my country? That’s not a reason either. I’m not proud of the horrible actions my country has done. I’m proud of the good parts. In fact, my country already apologized for the horrible actions they have done.
I can be a part of my community. I can feel happy of what my community has done. In association with that, I can feel proud of my country. I can hate the parts of the horrible actions my country has done. The wrongdoings that my country has done in the past don’t grant me the responsibility to apologize.
There can be some rejections.
“How could you? It’s your people who have done those actions, don’t try to escape responsibility.”
At that point, that’s emotional. Maybe that critic is a victim of what my people in the past have done. That emotion is not a reason. This proves no link.
“What do you mean? You carried on many economic advantages because your country committed crimes.”
That’s not what I’m saying. If economic advantages have accrued, economic reparations should be made. This has nothing to do with moral obligations being passed down.
“If your ancestors did something good, your social view also becomes better. Why only take the good parts?”
No, they’re wrong, too. Why call me a good person because my late grandfather did something moral? That’s wrong. Just because a de facto social practice takes place, does not mean that it is moral.
The real debate comes down to this.
Communitarians: You are not able to separate the good things your country did and the bad things your country did. If you feel proud of your own country, because of the good things they did, you are automatically becoming a person that is strongly linked to the bad things that were done. Therefore, you also need to apologize.
People who support the antithesis: No, you can separate. You can like the good parts but reject the bad parts. You do not automatically carry the moral obligation to apologize for the bad things.
In fact, even if a Korean person endorses bad actions the Korea of the past has done, I don’t think they have the responsibility to apologize for the past wrongdoings of Korea. He must apologize for his despicable beliefs. They are different.
This is still puzzling. I’ll think about this dilemma time and time again in my life, and I might come to different conclusions. I just want to give other perspectives.