Forcing people to be responsible for more than their immediate actions
What you're saying is that children should carry the responsibility for the acts of their ancestors.
if I include an unjust status quo in my reasoning, then I might also use violence to free myself from the consequences of past violence, but that would not create a “cycle” wherein a stable, nonviolent state cannot be reached, since every “allowed” instance of violence would still only be associated one-to-one with an equivalent instance of “disallowed” violence.
Who's the judge of whether it's "allowed" violence? If we say that the status quo of Franco-German relationship is built on the past injustice, and that this should be fixed, who will count all the past centuries of wars and massacres and calculate the outstanding balance?
Because if you let it both sides do it for themselves, then they both will naturally come to the conclusion that they've been unjustly treated and that the other side has to pay for that. In the end it will be the stronger one, not the morally correct one, who wins. For a time, then the sides will switch => cycle of violence is IMHO unavoidable if you hold the opinion that past sins are never forgotten.
Now, if my family’s wealth was robbed long ago, I would have a right to recover it
History is basically never so nicely clear-cut. I mean, have you studied your family tree and made sure that all of that family wealth was gathered via perfectly moral means? What if it turns out that your grand grandfather was a soldier who brought home some gold of dubious origins?
It's a problem for people who indebted themselves to buy those homes with a valuation based on scarcity. Also a problem for the real estate Chinese companies, sector which represents a quarter of Chinese economy.
The problem is that it's all a huge "what if" amenable for any narrative you want. In the end it provides justification for the never ending cycle of violence on people having no personal guilt.
It's not about the resolution which as you mention is already more than sufficient. But you can easily see bad optics, bad color rendition, oversharpening etc. on a 500px image.
My POV is that old events whose participants are dead stop being relevant for future moral actions. We should prefer justice for the living as opposed to justice for the already dead.
If you condemn the events leading to the status quo, then it’s necessarily the case that you should not take the status quo as any sort of ethical baseline.
That's quite impractical since all nations and their borders were established as a result of unethical conquest. This can be used as a justification for an unending cycle of violence.
The only people in Taiwan with the right to self determination are the Taiwanese Indigenous peoples and Taiwan’s proletariat.
There are no indigenous peoples in Taiwan. We all come from Africa.
Having established the extreme, where do you cut the line who can exert self-determination? Most inhabitants of Taiwan were born in Taiwan, on what ground can't they decide their fate?
Really sorry to spoil the Putinist schadenfreude here, but Morawiecki simply said that they already stopped a while ago because they ran out of weapons to donate. It has no connection to the grain row.
Because it was taken out of context and used by Russian propaganda, Morawiecky later announced that Poland of course remains committed to Ukrainian defense effort.
The only thing about that that’s changed from 1945 to 2023 is the criteria for being a “great power”. Then, it meant being a winner of WW2. Now, it means having a large nuclear arsenal.
No, the criteria didn't change, it's still the original set of countries with the permanent seat and veto power. It's also unlikely to change.
What you're saying is that children should carry the responsibility for the acts of their ancestors.
Who's the judge of whether it's "allowed" violence? If we say that the status quo of Franco-German relationship is built on the past injustice, and that this should be fixed, who will count all the past centuries of wars and massacres and calculate the outstanding balance?
Because if you let it both sides do it for themselves, then they both will naturally come to the conclusion that they've been unjustly treated and that the other side has to pay for that. In the end it will be the stronger one, not the morally correct one, who wins. For a time, then the sides will switch => cycle of violence is IMHO unavoidable if you hold the opinion that past sins are never forgotten.
History is basically never so nicely clear-cut. I mean, have you studied your family tree and made sure that all of that family wealth was gathered via perfectly moral means? What if it turns out that your grand grandfather was a soldier who brought home some gold of dubious origins?