Conversation

Bob steals land from Joe without any repercussions. Fast forward. Bob's grandchild Bob2 (slightly wealthier as a result) and Joe's grandchild Joe2 (slightly poorer as a result) meet, and they are both equally morally good people. Does Bob2 hold any obligation towards Joe2?

Yes
14.9%
Unsure; tend towards yes
21.9%
Unsure; tend towards no
21.6%
No
41.5%

930 votesFinal results

8:41 PM · Apr 9, 2019

Replying to

Yes, Key word "steals" makes the difference.

Replying to

What gave Joe the right to the land in the first place?

Replying to

Show me the land deed I’ll let you know.

Replying to

With evidence of the crime, perhaps Joe2 could sue, but then the lawyer would end up with the land/compensation.

Replying to

If it was a piece of art not a piece of land I bet people would be much more willing to say yes. Land is weird because at least in the US it is harder to "steal". In Europe during WWII land theft happened often because of mass dislocation of groups so it's easier to imagine

Replying to

Why aren’t the grandchildren Bob3 and Joe3?

Replying to

Joe2 has a claim against Bob's estate. Joe2 would have a claim to Bob2's inheritance, but nothing more.

Replying to

No, presuming that Bob2 has never owned the land.

@baohabeb

Apr 9, 2019

Replying to

@Aella_Girl

maybe Bob stole it from Joe because Joe-1 stole it from Bob-1? who's to say what the total generational moral obligation could be between the two families? therefore No

Replying to

There's a fascinating disconnect people have about this. To everyone who voted no, why do you feel entitled to your ancestor's efforts but feel no need to atone for their crimes? Why is Bob2 allowed to inherit Joe's land, but Joe2 is not allowed to inherit the legal claim to it?