We should focus instead on the fact that the privileged have no "claim" on what they own in excess; if the state wants to take their resources, they have no defense against it. And that should be more than enough! /9

And, I notice in the end, this may tell us something important about privilege. Maybe we shouldn't obsess so much about the "wrogness" of being in a privileged position or the guilt that the privileged are supposed to feel. 8/

Ok, in many cases the answer may actually be yes, for contingent reasons. But, in general, bearers of distributive duties are not appropriate targets of negative reactive attitudes. The reason why they have to discharge a duty has nothing to do with how they behaved. 7/

Ok fine, and so what? Well a lot follows from this I believe, especially in terms of reactive attitudes. If the beneficiary is just somebody who holds resources that should not belong to them, can we still blame them? Should they feel guilty about it? 6/

And then I suggest something different: if you are required to repay as a mere beneficiary that may be for purely distributive justice reasons. It is just unfair that you hold something that shouldn't be yours in the first place! 5/

Some people say: easy, it's just corrective justice! But I say, wait a second: if you are not in any way responsible for the injustice, in what way are you required to "correct" it? 4

In this paper, I do not dispute the principle but I try to understand WHY the beneficiary of an injustice may be required to repay. 3/

An injustice has left some people harmed but the perpetrator is hard to find/unable to redress. Who should pay then? Some people say: whoever benefited from the same injustice, however innocently. That's the core of the beneficiary pays principle (BPP). 2