Does Benefiting from Injustice Create Responsibility?

An old access system separates two groups doing the same work: permanent employees pass straight through, while contractors must queue and register each day. A newly hired permanent employee did not design the system or ask for the convenience. It would be unfair to infer guilt for the past merely from receiving the benefit.

Yet “I did not cause it” does not settle the matter. Philosophical discussions of collective responsibility often distinguish backward-looking blame from forward-looking remedial responsibility. The first asks who caused harm with what control and intention; the second asks who now has the knowledge, capacity and position to reduce it. A benefit is not automatic evidence of guilt, but it changes the conditions for action. If the employee knows that the distinction serves no work-related need, continues to treat the saved time as an entitlement, and can support a common access system or raise an objection at little cost, there is a reason to help correct it.

Geoffrey’s judgement is that responsibility should vary with the relationship to the injustice. Ignorance, lack of choice and little influence reduce what can reasonably be demanded. Knowledge, continuing advantage, active support for the arrangement and a real voice increase remedial duties. Two extremes should be avoided: group identity must not be treated as proof of personal guilt, but “I did not create it” must not make a present advantage morally exempt. The fitting response is usually not performed guilt, but ceasing to sustain the injustice and supporting accountable change within one’s actual capacity.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/collective-responsibility/