"Legalized" Stealing of Land: Is it justified?

At the end of the US civil war, many slaves were given the lands which their families had cultivated in years past. However, as these land owners died, the land started to pass on to their children. As the land was passed down generation after generation, the number of family members owning the land increases. Property passed down in this manner is now known as Heir's Property. As time passed by, the lands of the minority turned from being a swamp into a hotspot for waterfront real estate. However, investors only need one of these heirs to agree to sell his share in the property to force the rest of the Heirs are forced into a partition sale of their ancestors land. Although the government has approved the Partition of Heirs Property Act in order to make sure that these land owners at least get a fair price for selling the land they inherited, many of these African Americans are selling their land for an entirely different reason. As Fred Lincoln puts it, " It's not like most communities that go to bed at night hoping that their property escalates in value. In most cases we're hoping that our property depreciates so the taxes won't be as high" emphasizing the growing need for a different approach to the reforms.

The knowledge issue being debated here is whether or not heirs even have a choice when they sell their land. With the government tax on these properties being so high, one can argue that the heir's only choice is to sell so that they have money to provide themselves with the bare essentials. The ways of knowing involved in this debate are emotion and ethics. Some of these heirs sell their land without any way of fighting for it. Is it ethically right for outside parties to convince certain heirs to sell their land? Does the end( obtaining prime waterfront property) justify the means("legalized stealing" of land as attorney Thomas Goldstein puts it)? Shouldn't the government consider the emotions of these descendants and waive the taxes on those who cannot afford it? Won't the selling of their land which has been in the family for so long cause these heir's irreconcilable emotional damage?

The idea that the end justifies the means was first indirectly proposed in writing, arguably, by Machiavelli in his writing, The Prince. It is necessary, at times, to perform bad and immoral actions for what is considered the greater good. When I refer to what is good and what is immoral, I acknowledge the fact that people's definitions will vary. Using an example, I find, is the best way to see both sides of this claim. I shall use the example of the dropping of the atom bomb on Japan. The Americans wished to drop the bomb so that they could save the lives of hundreds of thousands of soldiers who would have to be sacrificed in order to take the shores of Japan. They dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although their aim was to end the war quickly, many would argue that the means they used (e.g dropping the bomb) justified the end. The sacrifice, was necessary for the greater good of the world. The death of a few hundred thousand civilians was necessary to save the lives of several others. One side of the argument says that dropping the atom bomb is justified as it helped end the war. The other side argues that the consequences of dropping the atom bomb do not justify the end of the war. Several people had to die a painful death after the initial explosion from the bomb. The American could have a better way to defeat Japan instead of dropping two different atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In my opinion, I think that the ends do not justify the means. Although the end may be for the greater good, the means used will pass lessons to future generations. At the risk of sounding too idealistic, it is necessary to use right and justified means in order to achieve an end so as to make the world better. Connecting this back to the selling of Heir's property, the government should levy taxes on those who cannot afford to pay for the land but wish to keep it. I understand the fact that it may be unfair for others in society, but to ensure the survival of a community of people and their social identity , it might be exactly what is necessary. The outside parties should not be allowed to emotionally scar and legally "steal" the Heirs and their land.

The dichotomy between whether the ends justify the means or whether do not have been a common occurrence in history. Some will think that it is impossible to accomplish a certain using only unethical means at times. However, the Indian struggle for independence from the British is what I consider to be a good example of when the ends did not justify the means. The lessons of non-violence that Gandhi advocated compared to the violent actions that most nations used before have inspired a new form of freedom fighters. Therefore, it is necessary, for the sake of educating and leaving behind a proper legacy for future generations , to use what are considered to be moral means to achieve any end.

Strasser, F. (2011, April 15). Cherished land lost in the south. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13073905