Are there such things as collective guilt and collective responsibility? In Black Reparations, I put forth the following principle:
Only those who are victims of a crime are entitled to reparations for the crime, and only those who are the perpetrators of a crime are obliged to pay reparations for it.
A commenter, not impressed by the principle, offers this by way of rebuttal:
I steal $100,000 from you. I give it to my son, and head for the hills. My son is $100,000 richer than you. Do you have a right to ask for it back? Why? He didn't take it from you – he is no perpetrator. He is innocent. [. . .] Where do you draw the line? One can extrapolate individualism to absurd, unworkable levels – a baby may have no milk that he hasn't earned, for instance. No, if it is possible for your children and friends to benefit from your actions, then by benefiting from unjust actions, they become connected to the injustice.
There are many cases in which one who does not directly commit a crime, aids and bets the commission of a crime. The case mentioned above could be subsumed under 'trafficking in stolen goods.' One who knowingly does this, though not as guilty as the thief, is also guilty. Or suppose two enraged men are engaged in a violent dispute that threatens to become physical. I hand one of the men a loaded revolver, and he shoots the other. Have I done anything wrong? Of course. Even though I have not shot anyone, I have aided an abetted a shooting.