Ethics question on Hereditary "Sin"?

Ethics question on Hereditary "Sin"?

~~~ Sin is Pride! That's all.

It is not about 'ethics'.

Ethics are as such;

"Do NOT do to 'others' what you don't want done to you!"

(EVERYTHING in the Universe (and everyone), is 'others', and 'others' Is Self!)!

Ethics is not involved is just giving away YOUR land!

It makes no difference who lived on it back when, what is, is Now!

Ethics do not involve the insane judgmental 'moralizing' of 'wrong' or 'right', 'good' and 'evil'!

It comes from Love, not vanity!

Ethics might say that if you have a bit of that land that is going to waste, you might let them live on it, IF they are in need.

But one might do that for anyone, so...

So if they come crying for 'reparations', I'd probably laugh at them ant tell them to go find a good lawyer and see what the law has to say.

Again, no 'morality', no judgment!

This is an issue here in Canada. Sin means to misunderstand....none-the-less. The natives in this time are often demanding more land more money etc.

It's an ethical dilemma for sure. The tax payers, pay a lot of money to the govt. The govt pays the tribes a lot of money. It's a round about thing. The natives blame the white man for residential schools and the effects of...and they want more and more.

I'm not saying they're wrong. Just who sinned first. The white man or the native? Will we owe them forever and ever amen? Will we always be responsible for them now? From my point of view it's difficult. I may have been a native back in the day you know...am I over a hundred or however many more years later...playing the role of the white man?

Just so weird.

Ethics would demand a compromise. But a compromise would just ruin the property as well as the two families. If my presence wrongs you through no fault of my own society can choose whether or not to recompensate you, but to me it us victimizing the new owners and I say less victims is better than more. Most times the prior claim is somewhat vague or dubious anyway like the Native American claim to property rights when they never had the concept of property. Or like the Palestinian claim where the Israelis have taken worthless land and made it some of the most valuable assets in the world. Do you have back rights to property I have substantially improved? In this case right and wrong and ethics do not match.

It is not really an ethical matter at this point. It is a legal issue. They have the deeds to prove the land is theirs. Get off before they sue for back rent.

You will want to research "Statute of Limitations", which determines how long after a fact may legal action be brought. After the Statute expires, nothing can legally be done.

It's hereditary because one generation teaches the next without themselves being guided.

sounds like israeli occupied palestine. except your talking 150 + generations later.