# The Injustice of Strictly and Literally Making Victims Whole, Such as All Children
**URL:** https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/the-injustice-of-strictly-and-literally-making-victims-whole-such-as-all-children/2104
**Category:** Elliot Temple
**Tags:** bot, curiosity-blog
**Created:** [September 3, 2025, 4:03pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/the-injustice-of-strictly-and-literally-making-victims-whole-such-as-all-children/2104 "2025-09-03T16:03:00Z")
**Posts on this page:** 10
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [September 3, 2025, 4:03pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/the-injustice-of-strictly-and-literally-making-victims-whole-such-as-all-children/2104/1 "2025-09-03T16:03:00Z")
My former mentor David Deutsch taught me an idea that _victims of injustices should be made whole_ by the person or group who wronged them. If someone violates the non-aggression principle, they should pay for all the harm they caused so that no one innocent is worse off than before. Victims should be restored to their original condition before they were victimized. You can consider "If someone offered me $X to accept Y happening to me, would I accept?" If the answer is no, then damages for Y are above $X. Payouts should be enough that victims are indifferent to the injustice never having happened or receiving the payout.
* * *
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at [https://curi.us/2597-the-injustice-of-strictly-and-literally-making-victims-whole-such-as-all-children](https://curi.us/2597-the-injustice-of-strictly-and-literally-making-victims-whole-such-as-all-children)
---
### Author:  [@Neo](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Neo)
#### Post date: [September 4, 2025, 10:52pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/the-injustice-of-strictly-and-literally-making-victims-whole-such-as-all-children/2104/2 "2025-09-04T22:52:46Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> ## Israel and Palestine
>
> Deutsch often used this idea of making victims fully whole in his analysis of issues. For example, he applied it to Israel and Palestine. Based on many conversations, here’s what I think he’d say today, which _I disagree with_ (I’ve put my own comments in parentheses): Israel is the innocent victim of Hamas’ October 7, 2023 attack. Israel is justified in defensively dropping thousands of bombs and killing thousands of people until Israel has used enough violence to be made whole (which will never happen) or Hamas is entirely destroyed or fully surrenders (at which point bombing more is pointless). Excessive defensive violence (more than needed to prevent any future attacks and be made whole) isn’t allowed but massively disproportionate violence, including using nuclear weapons, is justified as long as Israel still isn’t 100% whole and safe. The only ethical question about using nuclear weapons is whether using them in a specific case will help Israel get closer to being made whole or would be counter-productive. If the Palestinians don’t like being collateral damage, Deutsch would tell them to demand Hamas make them whole or to attack and destroy Hamas so Israel stops bombing.
This is pretty close to what Rand might say right?
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2025, 2:44pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/the-injustice-of-strictly-and-literally-making-victims-whole-such-as-all-children/2104/3 "2025-09-05T14:44:17Z")
I doubt it.
---
### Author:  [@Neo](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Neo)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2025, 6:43pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/the-injustice-of-strictly-and-literally-making-victims-whole-such-as-all-children/2104/4 "2025-09-05T18:43:32Z")
I remember searching for what she thought about innocents in war, international law, etc back in November 2023. I think there’s more she’s said about it somewhere but even in this video, she talks about in war, if one party is the aggressor, anything that the other party does is morally justified, and the total annihilation of the aggressor is justified. And how the majority in any country at war is innocent, but if by neglect, ignorance or helplessness, they couldn’t overturn or choose a bad government and choose a better one, then they have to pay the price for the sins of their government. She doesn’t mention making the country who was agressed 100% completely whole, but I can imagine her agreeing with most of what you guess Deutsch might say.
[https://youtu.be/s1YnAtQtueg?si=40Fu9FP5B5QA8SpO](https://youtu.be/s1YnAtQtueg?si=40Fu9FP5B5QA8SpO)
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2025, 8:05pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/the-injustice-of-strictly-and-literally-making-victims-whole-such-as-all-children/2104/5 "2025-09-05T20:05:48Z")
I think Rand is too harsh (I wouldn’t say what she did) but as you say her comments weren’t about the victim being made 100% whole so that’s pretty different.
And she seems to have in mind scenarios like dealing with an aggressive USSR or Nazi Germany which make her comments more understandable. I think she was thinking of scenarios where an unfree country is trying to invade you, in which case disproportionate force is not much of a concern (but it still could be IMO, e.g. imagine if we had bombs so powerful they’d blow up cities in neighboring countries – I don’t know what Rand would say about those but I doubt she’d authorize their unlimited, indiscriminate use for any defensive cause when that use helps with offense but is totally unnecessary for preventing your own country from being conquered.)
Israel has had wars in the past with the militaries of other countries. I think Rand would say those were defensive wars and that Israel’s behavior was fine. The current conflict with Hamas is not with a country, not with a normal military, does not involve Israel being at risk of being invaded/conquered, and is dragging on much longer than past wars despite a more powerful IDF and less powerful adversary. I’m no expert on the details of what’s happening but it seems potentially like Israel’s actions in Gaza, since a few months after the conflict started, are not very effective and are primarily hurting non-combatants. I also don’t know what is going on with diplomacy currently and what the possibilities are for setting up a non-Hamas Palestinian government and stuff (I don’t know how underground Hamas has been forced either) or what terms Hamas would accept (I understand that some Israelis are mad at their government and think Israel could have negotiated a end to the conflict, including returning all hostages/corpses, by now if they actually wanted to). There are also potentially significant elements of Western/US/UK/Israeli/etc partial guilt and I don’t know if Rand would agree with any of that or not (keep in mind she didn’t support Reagan and had a somewhat isolationist take on WWII before Pearl Harbor, so I don’t think she’d approve of all the US meddling and colonialism around the world). Due to these and other differences I think Rand might analyze it differently.
Rand mentioned that both sides could be at fault. It sounded like she considers that unlikely in standard wars where countries try to invade each other using militaries, but I don’t think we can infer that she considers it unlikely in non-standard wars/conflicts.
Rand’s pre-Pearl Harbor hesitance about US involvement in WWII also indicates differences in her point of view compared to Deutsch’s.
I think the analysis of the current conflict depends on _why_ it’s taking so long, which I don’t confidently know, and I think that would be relevant to Rand’s take.
I try to be careful about attaching Rand’s name to causes she didn’t comment on where there’s some ambiguity. She’s pretty unique and didn’t fit into any standard tribe or bundle of views very well. She is also the type who could totally change her conclusion based on one factor instead of treating every factor indecisively. It’s also hard to know how access to the internet and better information sources would have changed her views on anything where she may have been opining with some limited, flawed information. Like she said some basically pro-colonialism stuff about the settlers and their conflicts with native Americans, but it’s possible that she would change her mind with better information, just like if she actually read _Silent Spring_ maybe she would have changed her mind some like I did.
I do think I’m more inclined to see conflicts as gray instead of as good and bad guys than Rand or Deutsch. But it’s hard to know what actions by Israel (or the US etc) she might think crossed some line.
---
### Author:  [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)
#### Post date: [September 20, 2025, 1:45am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/the-injustice-of-strictly-and-literally-making-victims-whole-such-as-all-children/2104/6 "2025-09-20T01:45:04Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Deutsch took this principle of restitution much more strictly and literally than society usually does. His view is most similar to libertarians. He’s trying to be pure and principled, but it actually conflicts with other principles. I now think Deutsch’s strong approach to victim compensation is wrong and dangerous, so I’ve tried to question, unpack and critique it.
Vaguely that doesn’t sound too unique. I remember watching some Tort law lectures (nothing advanced, just something to get a feel for it) and they said stuff similar to what you said Deutsch said. They believed, and I assume a fair amount of Tort professors but idk, that we need more lawsuits. That there are a lot more things that need to be covered by Torts. That we need more restitution to make people whole. They just shared that as an opinion about Tort law and didn’t elaborate. So I don’t know what thoughts they have to establish that view.
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> According to Deutsch’s position, the legal system frequently under-compensates victims, often by hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I think that’s a fairly common opinion. Here’s something from Gemini, I asked “does the legal system under compensate victims in tort”:
> Yes, the tort legal system can undercompensate victims due to high transaction costs, limitations on recoverable damages like pain and suffering, caps on awards, and the fact that compensation is often based on a victim’s “worth” rather than just the injury itself. While the system aims to make victims whole, practical and systemic factors frequently result in the actual compensation received being less than the full value of the harm suffered.
Hmm. You said legal system broadly. I also think that’s a fairly common opinion. I think a lot of people think that government programs fail to sufficiently cover the damages people suffer.
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> For example, if someone is mugged at gunpoint, they would be asked, “Would you have been willing to be mugged at gunpoint for a million dollars? Keep in mind it’d be a real mugging with a real gun and an unpredictable outcome. Even though you survived your mugging, take into account the risk of death when answering this question.” If the answer is “no” then they should receive at least a million dollars in compensation for being mugged. (How can it be determined if they’re being honest or how much compensation is really fair? There’s no real way to know. But Deutsch was concerned with the principle more than practical details like methods of accurately determining damages.)
Hmm. Interesting. I think how the law currently answers this is by going off “reasonable” person standards (in quotes because it seems more like average person standards as opposed to reasonable person standards), They would ask what would a reasonable person expect in this scenario. Deutsch seems more subjective here? Though I have heard of the “egg-shell” doctrine(?) in law. If you punch someone who is more frail than others you are subject to compensate them for all damages even though they are more frail than others. I don’t think this applies to people who are emotionally egg-shells, but the idea kinda fits.
This remind me of something I watched recently: [Day in the Life: 24 Hours As A Lawyer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90AU5PANqag)
Paraphrasing here from around ~9:40 (none of the below is a direct quote):
> Case 1 was about a wrongful death cafe of an 18 year old. We are suing the place he was killed at. We are in contact with an economist to value the financial contribution that 18 yr old would have for the rest of his life from lost wages to the family, lost value he provided to his household and other things.
This seems to me like trying to do way too much. I don’t even know the economist is going to attempt to get them a reasonable number.
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> In Deutsch’s approach, damages for all sorts of injustices can be very high and also include all costs of lawyers, therapists, courts, etc. Damages include your time dealing with everything, including your time spent helping catch the aggressor, choosing your lawyer, talking with your lawyer, travel time to visit your lawyer, travel time to buy a note pad to take notes while talking with your lawyer, time in court, the gas for your car, etc., _all_ costs.
Hmm. I don’t know if certain lawyers view go that extreme, but I do know that part of the reason lawyers believe victims are under-compensated is due to legal costs.
Also something else I remember: I remember the idea being shared that Tort attempts to make people whole again before anything happened. Now the law can’t make you back to how you were before. It can just give you money. I think that idea influences lawyers. We literally(I think thats the goal) want to do our best to make current you into the past you the best we can through money, since other things aren’t feasible.
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Victims are required to make reasonable efforts to minimize the harm they suffer
In Deutsch’s view?
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> However, even when it’s genuinely defensive, I think it’s generally still a bad idea to use the police or courts when it’s a disproportionate escalation.
I think courts should be used for more last-resort measures for more serious things.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [September 20, 2025, 3:32pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/the-injustice-of-strictly-and-literally-making-victims-whole-such-as-all-children/2104/7 "2025-09-20T15:32:29Z")
> [@Eternity](#):
>
> Vaguely that doesn’t sound too unique. I remember watching some Tort law lectures (nothing advanced, just something to get a feel for it) and they said stuff similar to what you said Deutsch said. They believed, and I assume a fair amount of Tort professors but idk, that we need more lawsuits. That there are a lot more things that need to be covered by Torts. That we need more restitution to make people whole. They just shared that as an opinion about Tort law and didn’t elaborate. So I don’t know what thoughts they have to establish that view.
To me, their comments sound compatible with a wide variety of viewpoints that disagree with Deutsch. I wouldn’t assume, from that information, any kind of agreement with Deutsch (but I also wouldn’t rule it out).
> [@Eternity](#):
>
> > [@Elliot](#):
> >
> > According to Deutsch’s position, the legal system frequently under-compensates victims, often by hundreds of thousands of dollars.
>
> I think that’s a fairly common opinion. Here’s something from Gemini, I asked “does the legal system under compensate victims in tort”:
That’s different. The Gemini answer is saying that victims are not made fully whole because doing so would be impractical and therefore bad. We have to compromise because other factors matter besides 100% restitution.
Deutsch’s position is that it’d be better to change the system to demand victims be made 100% whole. He’s not concerned with all those other factors. He doesn’t want to compromise with them and have a practical approach. He wants demands a wildly different system than society has which would have consequences that most people do not want.
Believing that victims are under-compensated makes sense: yeah, they usually aren’t made fully whole. Wanting to actually change this is a very different matter though because there are all sorts of downsides to raising compensation, which is why it is where it is now, not higher. I expect that most lawyers don’t want to fundamentally change the current system, which was created by their predecessors (and politicians, etc) on purpose. If most people in a field don’t support the status quo and genuinely want major change then usually things do change.
If lawyers are just saying “hey, try not to be a victim, because FYI most victims don’t really get paid enough to make it worth their while” that is reasonable, practical advice that’s totally different than wanting radical legal reforms that I think most people would view as impractical and harmful.
> [@Eternity](#):
>
> Though I have heard of the “egg-shell” doctrine(?) in law. If you punch someone who is more frail than others you are subject to compensate them for all damages even though they are more frail than others. I don’t think this applies to people who are emotionally egg-shells, but the idea kinda fits.
There’s also a doctrine that you have to take reasonable steps to avoid being harmed. That includes being reasonably robust, not unreasonably fragile, where possible. (If you have an uncurable health condition, like hemophilia, then you should carry bandaids or something to reduce risk but also people who make you bleed will be responsible for higher damages).
> [@Eternity](#):
>
> > [@Elliot](#):
> >
> > Victims are required to make reasonable efforts to minimize the harm they suffer
>
> In Deutsch’s view?
Yes, and in my view too, and I have heard of this being a legal principle involved in some current laws. I think it might already be a widespread current legal principle but I’m no expert.
---
### Author:  [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)
#### Post date: [September 24, 2025, 12:01am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/the-injustice-of-strictly-and-literally-making-victims-whole-such-as-all-children/2104/8 "2025-09-24T00:01:29Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Deutsch’s position is that it’d be better to change the system to demand victims be made 100% whole. He’s not concerned with all those other factors. He doesn’t want to compromise with them and have a practical approach. He wants demands a wildly different system than society has which would have consequences that most people do not want.
Oh. So if I’m understanding this correctly Deutsch position is/was that the system needs to be changed now? I took it as you sharing Deutch’s view that the system is flawed and we should strive for a better one. Maybe he talked about some possible ways to achieve that better one. Instead he just wanted to change up the whole system? Hmm. Maybe its related to how he viewed the world as better than it was? Deutsch may think this is something our smart and “amazing” courts can handle.
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> I expect that most lawyers don’t want to fundamentally change the current system, which was created by their predecessors (and politicians, etc) on purpose. If most people in a field don’t support the status quo and genuinely want major change then usually things do change.
Something I remember about liability and stuff, from Liability: The Legal Revolution and Its Consequences:
> For all practical purposes, the omnipresent tort tax we pay today was conceived in the 1950s and set in place in the 1960s and 1970s by a new generation of lawyers and judges.
I’m having trouble finding a different quote from the book where he mentions that this was done very fast (for the legal world) and by a few set lawyers.
I shared some stuff from the book before and then forgot. This is a reminder to go read it. Especially cause I’m talking about tort in the law topic.
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> If lawyers are just saying “hey, try not to be a victim, because FYI most victims don’t really get paid enough to make it worth their while” that is reasonable, practical advice that’s totally different than wanting radical legal reforms that I think most people would view as impractical and harmful.
mmm. that makes sense.
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> > [@Eternity](#):
> >
> > > [@Elliot](#):
> > >
> > > Victims are required to make reasonable efforts to minimize the harm they suffer
> >
> > In Deutsch’s view?
>
> Yes, and in my view too, and I have heard of this being a legal principle involved in some current laws. I think it might already be a widespread current legal principle but I’m no expert.
~yeah. I came across this in an audiobook I was listening to that covered tort law. They didn’t really give a name for the doctrine (if there’s one). I wonder if the tort course I’m doing right now will cover it.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [September 24, 2025, 3:29pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/the-injustice-of-strictly-and-literally-making-victims-whole-such-as-all-children/2104/9 "2025-09-24T15:29:57Z")
> [@Eternity](#):
>
> Oh. So if I’m understanding this correctly Deutsch position is/was that the system needs to be changed now?
I meant:
Deutsch: Making victims fully whole is ideal. That would be better than the current system. That would be a good change.
Others: The current system doesn’t make victims fully whole. But it’s a good, practical compromise that has other benefits. We shouldn’t necessarily change it. While the system could definitely be improved somehow, just focusing on making victims whole while ignoring other factors would make it worse.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [September 24, 2025, 3:32pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/the-injustice-of-strictly-and-literally-making-victims-whole-such-as-all-children/2104/10 "2025-09-24T15:32:19Z")
> [@Eternity](#):
>
> Something I remember about liability and stuff, from Liability: The Legal Revolution and Its Consequences:
>
> > For all practical purposes, the omnipresent tort tax we pay today was conceived in the 1950s and set in place in the 1960s and 1970s by a new generation of lawyers and judges.
>
> I’m having trouble finding a different quote from the book where he mentions that this was done very fast (for the legal world) and by a few set lawyers.
That’s really interesting to me. I have a low opinion of the current system where many civil cases are very expensive in terms of lawyer bills. But I didn’t guess it was a recent problem. I’m curious who changed it, how, why, what it was like before that, etc.