If you mean reparations in the modern political sense of, eg, paying members of ethnic groups that were mistreated by past generations, then decision theory is mostly irrelevant because the arguments in favor of doing that come from a completely different angle.
In FDT, the argument for paying back past harms is a selfish one: if you’re the sort of person who will predictably pay to repair the damage if you harm someone, people will be more willing to associate and trade with you. Whereas the modern political argument for reparations is an altruistic one: we like fairness and people flourishing, so when there’s a legible group that is not-flourishing for reasons that are unfair, we want to change that.
If you mean reparations in the modern political sense of, eg, paying members of ethnic groups that were mistreated by past generations, then decision theory is mostly irrelevant because the arguments in favor of doing that come from a completely different angle.
In FDT, the argument for paying back past harms is a selfish one: if you’re the sort of person who will predictably pay to repair the damage if you harm someone, people will be more willing to associate and trade with you. Whereas the modern political argument for reparations is an altruistic one: we like fairness and people flourishing, so when there’s a legible group that is not-flourishing for reasons that are unfair, we want to change that.