In my opinion, injecting a moral ambition/aspect into restorative truth makes the whole concept seem more realistic, or at least more comprehensible. Victim-centered truth commissions seeking reconciliation will naturally follow courses of action that have moral foundations. Reconciliation in and of itself seems to directly correlate to the moral undertaking of a truth commission. Restorative justice strives to reconcile the bonds/relationship between all members of the society affected by atrocities in order to create conditions in which all citizens are respected, treated with dignity, and have their human rights protected. Reconciliation, and restorative justice for that matter, begins with recognition. Truth, and therefore justice, can only truly be achieved when both the victim and the crime committed against them are acknowledged and recognized. From there, reconciliation and restoration can begin.
While I didn’t really get Kiss the first time I read her essay, now I understand how vital it is for truth commissions to have some sort of moral ambition. Morality provides the motivation for and ability to undertake successful truth commissions that ultimately establish some sense of reconciliation, that allow a community and the larger society to move forward together. I think that without some moral grounding, truth commissions wouldn’t work because the purpose of societal reconciliation seems, to me, to be morally-driven.