Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Not sure that it is really.
THE MORAL MAZE
Will not elaborate.
But then most things are, in some form or another.
including advocating free-trade and the free movement of money. The free movement of labour is the third side of the same triangle.
in the free movement of money.
You might not agree with restricting immigration (I don't) but I don't really see where morality comes into it?
by restricting access to resources that only fate has bestowed.
probably why this thread is so shit.
to resources that only fate has bestowed?
not one of geographic restriction though, obviously.
but they are there for practical reasons.
That's more about their own economic strength.
In fact, by forcing their own scientists/engineers/etc. to stay in the country maybe you could argue it would encourage them to build themselves to an economic level equivalent to our own.
there would be no border controls or restriction on movement
Except that they aren't legally allowed to.
You could argue that it would encourage them, and you could also argue it would discourage them. No evidence either way. Point is, if they want to move to where the resources are better, they should be allowed to.
you have to consider, as well, that allowing unchecked immigration here from places like eastern europe is detremental to the countries they came from as well. If all your skilled labour moves abroad for a better quality of life, it's not gonna encourage either confidence in your countries' economy or investment.
so in effect you've just provided the evidence you say doesn't exist.
The fact is that if everyone moved to rich countries then those countries wouldn't be rich for very long.
If your moral argument is that one country shouldn't be richer than another then free movement of people isn't the answer because it just means people with the money to move to another country get richer and those who can't afford it or can't move for other reasons stay poor.
Practically, yeah defensible for loads of good reasons.
by reason of the delta's from the 'ideal' between the two areas, and the practical problems that free movement would create, because it may be that unrestricted passage might locally inflame predjudice that can (in some intermingled populations) result in nastyness up to genicide (the various enclaves within enclaves in some ex soviet state illustrate the sort of problem.....and the problems in Burundi/Rwanda/eastern DRC show possible extreme problems that occur when interminglied yet distinct groups of people where there is a large degree of aggression between some elements of the groups
I mean like, we've all read nietzsche, yeah?
Just seems silly.
Schopenhauer gives you all the tools you need.
Obviously if everyone moved to rich countries they'd become less rich: that is exactly what I'm saying should be allowed to happen. Free movement of people is (part) of the answer, because it is an artificial barrier to equalising effects. It wouldn't be perfect (because of the costs of moving that you mention), but it would be better than at present.
So what does it matter about the piece of dirt they no longer occupy?
People who have read Nietzsche's writing amounting to more than the wikipedia page and/or one chapter seven years ago would be maybe... 10% of users?
Basically, you've used the old chestnut of conspicuously dropping a famous thinker's name to sound clever while conspicuously not offering an opinion on the topic.
i don't even know what irony is anymore
i dropped the name because it's embarrassing when people come in a thread and are all like MORALITY DOESN'T EXIST GUYS, OPEN YOUR EYES. So i just referenced the thinker most conspicuously associated with that idea because it's easier.
I already posted my thoughts on the topic, thanks.
then people originating from the UK (or wherever) are gonna be better off if immigrants don't come here. What does it matter if the people that want to come here will be worse off as a result? You're taking this case in isolation, but I'm pretty sure you're on the left, so if you're asserting that the wannabe-immigrants negative freedom is of prime importance in this matter over, say the collective welfare of a nations' populace, then why don't you assert people's negative freedom as of prime importance in all areas? Because you're a hypocrite, that's why.
this all seems to rest on an awfully individualist american dream-y kinda argument
worse than people not getting the parody
who even knows
I think the people of that island could build a strong moral case for not allowing the zombies to emigrate there.
it isn't hard to do
snap out of it.
I mean are we talking intraEU here or what.
depends what your point is i suppose
a government has a moral duty to protect the interests of its citizens; therefore... yes?
Well theres question!
Morally its not defensible. But the second part of the answer is we dont live in an unstructured world, we have taxes, laws, money, employment etc etc so practically its not feasible to have high immigration to a relatively rich country.
It does disadvantage those that live here and place a high burden on tax payers. Not the workers that come, but the familys/cousins/brothers/grandparents that come here.
This is such a tough call and such a complex debate.
In a truely free world, id say a world without borders and immigration is my preference.
Or at least be a bit clearer about what you mean by `peoples negaative freedom of prime importance`?
but why does person A (who moves from say, India to Scotland), who would be better off moving, have an obligation to stay for the benefit of the people in their original country (a benefit not yet established, I might add).
Also, is a zombie example the best counter to a real topic?
but do they consider the interests of other people (non-citizens) in that determination? If not, isn't that immoral and arbitrary?
you're obviously not cut out for academia.
I meant that in this case you're considering the immigrants negative freedom as the most important factor to be considered, even to the detriment of lots of other factors (potentially). If you're doing this then that should basically make you a libertarian.
Why aren't you a libertarian, huh.
political lines do not obvigate you from being excellant to others If you can be
YOU'RE STAYING HERE AND THAT'S THAT.
answer the question you asked in the OP?
And it has spread globally, and the only place untouched is Island X. You don't think the inhabitants of Island X, in the aims of protecting the future of humanity, and of sparing their friends and relatives the pain of suffering this horrific disease, couldn't make a decision that is both practical, ethical, and moral, and decide to turn away all the plague infected ships? (For the purpose of the thought exercise, there are no un-infected people left outside Island X). You think they have a moral imperative to open the harbour because of a principle of free trade? It's not the argument any rational utilitarian would make. But then I'm a teleological, relativist kind of guy, maybe you'd like to disagree.
Also, your 'real topic' is kind of dumb and I have no hesitations in throwing zombies into the mix.
this really has nothing to do with immigration. If the outsiders are all on the brink of death, and the insiders would face the same quick fate, then it has little to say about a sustainable long-term situation in which most people are alive and conduct lives `normally`.
the answer we were looking for was `yes`
But when you're dealing with a hypothetical, unquantifiable question like 'is something moral' then you have to allow the arguments to stretch themselves in odd ways. What do you mean by moral? I don't know what you mean, and I'm not sure you do.
(when the benefits of that to the individuals concerned are also up for debate- 'emotional distress' is often higher among first-generation immigrants) but no moral obligation for individuals to remain geographically static if that is (allegedly) to the benefit of their country/state/government?
If someone would be better off by moving to a different country, and whichever country they are in also benefits from their presence, why do they have to stay in the original country (and benefit the people of that country) rather than moving to a new country (and benefitting the people of that new country)?
is that it? cos my post is entirely coherent and relevant.
Nice work professor.
Easier posting a link than actually explaining its contextual relevance to the topic of discussion I suppose.
I give up.
I simply mean `is it fair and reasonable to the people upon whom restrictions are placed?`
I don't think an individual would be morally obligated to remain in their country of origin if their presence was somehow beneficial to it- there'd be moral reasons to stay, but I'm not sure they'd amount to an obligation, or that a decision to forgo those moral reasons would make immigrating morally indefensible.
In the exact same way, I think there are many 'moral' reasons to leave immigration unrestricted, but that it's not necessarily morally indefensible to impose restrictions.
except i've clearly explained how this works SEVERAL TIMES, and you've completely failed to provide a counter argument.
If there is a post where you've explained this without just referring to concepts out of context, then do link it here.
And a low / decreasing birth rate. We need migrants, even if they do come with some "baggage" occasionally. They keep the Daily Mail in business anyway.
I'm not denying that governments have a basic human duty, just like everyone else does, but when they are acting as governments, their to duty to their citizens supercedes that, just like a mother's duty to her child supercedes any of her other moral obligations. Say a mother has to choose between saving her young child from a house fire and saving three children who are not her own from the same fire - what should she do? What is the moral decision? The utilitarian decision, perhaps, is to save the three children, but really, would you feel comfortable saying she's done the 'right' thing in foregoing her duty to her child? I would not.
And I have no inclination to dismiss that analogy either. Without wishing to get into an in-depth discussion about the role of government (which, if you wanted to do this properly, would probably be necessary), I will consider it a given that governments are supposed to exist to protect the best interests of their people, as I have already suggested. That should be the intention of politicians when they run for government, and that is the expectation of voters. It's the implied contract between the two parties. The motivation for such a contract may be practical, but it doesn't prevent the responsibilities that follow from it being moral ones.