tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post2679937944814586713..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Waiving Rights and "Second-class citizens"Richard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-50110645341125195042015-01-31T16:06:06.923-05:002015-01-31T16:06:06.923-05:00There is a distaste towards migrants for some reas...There is a distaste towards migrants for some reason, and I do not think it is because people simply do not want to associate with 'outsiders'. The issue is much more fundamental than people moving into a richer country for the sake of furthering their own lives and escaping the low-paid work within their own country - there is nothing wrong with this and the choice to move country for this reason is commendable.<br /><br />To shut our borders (I'm in the UK) or regulate the number of immigrants doesn't seem correct. To relegate existing migrants to a lower class of citizen is also uncorrect, but why are we having this discussion? Why are people so against people from one country moving to another? It stems from a dissatisfaction within society as it currently is, and migrants being blamed for taking jobs, sponging benefits and overcrowding the country just acts as a scapegoat for more fundamental problems. People are scared for their economical security and until that issue is addressed we will still, unfortunately, have questions over border control and migrant fluidity. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11739945563500048242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-54036379462017449082015-01-23T00:48:02.476-05:002015-01-23T00:48:02.476-05:00I agree with this post wholeheartedly, but I would...I agree with this post wholeheartedly, but I would like to point out a similar situation where this line of reasoning seems morally valid to me: potential future people. When considering whether or not to have a child, people often use very similar logic as an argument against having children. They say "If I had a child I would be obliged to provide it with a certain level of care, and if I was unable to society would be obliged to. I don't want to do that, and neither does society, so I will not have a child." This logic seems morally sound to me.<br /><br />One reason that seems morally relevant is that the child in question doesn't exist, and never will. Foreigners, by contrast, do exist. Nonexistance may be a valid reason to disregard someone's welfare, but nationality is not.<br /><br />Another valid reason comes to light if you evaluate these scenarios from a consequentialist perspective instead of an obligations perspective. Pretty much everyone agrees that a poor foreigner's life getting better is a good consequence, even if some people think they have no moral obligation to bring those consequences about (or even an obligation not to). But most people think that adding a new low-welfare life to the world is a bad consequence, and that adding a high-welfare life to the world is a bad consequence if that high-welfare is obtained at the expense of preexisting people.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15661002375460378958noreply@blogger.com