|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 12, 2023 20:45:42 GMT
And what about morally? Are we really as bad as you make out? Morality is a very fungible commodity, it can take on different characteristics both temporally and spatially.
In simpler terms, what is considered as moral here may not be moral there, and what was moral then may very well not be moral now.
There is no universal morality nor any workshop manual to instruct us on how such a thing might be applied, if it could be shown to exist.
What you are asking is whether it is moral to place the interests of an existing population above that of others who might aspire to share their living space, to which I would respond: why not?
True, but by the same measure our morality is now as we see our selves. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 13, 2023 5:13:13 GMT
Morality is a very fungible commodity, it can take on different characteristics both temporally and spatially.
In simpler terms, what is considered as moral here may not be moral there, and what was moral then may very well not be moral now.
There is no universal morality nor any workshop manual to instruct us on how such a thing might be applied, if it could be shown to exist.
What you are asking is whether it is moral to place the interests of an existing population above that of others who might aspire to share their living space, to which I would respond: why not?
True, but by the same measure our morality is now as we see our selves. At this moment in time. It could be different next week depending upon how the self-anointed moral arbiters view the world. Despite what Kant claimed, there is no Golden Rule, universal and timeless. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 13, 2023 6:30:12 GMT
True, but by the same measure our morality is now as we see our selves. At this moment in time. It could be different next week depending upon how the self-anointed moral arbiters view the world. Despite what Kant claimed, there is no Golden Rule, universal and timeless. Just because these standards disagree with yours does not mean they have no support and are imposed upon us. How would you get rid of the "self appointed arbiters" and get "appointed" ones. Where we are morally does change but that change is slow taken over generations. Most people currently would agree that economic migration is wrong and too easy. Very few would agree with you that we should not provide sanctuary and a new life to deserving cases. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jul 13, 2023 6:36:06 GMT
True, but by the same measure our morality is now as we see our selves. At this moment in time. It could be different next week depending upon how the self-anointed moral arbiters view the world. Despite what Kant claimed, there is no Golden Rule, universal and timeless. The civil service then! |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 13, 2023 6:48:16 GMT
"Very few would agree with you that we should not provide sanctuary and a new life to deserving cases." [emphasis added]
And you know this how?
"Where we are morally does change but that change is slow taken over generations. "
Not necessarily. Moral fashions can change almost overnight. Consider how quickly the NHS abandoned the 'Gender Identity Service' at the Tavistock Clinic in the face of public revulsion. What was once considered a moral duty to facilitate sex changing for troubled children became anathema practically overnight.
There are many other instances in similar vein. Same sex marriage would be one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 13, 2023 7:39:11 GMT
It's well established that East Asians, amongst others, go to great lengths to exclude would-be claimants from outside their societies who aspire to share their living space. I recall reading recently that the Japanese, for example, reject over 99% of asylum claims. Does that mean that the Japanese, Koreans, Chinese et al do not qualify as human beings? I think this question is close to the heart argument. Is a community immoral for paying attention to its own concerns and keeping its own affairs in order even though a large section of the world is disastrously badly run? Does such a society have a moral duty to significantly allow its territory to be taken to help people in that disaster? If the answer is Yes, you have, in practical terms, disallowed any functioning civilisation on moral grounds. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2023 10:09:51 GMT
It's well established that East Asians, amongst others, go to great lengths to exclude would-be claimants from outside their societies who aspire to share their living space. I recall reading recently that the Japanese, for example, reject over 99% of asylum claims. Does that mean that the Japanese, Koreans, Chinese et al do not qualify as human beings? I think this question is close to the heart argument. Is a community immoral for paying attention to its own concerns and keeping its own affairs in order even though a large section of the world is disastrously badly run? Does such a society have a moral duty to significantly allow its territory to be taken to help people in that disaster? If the answer is Yes, you have, in practical terms, disallowed any functioning civilisation on moral grounds. We do not have an obligation to take everyone. Fact is many nations, some of them much poorer than us, take in many more than we do. We do however have a moral duty to take in those who are genuinely fleeing ill treatment and persecution when they arrive here, which you seem to be perversely equating with the collapse of western civilisation in order to reach the perverse conclusion that taking in refugees would be immoral. Instead of faffing about with offshore barges, hostile environments, detention camps, and expensive flights to Rwanda designed more to appeal to the racist vote, invest more resources into the processing of asylum claims so that those whose claims fail can be deported much faster. Because that is the biggest problem right there. And again the root cause goes back to the disastrous and failed austerity that you probably championed. Nothing works in this country anymore due to that. Including quite evidently the asylum claim processing process. If people without good claims knew they'd get their claim rapidly processed and rejected with swift deportation to follow, that would be a far greater deterrent to non-genuine cases than any other of the dog whistling, headline grabbing faff we have heard from government so far. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jul 13, 2023 10:17:18 GMT
I have a friend who is a refugee from Ukraine who has been granted asylum.
Given the indiscriminate bombing of her country, I'd be very surprised if she has a home to go back to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 13, 2023 10:26:00 GMT
^^ That 'moral duty' again.
Sez who?
And how come we have one when the Japanese et al apparently don't?
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 13, 2023 10:36:03 GMT
At this moment in time. It could be different next week depending upon how the self-anointed moral arbiters view the world. Despite what Kant claimed, there is no Golden Rule, universal and timeless. Just because these standards disagree with yours does not mean they have no support and are imposed upon us. How would you get rid of the "self appointed arbiters" and get "appointed" ones. Where we are morally does change but that change is slow taken over generations. Most people currently would agree that economic migration is wrong and too easy. Very few would agree with you that we should not provide sanctuary and a new life to deserving cases. Sanctuary is one thing, a new life is totally different. If your neighbour is burnt out of his house you may offer him a roof until such time as he can return to his own house. There is no obligation upon you morally to invite him to share all you have for all time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2023 10:48:17 GMT
^^ That 'moral duty' again. Sez who? And how come we have one when the Japanese et al apparently don't? The Japanese have a very different cultural history to us and most of western Europe. But finding the closest examples you can to a near zero immigration policy and holding it up as an example to follow displays an obvious tendency on your part to find examples that conform to your preset beliefs, even if culturally and historically they are very different to us. Do you want us to be more like the Japanese in everything? Or only that which you have a bee in your bonnet about? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 13, 2023 10:58:48 GMT
Japanese society has many admirable qualities but I wouldn't want to live there.
But it's interesting that you would attribute their very different moral stance to its 'cultural history'. Has that history served to place Japan on a lower i.e. inferior moral plane to western European societies, in your view? But then, what about Poland and Hungary, countries with not dissimilar cultural histories to our own but with a very different view when it comes to asylum seekers, at least with non-Europeans. Are they also morally inferior, or 'backward' even?
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 13, 2023 11:17:19 GMT
I think this question is close to the heart argument. Is a community immoral for paying attention to its own concerns and keeping its own affairs in order even though a large section of the world is disastrously badly run? Does such a society have a moral duty to significantly allow its territory to be taken to help people in that disaster? If the answer is Yes, you have, in practical terms, disallowed any functioning civilisation on moral grounds. We do not have an obligation to take everyone. Fact is many nations, some of them much poorer than us, take in many more than we do. We do however have a moral duty to take in those who are genuinely fleeing ill treatment and persecution when they arrive here, which you seem to be perversely equating with the collapse of western civilisation in order to reach the perverse conclusion that taking in refugees would be immoral. Collapse is logically the long term conclusion of the approach (policy) you outline above. Look how loose you are - "all who flee?" - really?. It is a formula that will stop civilization surviving, using demands to correct everything while having no jurisdiction. If you determine as policy that 'all in need' must have to access to your house, the house will not remain yours or even likely even 'a house' for long. The world is chaos with some patches of limited order and your formula for dealing with the discrepancy is to (effectively) disallow order by insisting order always has a moral duty to take on and pay the costs of the chaos as well as its own costs - specifically to disallow order separating from chaos. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 13, 2023 15:44:07 GMT
"Very few would agree with you that we should not provide sanctuary and a new life to deserving cases." [emphasis added]
Because I saw the reaction to those suffering in the Ukraine, I see the sympathy for those suffering in Syria.
So how do you know they woud not agree? Do you see placards with go home Ukrainians anywhere?
Morals are not a fashion or a lifestyle choice etc. They are written hard into our society and change very slowly. Gender change identity is not a moral duty, nor was it ever accepted by society as a whole.
It took decades if not centuries to get same sex relationships morally acceptable, same sex marriage took decades more.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 13, 2023 15:47:28 GMT
It's well established that East Asians, amongst others, go to great lengths to exclude would-be claimants from outside their societies who aspire to share their living space. I recall reading recently that the Japanese, for example, reject over 99% of asylum claims. Does that mean that the Japanese, Koreans, Chinese et al do not qualify as human beings? I think this question is close to the heart argument. Is a community immoral for paying attention to its own concerns and keeping its own affairs in order even though a large section of the world is disastrously badly run? Does such a society have a moral duty to significantly allow its territory to be taken to help people in that disaster? If the answer is Yes, you have, in practical terms, disallowed any functioning civilisation on moral grounds. Its not so simple to ignore the rest of the planet and its people. That's why we engage with them, not for some altruistic reasons. Why do you think the Nato countries are so successful? |
|
