The Forum > Article Comments > Stop the boats? Thinking about refugee policy and human rights > Comments
Stop the boats? Thinking about refugee policy and human rights : Comments
By Jack Maxwell, published 24/3/2014It’s difficult to believe, but 60 per cent of Australians want the government to increase the severity of the treatment of asylum seekers.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Page 14
-
- All
In the case of "4 men in a boat" I would agree with Kant that no one should be murdered to save the others, but that doesn't necessarily make me a Kantian: if one of the four was dying naturally and without being pressured, completely voluntarily, asked the others to kill him because he had no hope to survive anyway, then it wouldn't be wrong to help him out of his misery, though I personally wouldn't do it.
<<then HOW do you convince yourself that this is NOT a “Utilitarian” act of moral deciding of one over another?>>
It is very simple: no act of preferring one over the other is involved. My heart may still cry for the 98%, but that doesn't allow me to actively harm the 2%. In fact, it would even make no difference if those arriving were "wealthy criminals" which I hated.
To clarify further, I am not "choosing to help the few refugees in boats near our shores", only to refrain from disturbing them - if for instance their boat takes water and they drown on their own, or if they starve to death after they arrive, then it would be perfectly legitimate for me not to intervene: if I did choose to intervene regardless in their favour, only then you may claim that I prefer the 2% over the 98%.
Approaching refugees from a wide holistic angle is virtuous and I salute those who do it. Yet while that goal is honourable, it doesn't justify violence in its implementation.
A "focus on the 2%" would indeed be "highly calculative", but I never suggested any such focus. My primary focus is on MYSELF/OURSELVES refraining from doing any violence - if ON TOP of that we can ALSO help others, so much the better.