Edward Hall argues that philosophers of immigration are not thinking it through.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/166/Philosophers_and_Immigration_Control
Philosophers & Immigration Control
-
Gary Childress
- Posts: 11748
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: It's my fault
Re: Philosophers & Immigration Control
The article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy seems very well written and perhaps as thorough as one can be within the limitations of writing an article in an encyclopedia.
After reading through the article almost in entirety and then reading the conclusion, I'd say that I Learned the same thing about the ethics of immigration that I learned about just about EVERY other contentious issue in philosophy. There are no 100% right answers. The issue is murky beyond easy resolution. As with most contentious issues in life, one is left defending the indefensible in some ways or else admonishing the defensible.
My own conclusion is that this world is beyond the ability for human beings to fix. The problems are too entrenched. There is literally nothing we as thinkers can do to resolve such issues as a rule. And in a sense that fuels complacency in either direction. One comes to a point where defending borders is no more arguable than opening them up. At that point, apathy sets in, and we are left only with the realities of the world regarding what will or won't happen.
I'm tired of philosophy. And yet there is nothing in this world to adequately replace it. We are doomed to a futile task of being moral actors in a world where everything is both good and evil. Some things are better than others, and some things are more evil than others. But in the end, most of us are merely statistics on a spreadsheet. Whether we live or die is in our own hands, and how vigorously or not we strive to live in an imperfect world.
After reading through the article almost in entirety and then reading the conclusion, I'd say that I Learned the same thing about the ethics of immigration that I learned about just about EVERY other contentious issue in philosophy. There are no 100% right answers. The issue is murky beyond easy resolution. As with most contentious issues in life, one is left defending the indefensible in some ways or else admonishing the defensible.
My own conclusion is that this world is beyond the ability for human beings to fix. The problems are too entrenched. There is literally nothing we as thinkers can do to resolve such issues as a rule. And in a sense that fuels complacency in either direction. One comes to a point where defending borders is no more arguable than opening them up. At that point, apathy sets in, and we are left only with the realities of the world regarding what will or won't happen.
I'm tired of philosophy. And yet there is nothing in this world to adequately replace it. We are doomed to a futile task of being moral actors in a world where everything is both good and evil. Some things are better than others, and some things are more evil than others. But in the end, most of us are merely statistics on a spreadsheet. Whether we live or die is in our own hands, and how vigorously or not we strive to live in an imperfect world.