I generally consider myself a preferential utilitarian in the mould of Peter Singer. That is, I believe that the right thing to do is to satisfy the majority of people's human rights and then preferences.
For example, this means that if I have $100 and only need $50, and Bob has none and needs $50, I should give $50 to Bob.
At the moment, I'm considering travelling overseas for the first time. This is not cheap to do - it will cost $5000 AUD at a minimum, and take about 3 to 4 weeks of my time. The preferential utilitarian consequences of this are that, so long as there are people starving in many parts of the world, that I shouldn't spend this $5000 on myself since it is something I want but not something I need to survive.
An exception to this might be that, in the long run, I may be able to do more good as a result of having gone to Europe than I could have by giving this $5000 to charity. Unfortunately for me (and for any potential travel broker), I don't think that this is possible.
If I make this choice, I'm not sure that I would even regret it. I feel that this is the right thing to do. The larger question is whether I have this moral code because it excuses a martyrdom/victim complex, but I *think* I can safely deny this; I've developed this code progressively since reader various Singer texts and as a reaction to seeing many world problems that could be easily solved.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Asylum Seeker Thoughts
Australia receives a large number of asylum seekers, and is a perpetual debate about how to treat those seeking asylum by boat.
First off, seeking asylum via boat is extremely dangerous, and should be discouraged however possible. The right and left of Australian society differ on how to do this; the left would speed up processing wait, perhaps increase refugee intake, and not incarcerate asylum seekers for as long as they currently are. The right would impose temporary protection visas that seek to deport the refugees once it is safe to do so, and maintains that mandatory detention is an effective disincentive.
My view is that mandatory detention is a disincentive, but is not morally correct. Processing should be as quick as possible, and housing should be provided during (when established that it is safe to do so - after quarantine and security checks are performed). I cannot imagine that many refugees staking their lives on such a perilous journey are not genuine; therefore, the behaviour to target is journey via boat rather than falsifying claims. I think that if there is a known, predictable, humane process in store for potential refugees, they would choose what is usually the safer option - to lodge their claim from their country and not attempt travel.
I also feel that temporary protection visas are not morally acceptable. It is not in the interests of a refugee to be continually disrupted; to have to flee persecution, war, and so on in their home country and then to be deported again when this is safe.
Finally, a disclaimer: I am no expert when it comes to UNHCR or asylum seekers generally, and can only offer my opinion based on what little I know. If anything, the core issue is that so little information is know about refugees seeking asylum in Australia. For instance, if we knew what ration of asylum seekers were accepted as genuine, the hearts and minds of many Australians would change. At present, many Australians feel that asylum seekers are actually trying to share the prosperity that Australians enjoy (which I am not against in any case).
First off, seeking asylum via boat is extremely dangerous, and should be discouraged however possible. The right and left of Australian society differ on how to do this; the left would speed up processing wait, perhaps increase refugee intake, and not incarcerate asylum seekers for as long as they currently are. The right would impose temporary protection visas that seek to deport the refugees once it is safe to do so, and maintains that mandatory detention is an effective disincentive.
My view is that mandatory detention is a disincentive, but is not morally correct. Processing should be as quick as possible, and housing should be provided during (when established that it is safe to do so - after quarantine and security checks are performed). I cannot imagine that many refugees staking their lives on such a perilous journey are not genuine; therefore, the behaviour to target is journey via boat rather than falsifying claims. I think that if there is a known, predictable, humane process in store for potential refugees, they would choose what is usually the safer option - to lodge their claim from their country and not attempt travel.
I also feel that temporary protection visas are not morally acceptable. It is not in the interests of a refugee to be continually disrupted; to have to flee persecution, war, and so on in their home country and then to be deported again when this is safe.
Finally, a disclaimer: I am no expert when it comes to UNHCR or asylum seekers generally, and can only offer my opinion based on what little I know. If anything, the core issue is that so little information is know about refugees seeking asylum in Australia. For instance, if we knew what ration of asylum seekers were accepted as genuine, the hearts and minds of many Australians would change. At present, many Australians feel that asylum seekers are actually trying to share the prosperity that Australians enjoy (which I am not against in any case).
Monday, March 14, 2011
Opinion Masquerading As Fact
Grog's Gamut has a post about Andrew Bolt getting his facts mixed up. This happens to Andrew too often to be mere mistakes.
My comment on that post is:
"What leads him to do things like this, continually, is his feverish search for any hint of evidence supporting his pre-held views (one does this when such evidence is hard to find). He would have seen that text, and immediately jumped to the conclusion.
In and of itself, I could ignore this and just choose not to read and listen, except that he presents his opinion as fact. For instance, on Insiders recently, he forcefully persisted that the risk to Australians as a result of a potential nuclear incident (irrespective of the fact that Fukishama is just 240km north of Tokyo), and that Kevin Rudd had 'demanded' and update and had 'show-boated' (both exaggerated characterisations). Even if the risk is near-zero, the Government has a duty of care to trust but verify.
And, whilst he doesn't consider himself a journalist, he does allow people to assume that he is. The thing is, what can we do about it except continue to pick up his errors?"
I honestly don't have an answer to this question. What can be done to inform the uninformed? Commentary programs rate well on TV, and there seems to be an incredible ease with which most Australians jump to conclusions first, and search for backing evidence second. I would argue that much of the conservative position is ideology without validating evidence, and that this becomes a vicious circle. But are progressives better? I like to think so, but I'm not sure.
I'm trying to recall what my decision making process was when I first heard about climate change. Did I come to believe because of the scientific consensus, or did I learn of the consensus later? I'll never know. All we can do is exercise self-awareness in monitoring our beliefs and questioning ourselves and others.
My comment on that post is:
"What leads him to do things like this, continually, is his feverish search for any hint of evidence supporting his pre-held views (one does this when such evidence is hard to find). He would have seen that text, and immediately jumped to the conclusion.
In and of itself, I could ignore this and just choose not to read and listen, except that he presents his opinion as fact. For instance, on Insiders recently, he forcefully persisted that the risk to Australians as a result of a potential nuclear incident (irrespective of the fact that Fukishama is just 240km north of Tokyo), and that Kevin Rudd had 'demanded' and update and had 'show-boated' (both exaggerated characterisations). Even if the risk is near-zero, the Government has a duty of care to trust but verify.
And, whilst he doesn't consider himself a journalist, he does allow people to assume that he is. The thing is, what can we do about it except continue to pick up his errors?"
I honestly don't have an answer to this question. What can be done to inform the uninformed? Commentary programs rate well on TV, and there seems to be an incredible ease with which most Australians jump to conclusions first, and search for backing evidence second. I would argue that much of the conservative position is ideology without validating evidence, and that this becomes a vicious circle. But are progressives better? I like to think so, but I'm not sure.
I'm trying to recall what my decision making process was when I first heard about climate change. Did I come to believe because of the scientific consensus, or did I learn of the consensus later? I'll never know. All we can do is exercise self-awareness in monitoring our beliefs and questioning ourselves and others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)