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).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)