Who is My Neighbour 1? The so-called ‘migrant problem’

David Carpenter

16th September 2015

Portsmouth Cathedral

16 September 2015 Who is my neighbour 1? The so-called migrant problem.

23 September 2015 Who is my neighbour 2?World hunger, disease and other challenges faced by developing countries.

30 September 2015 The perfect person1. The moral landscape of new reproductive technologies

7 October 2015 The perfect person 2. Worthwhileness of life in the face of progressive disease and disability. Euthanasia- including assisted suicide.

14 October 2015 Law and order; crime and punishment. How can the scales of justice be balanced morally?

21 October 2015 Open session. It is likely that participants will identify further topics – this session will be devoted to some of these.

What will you get out of this series?

There will be an opportunity to learn about ethics (also referred to as ‘moral philosophy’) and the theoretical positions which might be used in defending or explaining moral positions on key social issues. Perhaps more importantly there will be opportunities for exploring personal moral positions and the degree to which they resonate with those of society more broadly

The Key Issues

Almost daily we hear of lives lost in desperate attempts to make hazardous sea crossings from Africa to Europe; the media seems to present such tragedy with indifference and it is fair to observe that similar indifference is shared by much of British Society. In contrast, desperate attempts continue to locate the missing Malaysian plane MH370; massive interest has been generated following the discovery of debris and hope of locating bodies continues unabated. Why are the passengers of a rubber dinghy worthy of any lesser moral consideration than the passengers of the missing plane? Why might our duties owed to one group feel so much different to those owed to the other? Most importantly are there significant moral differences between the two groups, justifying what would seem to be indefensible partiality?

It is entirely possible that there are relevant differences – perhaps it could be claimed that the ‘migrants’ (I don’t like the term but it’s in popular use) are in some way to blame for their plights or perhaps their goals to seek a ‘better life’ are trumped by considerations of justice (fair distribution of resources), prevailing in destination states. On the other hand the missing plane passengers, or more persuasively their relatives, might be viewed as ‘innocent’ and deserving of extensive national and international resources.

What makes any thing – living or otherwise, worthy of moral consideration?

• Anthropocentric

• Non- Anthropocentric– Bio-centric– Eco-centric

Anthropocentric

• Key (potential) characteristics– Sentience– Self Awareness– Intrinsic worth– Personhood– Capacity for moral judgment (Kant)– Capacity to be affected by the actions of

others

Moral Reasoning – Practical Ethics• Deontology• Consequentialism• Virtue Ethics• Principlism

– Beneficence– Non-maleficence– Justice– Respect for autonomy

• Global common good

Communitarian Ethics

• Compassion

• Love

• Solidarity

• Humanity

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34166699

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qWbZYFx6CA

Differences

• Clear socio-political differences• Are there moral differences?

– Native population vs indigenous population– Refugees vs economic migrants– Country of origin– Gender– Ethnicity– Religion– Age

Anthropocentric

• Key (potential) characteristics– Sentience– Self Awareness– Intrinsic worth– Personhood– Capacity for moral judgment (Kant)– Capacity to be affected by the actions of

others

Moral Reasoning – Practical Ethics• Deontology• Consequentialism• Virtue Ethics• Principlism

– Beneficence– Non-maleficence– Justice– Respect for autonomy

• Global common good

Communitarian Ethics

• Compassion

• Love

• Solidarity

• Humanity

My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favouritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ? For if a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in, and if you take notice of the one wearing the fine clothes and say, “Have a seat here, please,” while to the one who is poor you say, “Stand there,” or, “Sit at my feet,” have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers and sisters. Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonoured the poor. Is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not they who drag you into court? Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you? You do well if you really fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.[For the one who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgement will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgement.]What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.JAMES 2:1-10 (11-13), 14-17

Mark 7.24-endThe Syrophoenician Woman’s Faith24 From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. Yet he could not escape notice, 25but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his feet. 26Now the woman was a Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin. She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27He said to her, ‘Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.’ 28But she answered him, ‘Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.’ 29Then he said to her, ‘For saying that, you may go—the demon has left your daughter.’ 30So she went home, found the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

Defensible Partiality – Treating People Differently

• Might be utilitarian (consequentialist) grounds • Might be appeals to justice: treat equals

equally and unequals unequally – in proportion to their inequality

BUT

For the most part impartiality is central to morality and partiality always stands in need of

defence

Obligations to Others

• Rights are usually unhelpful in situations like this

• Duties are much more useful

act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal

law

Further Arguments

• Ordinary and extraordinary means• Acts and omissions• Killing and letting die

Conclusions

• We can legitimately do nothing– Dehumanisation -‘swarms’– Utilitarian ground – aiming for longer term good– Appeals to justice-as-fairness – but unlikely to

succeed

• We have a moral duty to act– Utilitarian ground – consequent benefit for all– Kant, Aristotle, Communitarians, Christian Ethics