When inspiration strikes, don’t bottle it up. Email me at rick.lewis@philosophynow.orgKeep them short and keep them coming!

Discomforting Reflections

DEAR EDITOR: After reading Edward Hall’s article in Issue 166 about managing migrants, I sat in my warm comfortable middle class Western home with Immanuel Kant’s ethics swirling in my brain. In my fantasy the doorbell rang, and standing outside was a family of immigrants asking to live in my house. They wanted a share of my food, of my shelter, the freedom I enjoyed, and many of the pleasures of life so obvious there. They had some values and priorities different from mine, and others that were the same. They said they would work in my garden to be self-sufficient, but they also wanted a small say in how the household would be run. They wished to contribute to my home budget, but also wanted my assistance with their social and welfare needs. They also wanted me to help defend them from any attacks which threatened outside the house. Kant’s categorical imperative says I should act in accordance with rules that could hold for everyone; but I told them to go back home, and quickly locked the door. Meanwhile they desperately camped on the front porch, and I fed them a few meals through the mail slot in the door. That felt better.

I told myself Kant’s rule only holds for people on my side of the door. But deeper down I felt very bloody guilty.

MICHAEL HANLEY, MELBOURNE

DEAR EDITOR: Dr Edward Hall’s piece on immigration in Issue 166 struck some important points. Concerning the criterion of national sovereignty, certain forms of rhetoric argue that we have a moral duty to protect the borders (and thereby the sovereignty) of countries like the United States. Yet we very rarely see this same rhetoric venture to defend the cohesion of countries like Togo, which have been subject to increasing instability. Even when less powerful countries are on the verge of collapse, as with Sudan, the mainstream tends to ignore them. More recently, some of the voices defending strong immigration controls have likewise abandoned Ukraine. Apparently, this country just doesn’t have the same rights to national determination as the United States. Its borders don’t seem to have the same significance. It is possible to see the drift in this discourse as moving towards a ‘Might is Right’ approach, since as I noted, the idea of national sovereignty only seems to apply to the strongest countries. This idea is also used as a justification for any type of policy, up to and including the invasion of another country.

To put this all another way, morally speaking, if certain countries insist on hard borders and tough immigration policies, their foreign policy must be impeccable. Yet, we seem to witness some of the worst foreign policy go hand-in-hand with closing borders and deporting ‘illegal aliens’. It all suggests that morality has been removed from the practical question of human migration.