Who is My Neighbour 1? The socalled ‘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/wo
rld-europe34166699
https://
www.yo
utube.c
om/wat
ch?v=qWbZYF
x6CA
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-end
The Syrophoenician Woman’s Faith
24 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