Take-home Kershnar states that Rawl’s principle lacks the

Take-home Questions

Kershnar explains a Rawlsian’s argument for the
reasons people immigrate. According to Kershnar, Rawl believes that certain
values of justice are outcomes of a theoretical contract intended to ensure a
fair selecting process by which to regulate the design of the central
institutions of a society (148). A Rawlsian argues that people in a
hypothetical contract are principally concerned in dodging deprivation for
themselves and will select a risk opposed process that emphases on shielding
the worst-off. The product of this procedure is that justice stresses for
people to be treated equally concerning main goods such as wealth and
opportunities, excluding cases where inequality favors the worst-off group.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Kershnar finds fallacies in Rawl’s argument for why
people immigrate. Kershnar states that Rawl’s principle lacks the primary
reason, it fails to outline the core reason people immigrate (149). By stating
that there needs to be a distribution of wealth, the principle vaguely gives
off the assumption that any form of aid can be provided such as International
loans and grants. For a phenomenon that supports immigration, the principle
should state the importance of immigration and its necessity for the worst-off.
According to Kershnar another thing that the perspective lacks is a clear
statement for how immigration contributes to social cooperation through its
demand for the division of goods and products (149). It needs to outline that
immigrants from the Third-World participate both culturally and economically to
the U.S. The failure to make such a claim leads to the assumption that the
presence of immigration is to drag down the labor rates and leave the U.S less
skilled without jobs. This objection believes that the presence of immigrants
results in cheap labor which then makes the less skilled Americans unfortunate.

In cases where one wonders about talks of global
citizens, Huemer’s prima facie right to migrate emerges. Huemer outlined that
immigrants are faced with harsh scenarios such as oppression and poverty and
the U.S government’s restriction of illegal immigrants is violating their prima
facie right. He believes that by shutting down economic possibilities for
immigrants, the government exposes these individuals to deal with the
unbearable circumstances they were fleeing from. It is deduced that if
immigrants are allowed in the U.S they will be better off because had their
situation been bearable, they would not have opted to move.

In terms of the statement that immigrants lower the
economy and place citizens in a worst-off situation, Huemer explains that the
government only focuses on the U.S citizens and fails to consider immigrants.
This claim fails to compare the disadvantages of citizens and the excluded
immigrants who face harsh economic situations than Americans. The government in
this term believes that the financial needs of citizens outweighs those of
foreigners. The U.S government violates the right of be being free from facing
awfully detrimental economic situation for preserving Americans from being
economically disadvantaged. Assessing the degree of the disadvantages that
Americans and immigrants face will allow the government to understand the need
to immigrate to the U.S. The U.S should be considered as the marketplace where
everyone has the right to trade so that immigrants will not be subjected to
face the harsh conditions they are typically overwhelmed with.

According to Hardin Environmentalist’s perception of
earth as a spaceship where everyone has a fair share of it might be detrimental
(1). The fact that the perspective believes that we all have an equivalent portion
to resources might misguide visionaries who will cite it to justify their fatal
policies through hysterical immigration and aid. Earth lacks a captain who is
in charge of it and the UN cannot be burdened with such a responsibility given
its limited power to enforce policies. Hardin states that the spaceship ethic’s
fallacy is its failure to consider the fact that the more we are, the more a
place in incapable of functioning (3). In order to avoid what Hardin refers to
as “tragedy of the commons” the spaceship sharing ethics should be revised.
Disregarding this tragedy would lead to insufficient amounts of water and air
due to pollution due to overcrowding.

Hardin believes that the perspective cannot
distinguish between the ethics of a spaceship and that of a lifeboat. Hardin
explained that earth is divided into poor and rich nations (1). These rich
nations are lifeboats that poor nations want to get into to avoid drowning. These
lifeboats have restricted capacities to hold all nations. There is limited
space on a lifeboat and the occupants can either choose few of the many and
saving that few will leave the rest to die. The fact still remains that even
that saved few still jeopardizes the safety of occupants. Matters of ethics
should be considered while in a lifeboat. Hardin also states that the number of
people needing saving exceeds that of occupants. In a lifeboat, if some are
left behind some occupants will feel that their safety is undeserved and one
might suggest that they trade their spaces to those drowning but, ethically
speaking this is unfair. The saved might also feel sorry for the one who saved
them. While in a lifeboat we should take heed that we should not exhaust our
limited facilities to points where we threaten our possible safety.  The fact that other Third-World nations have a
greater population limits the amount of help they get given the fact that it
cannot be broadened. There is not much to give and yet there are a lot of
people who need help.

According to Singer moderate greater moral evil
principle involves the prevention of a bad occurrence without sacrificing
anything that is considered morally significant (241). The stronger version
entails us reducing ourselves to the equal of borderline value by requiring
that we prevent something bad from happening through sacrificing something that
is morally analogous. The moderate version can be applied in cases of absolute
poverty and by donating to charity, we have not sacrificed anything that is
morally comparable but, we are freeing human kind. In terms of the moderate
version we are morally bad people for not providing any relief to the least
fortunate. Entertainment is trivial compared to donating money to charity and
we should assess such preference over helping others.

            Arguing for the moderate good Singer
uses a scenario involving a drowning child. According to Singer worrying about
getting his clothes muddy should not be his primary concern but his focus
should be on wading in to save the drowning child in a shallow pond (231).  He believes that the same action should be applied
in cases where a child is in need regardless of proximity. Many people are
believed to not donate to charities because of the uncertainty that the money
will not even reach the intended parties. The fear of administration costs
getting more than the children is one of the reasons people fail to help out
but Singer states that one needs not discriminate a child due to distance. The
fact that the donated money is capable of saving a life should be the
fundamental concern.

            It is believed that although not
analogous as physical contact, words also have a negative effect on people.
According to Barret, words are as harmful as physical altercation since they
are capable of causing chronic stress (2). Chronic stress can result in bodily
harm. Specific types of speeches in this regard are considered to be violence. These
speeches have trigger warnings principles and it is believed that discussions
have the triggering effect of reproducing historical traumas. Batter outlines
that allowing someone like Milo Yiannopoulos can result in stress as his
hateful speeches are not worth debating. Although Haidt and Lukianoff applaud
Barret’s linking of the effects of stress on one’s body, they refuse to accept the
claim of speech being violence. They believe that the article should have just
used harmful than violence. They agree that Milo Yiannopoulos speeches can be
upsetting to college students but, to some extent these words make students
tougher and resilient.