Are Borders Immoral

No, state borders are not immoral. Borders define a country’s domain, where the authority of the leaders stretches to. What happens inside the borders may be immoral, but not the borders themselves. Borders help people to identify with others like themselves, with people who share the same culture, beliefs, and language. They promote nationalism and patriotism. People are loyal to their country (defined by borders) and the government that rules within the borders. And as MacIntyre states patriotism keeps us dedicated to a society and in line, morally. We don’t go off into a State of Nature and do what we like to protect ourselves. Borders define an area that we are loyal to and thus, want to work to promote the best for that nation as well as an area that should protect our rights and freedoms.

Borders can appear to be immoral on the surface by being closed to immigrants. However, now-a-days states don’t just close off borders for the sake of having a closed nation. A state decides to turn away, deport, limit the number of immigrants because they threaten the system, not because the immigrants are violent, but because there are too many of them or they don’t appear to be contributors to society. The immigrants get in the way of the state trying to protect and provide for their own citizens. It would be immoral to not respect the rights of the citizens.

Greece has this problem as it is seen as the door to the EU from the Middle East and Northern Africa. Greece is flooded by refugees, mainly, who don’t contribute to the economy. Especially, with the recent economic situation in Greece that doesn’t appear to be bettering, Greece can’t afford the immigrants. The culture in Greece is very open and their policies reflect that as the immigrants can have access to the social programs offered; but, with the increase in the number of immigrants the little money devoted for welfare programs doesn’t go as far and Greek citizens are being deprived of the rights that their government promised them. This is exactly the welfare problem that Abizadeh discusses.

Another example of one of the liberal arguments for closed borders Abizadeh presents is the protection of culture with immigration. This can been seen better in Brussels, Belgium, where the population is significantly from the middle east, where the culture is very different from the Dutch/French mixed culture in Belgium. In some areas, there can’t not be bakeries because they don’t coincide with the Middle Eastern cultural food laws. It makes sense for the Belgian government to limit immigrants because they are destroying the native culture.

Global Poverty and Distributing Aid

Combating global poverty has long been a concern for individuals. More recently non-state and state actors have entered the field. They have recognized that by helping other nations and their people live better lives the relations in the International world can proceed more smoothly. States in which the population is taken care of will bring more prosperity to the nation as a whole, as more people are able to work and consume, and provide security Internationally.

However, problems develop with how to go about reducing global poverty. Two main paths have developed: the utilitarian and deontological arguments. The utilitarian argument proposes that the if one can give away some of their resources to the worse off then they can provide help to the greatest number of people. The deontological side argues that the rights of people should be respected and fixed without concern to the overall utility.

Solving the global poverty issue is two-fold. Yes, we should help those who are considered to be members of the global poor by any means necessary, whether that be donating money to the Red Cross, buying products that support movements, doing field work, etc. The second part, however, is that of addressing the problems that cause these global injustices. This way resources can be reserved, and in the long term there will be less need to intervene to fix issues. Thus, in a way solving this issue relies on both the utilitarian and deontological arguments as we should work pass the threshold of poverty but we should also work past it by addressing institutional issues.

Look at health programs such as the guinea worm program headed up by the Carter Center. They don’t just cure people with the disease, the volunteers work to create clean water sources and educate people about the spread of the disease to prevent new cases from developing and returning. This is the only way to successfully eradicate the disease and improve people’s lives. If this approach works for health issues, then it can be applied to other issues such as creating stable environments for people to have work and access to education.

Justice in Feminism

The feminist position on justice begins at the foundation and beginning of the concept of justice, that all human beings deserve protection of their natural right to freedom and protection of property in private and public life. However, they reject Rawls influential Theory of Justice on the grounds that his idea of brining social equality to all by removing yourself from your self-interests and positions under the veil of ignorance when making social contracts did not apply in the home. Thus, women were not given equality in the private sphere of society.

Most feminists reject communitarianism because it places too much emphasis on the importance of protecting cultural heritage; and, many restricting obligations and traditions for women are rooted in their cultures. By distancing themselves from communitarianism, feminists can free women from cultural bonds.

Feminists want to see women of all classes and racial backgrounds treated equally with men in all aspects of life. The Sjoberg “Agency, Militarized Femininity, and Enemy Others” article tries to point out why this is so important. The women who joined the military have been twisted to represent something else besides the equal female. In doing so women and in particular a feminine personality have been portrayed to be unable to fight in combat.

They have to adapt to a masculine characterization to survive in the case of how the three women at Abu Ghraib (who tortured Iraqi men POWS) are described, if they don’t then they need rescuing like Jessica Lynch (who was said to be have gone down in combat and taken as a prisoner). This goes against the movement because the women are still not treated as equals because society and the military have to rationalize what happened by rejecting feminine strength.