B.

Ongteco

Professor Scanlan

English 114

17 October 2009

Insiders and Outsiders Insiders and outsiders is a chapter taken from Practical Ethics written by Dr. Peter Albert David Singer talks about resettlement of refugees on a large scale industrialized countries. Singer believes that all actions must be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. According to Article 14 of The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. But there are certain requirements before a refugee can be granted this privileged protection. In which they must be out of their own country, be afraid of persecution, harmed by others, socially indifferent and must not be a dangerous individual. These refugees came from different countries in the world and so they are qualified to receive assistance from United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Nowadays people who are encountering a great havoc in their lives such as poverty, unemployment, discrimination, persecution, powerlessness and inferiority tend to go out of their country in search for a brighter future just like the process of osmosis. First let us identify what is osmosis, well; osmosis is a process of movement of water from area of lesser solute

concentration to greater solute concentration. Refugees are like water in this process, from their area of lesser resources and benefits they shift to an area of greater resources and benefits There are two kinds of refugees, political and economic. The difference is that a political refugee is someone who had fled from his country because of political persecution while economic refugee is an individual who fled from his country primarily because of economic reason like poverty, famine and drought. United Nations believe that political refugees must be given more priority because their resettlement to another country is more urgent compared to economic refugees. Political refugees have no where to run. They are homeless and they are more fit to this kind of assistance. So what can possibly be a key to refugee invasion? Two solutions were mentioned and these are voluntary repatriation and local resettlement. When we say voluntary repatriation, this is when a refugee willingly decided to be sent home to his native land but then it would be intricate for this refugee to choose this kind of decision. Knowing that when he goes back to the country he learned to hate and nothing has change. He is still a victim of his own countrys nightmare. So, local resettlement would also be definitely hard for them. Like for example, a refugee would resettle in a country that is still suffering from economic instabilities and are not politically stable, what will happen then to those genuine residents of this country who are still fighting for their survival? This will then create a competing environment for them. A survival of the fittest. Resettlement is more applicable and advisable to those who have no where else to go. Those who have nothing left in their homelands. In a family, every member cares for each other and looks after one another. According to Walzer, immigration policy must be patterned to the principle of family reunion. Doors of countries must be open for those people who are in great need.

I agree with what Walzer believes in. He said that community is bound by a principle of mutual aid and this will create an impact and more effective if it is applied to a community. It is better to give these refugees a community of their own for them to start a new life, live again, make a different perception of what life is all about and realize that life is not that hard. Life is a game and you must learn how to play it. Ex Gratia approach talks about doing a favor for goodwill purposes. If we allow these refugees to step on our land, this is an ex gratia act. On the consequentialist side, immigration policy should be made upon the interest of those who are involved. First, the refugees who greatly needs assistance, they have a good chance of restarting a new life The genuine residents can also benefit from these refugees, Refugees have nowhere to go so there is a greater possibility that they will wholeheartedly commit themselves to their new country, unlike the immigrants who are able to go in and out, to and fro the country whenever they want to. But can we imagine what will happen if a country will continue to accept refugees coming from different corners of the world? Now, here comes a tendency of future growth in numbers of these refugees. So now we can see the tangles in this issue. If we extend help to those refugees, there is a possibility that they will develop dependence and number of refugees will continue to grow. Like cancer cells that will never stop from multiplying.

. This strategy is advantageous for these immigrants because they will be able to sustain their needs and provide for their daily living but how about those people who are living in the country where they settled? What more will be left for them if these immigrants are also competing for what they might have earned? Refugees? These are people who are asking for help in the United Nations and who are outside the soil of the United States. They are also seeking for an asylum, a place

Now let us imagine immigrants as water in which from an underprivileged country moves towards an affluent country.

Refugees The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) believes that in 2005 only about 8.4 million of the world's 191 million migrants could be classified as refugees. The agency also reports that two out of three of the refugees are now thought to reside in West Africa, Central Asia, South West Asia, North Africa and the Middle East. Refugees must satisfy the same five requirements as asylum seekers. Because they have not come directly to the U.S., they are eligible for assistance from the UNHCR and other groups. The primary responsibility of the UNHCR is to lead and coordinate international efforts to protect refugees and and to resolve refugees problems around the globe. An important aspect of this responsibility is to work with governments and other organizations in operating refugee camps and to determine if and when the refugees can safely return to their homelands. The resettlement of refugees outside their region is an option for those who, often

after many years of waiting, still cannot return to their homes. The United States is one of about 18 nations in the world primarily in the West that resettle refugees. Working with the UNHCR, the U.S. seeks to identify appropriate candidates for settlement here. In making these choices, factors considered by the U.S. include the chances that they will ever be able to safely return to their homes, family members already in the U.S., and the length of time spent as refugees. The United States is by far the largest resettler of refugees in the world. Typically. In fact, the U.S. resettles more refugees each year than all other countries combined. In 2004, for example, according to the UNHCR, 52,868 refugees arrived in the U.S., 63% of the 83,700 individuals admitted by all the countries in the world. By comparison, in the U.S. asylum is granted to between 25,000 and 30,000 people a year. Be outside their country of nationality. Asylees are by definition in the United States and thus necessarily outside their country of nationality. 2. Be afraid of persecution. Torture and imprisonment are persecution - recognized under the law, but harassment or discrimination usually are not. Where these lines are drawn is different in each case. 3. Be harmed or fear harm by the government or others. Harm by the police or the army counts. Harm by right-wing or left-wing political groups or religious zealots that the government is "unable or unwilling to control" also counts. 4. Be affected by at least one of several defined conditions. As suggested above, these conditions are: political opinion, race, religion, nationality, and social group. The last category, social group, usually refers to people with certain characteristics that a particular society might lump together and have generally unfavorable attitudes about, such as homosexuals. The law generally does not include people who fled their homes due to civil wars, generalized violence, and criminal prosecution. However, even these reasons may suffice if they can be connected to one of the five listed reasons. 5. Not be a dangerous person. Finally,international law recognizes that countries have the right to exclude asylum seekers who may be a danger to society. These include those who have committed serious crimes, pose threats to national security, or who have committed war crimes or "crimes against humanity". Terrorism concerns can lead to automatic disqualification from asylum. Even before the events of 9/11, people with terrorist connections were ineligible for asylum and subject to deportation. However, laws passed by Congress after 9/11 in 2001 and again 2005 have broadened restrictions even further. Under current U.S. law, any person who provides "material support" to terrorists will be refused asylum. Since there is no exemption for cases of coercion, even acts such as providing drinking water at gunpoint to terrorists are to be considered material support.

There's no moral difference between political refugees and economic refugees. Immigration policy should be based on the interests of all affected, us as well as them. Until the point when a society is unsustainable for reasons of racial tension or ecological damage, you're under an obligation to admit refugees. Our interests in luxury don't outweigh refugees' interests in a decent standard of life.

Definitions of 'utilitarianism'
(y-tl-tr--nzm)

Dictionary.com The American Heritage Dictionary - (3 definitions)

(noun)
1. The belief that the value of a thing or an action is determined by its utility. 2. The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. 3. The quality of being utilitarian: housing of bleak utilitarianism.

His most comprehensive work, Practical Ethics Practical Ethics Practical Ethics is an introduction to applied ethics by modern bioethics philosopher Peter Singer. It was published in 1979 and has since been translated into a number of languages, causing outrage in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.... , analyzes in detail why and how beings' interests should be weighed. His principle of equal consideration of interests does not dictate equal treatment of all those with interests, since different interests warrant different treatment. All have an interest in avoiding pain, for instance, but relatively few have an interest in cultivating their abilities. Not only does his principle justify different treatment for different interests, but it allows different treatment for the same interest when diminishing marginal utility is a factor, favoring, for instance, a starving person's interest in food over the same interest of someone who is only slightly hungry. Among the more important human interests are those in avoiding pain, in developing one's abilities, in satisfying basic needs for food and shelter, in enjoying warm personal relationships, in being free to pursue one's projects without interference, "and many others". The fundamental interest that entitles a being to equal consideration is the capacity for "suffering and/or enjoyment or happiness". He holds that a being's interests should always be weighed according to that being's concrete properties. He favors a 'journey' model of life, which measures the

wrongness of taking a life by the degree to which doing so frustrates a life journey's goals. The journey model is tolerant of some frustrated desire and explains why persons who have embarked on their journeys are not replaceable. Only a personal interest in continuing to live brings the journey model into play. This model also explains the priority that Singer attaches to interests over trivial desires and pleasures. He requires the idea of an impartial standpoint from which to compare interests. He has wavered about whether the precise aim is the total amount of satisfied interests or the most satisfied interests among those beings who already exist prior to the decision one is making. The second edition of Practical Ethics disavows the first edition's suggestion that the total and priorexistence views should be combined. The second edition asserts that preference-satisfaction utilitarianism, incorporating the 'journey' model, applies without invoking the first edition's suggestion about the total view. But the details are fuzzy and Singer admits that he is "not entirely satisfied" with his treatment. Ethical conduct is justifiable by reasons that go beyond prudence to "something bigger than the individual," addressing a larger audience. Singer thinks this going-beyond identifies moral reasons as "somehow universal", specifically in the injunction to 'love thy neighbor as thyself', interpreted by him as demanding that one give the same weight to the interests of others as one gives to one's own interests. This universalizing step, which Singer traces from Kant Immanuel Kant Immanuel Kant was an 18th-century German Philosophy from the Kingdom of Prussia city of K?nigsberg . He is regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe and of the late Age of Enlightenment.... to Hare, is crucial and sets him apart from moral theorists from Hobbes Thomas Hobbes Thomas Hobbes was an English philosophy, remembered today for his work on political philosophy. His 1651 book Leviathan established the foundation for most of Western political philosophy from the perspective of social contract theory.... to David Gauthier David Gauthier David Gauthier is a Canadian-American philosopher best known for his neo-Thomas Hobbes social contract of morality, as laid out in his book Morals by Agreement.... , who tie reasons to prudence. Universalization leads directly to utilitarianism, Singer argues, on the strength of the thought that one's own interests cannot count for more than the interests of others. Taking these into account, one must weigh them up and adopt the course of action that is most likely to maximize the interests of those affected; utilitarianism has been arrived at. Singer's universalizing step applies to interests without reference to who has them, whereas a Kantian's applies to the judgments of rational agents (in Kant's kingdom of ends, or Rawls's John Rawls John Rawls was an United States philosopher and a leading figure in moral and political philosophy.Rawls received the Schock Prize for Logic and Philosophy and the National

Humanities Medal in 1999, the latter presented by U.S.... Original Position, etc.). Singer regards Kantian universalization as unjust to animals. As for the Hobbesians, Singer attempts a response in the final chapter of Practical Ethics, arguing that selfinterested reasons support adoption of the moral point of view, such as 'the paradox of hedonism Paradox of hedonism The paradox of hedonism, also called the pleasure paradox, is the idea in the study of ethics which points out that pleasure and happiness are strange phenomena that do not obey normal principles.... ', which counsels that happiness is best found by not looking for it, and the need most people feel to relate to something larger than their own concerns.

Practical Ethics includes a chapter arguing for the redistribution of wealth to ameliorate absolute poverty (Chapter 8, "Rich and Poor"), and another making a case for resettlement of refugees on a large scale in industrialized countries (Chapter 9, "Insiders and Outsiders"). Although the natural, non-sentient environment has no intrinsic value for a utilitarian like Singer, environmental degradation is a profound threat to sentient life, and for this reason environmentalists are right to speak of wilderness as a `world heritage'.