ON COSMOPOLITAN EGALITARIAN CASE FOR OPEN BORDERS
I have a question inspired by Griselda’s presentation. Her first argument for opening borders is what she calls the “cosmopolitan egalitarian case”. The argument is essentially a lottery of birth argument, which comes down to: you didn’t do anything to have it therefore you don’t have a legitimate entitlement to the property in question (in this case a country).
I have a question inspired by Griselda’s presentation. Her first argument for opening borders is what she calls the “cosmopolitan egalitarian case”. The argument is essentially a lottery of birth argument, which comes down to: you didn’t do anything to have it therefore you don’t have a legitimate entitlement to the property in question (in this case a country).
My question is
how far are we willing to push this principle? To what point are we not
entitled to the things we are lucky to be born to. Consider this, suppose I was
born with hair with an unusual but pleasant texture. This hair could help me make
friends as people desiring to play with my hair act friendly towards me. As
such I thus I benefit from something I never did anything to have except be
lucky to be born with. Are we therefore willing to say everyone on this planet
is equally entitled to playing with my hair and I don’t have any moral entitlement
to it?
You make a good point, Junior. I think Griselda has a good point as well in her argument. It's true, we didn't earn what we are born with, that much is certain. Does that mean we are not entitled to our gifts? That would depend on one's point of view, I suppose.
ReplyDeleteIn some traditional cultures, people didn't really have possessions. Everything belonged to the community, and you only took what you needed, or everything belonged to the Earth or God/the gods, and you are simply borrowing. In some faiths, even the human body is simply a charge, you are charged with taking care of it, but it does not belong to you, but simply your vessel.
So it all goes back to where do we draw the moral and practical lines for "ownership?" Ownership is, of course, a human distinction. In reality, we don't have absolute control over anything, maybe not even our own minds (contested). That said, I do believe that there should be practical, if not moral, standards for ownership, simply for the sake of the continued smooth flow of civilization. Human nature makes the commons a difficult idea to sustain on a large scale.
We can't control what cards we are dealt at birth, only how we use them. I believe we should have practical lines of ownership, but they should have degrees. We should be more entitled to control over our bodies than say, an object. Still, since we didn't earn our gifts, we should try to use them in a beneficial way that will spread their impact to others. For example, it is the moral responsibility of those lucky enough to be born wealthy to help the less fortunate. We are all born with strengths and shortcomings, and I think by sharing our gifts, we have the best chance to move society forward.
I agree with Junior that most arguments for equality create a slippery slope. However, I am a large proponent of the "original position" that Rawls writes about if any of you are familiar with that concept. In short, I think Rawls might push the "cosmopolitan egalitarian case" as far as it can be pushed. He purposes the thought experiment where we hypothetically decide the principles of the society we are going to live in behind a "veil of ignorance". This means that, behind the veil, you are not aware of any of the characteristics you are going to be born with. For example, you do not know what your race, gender, or wealth will be. You also do not know where you are going to be born and where the best opportunities are going to be in the world to flourish. I think that behind this veil of ignorance individuals would opt for open borders to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to move to the places where they have the opportunity to be successful. Also, I think it is somewhat problematic to describe things we are born into as "lucky". For instance, often it is not lucky to be born into a wealthy family or unlucky to be born into poverty. A lot of times wealth has nothing to do with luck because of the cyclic nature of poverty. I agree that there is a concept of chance associated with the privileges you are born into but I'm not sure "luck" is the right word to associate with these scenarios.
ReplyDeleteIn the case above, it does seem that it is too much for everyone to be entitled to your hair. But your hair is something that belongs to you as an individual. As with countries, would you say it belongs to the ruler of that country and its people? Land itself is not something that is essentially part of us, of who we are, and to restrict people's freedom on where they can be and where they can't be seems to be something that others shouldn't be entitled to do (at least to some extent). Now, land is associated with certain cultures and culture is something that is part of who we are. But is our culture essentially connected to the land? For example, as human beings we were born into this world, where land was divided over disputes amongst various groups. But the land was already there before us and may still be there after us. The land is not actually part of who we are as an individual. You were born with your own hair. Your hair is actually, physically part of who you are and thus it is your property and you have the right to do what you want with your body. But land isn't actually part of an individual and so is it correct to claim it as property of a specific individual or a specific group and restrict other people or groups not from claiming that land, but from even entering and living within it? The topic of borders is a very controversial one because on the one hand there is maintaining the security and rights of a people who live within that area and on the other hand there is the issue of how much can you really stop or punish someone for trying to move to that same space and when does it start becoming a violation of human rights? If someone thinks they have the right to enter your house, this seems inherently wrong because you paid for your house. You bought it or built it and you have a moral right to it . But with an entire country, can we say the same thing? Suppose someone moves into the country. It doesn't seem that by simply moving into the country that person is violating someone's right as long as the person respects what is already the property of the people already living there. Yes, you have complete moral entitlement to your hair and it would be a violation of your right to have everyone play with it to achieve equality. But hair is something that is part of you, your house is your property, is the country you live in also your property?
ReplyDeleteI personally think that there should be regulations to the movement of people across different countries, but at the same time I do not believe that those regulations should violate the rights that people (in this case, immigrants) have (e.g. the right to life, the right to not be discriminated,etc.). I think the main issue with closed borders is that it can lead to a situation where the people living within that particularly country is very hostile towards foreigners and may establish laws that puts the foreigners in a situation where they face discrimination and abuse from authority (e.g. in the case of illegal immigrants).