Ethics and Asylum Seekers in Australia - Essay Example

Ethics and Asylum seekers in Australia Introduction: BBC News (Asia-Pacific In 2002 Australia has been criticized by aid agencies, and religious groups because of the so called “Pacific Solution”. It was the policy Australia made regarding the boat people seeking refuge in Australian territory. Australia has funded two separate camps, one in Papua New Guinea, and the other one is in a small island of Nauru, the smallest republic in the world. The issue started when MV Tampa, a Norwegian vessel carrying 400 Afghan asylum seekers who were rescued from a sinking boat in the Indian Ocean in 2001 have been denied entry to any Australian territory, including in a far flung Christmas Island. The majority of the refugees ended up in the two Pacific Island nations which the Australian government hurriedly organized. Australian immigration official stated that at the time, there was an influx of illegal boat arrivals which pushed the federal parliamentary government of Australia to come up with the “Pacific Solution Policy” in February of 2001. Australia’s immigration department stated that in February 2002 there were 356 asylum seekers from Iraq mostly, whose status were being processed in the island of Manos in Papua New Guinea, and there were 1,159 refugees in Nauru which overall total is 1,500 asylum seekers. These Islands were happy to take these refugees in exchange with the financial aid coming from Australia. Though there has been no official report on the figures but it has been reported that the president of Nauru Rene Harris negotiated a $15m for the accommodation of more than 1000 asylum seekers (BBC Q&A, 2002). “In the harshest border policy in the Westernized world, the Australian Navy was then deployed to intercept asylum-seekers at sea. The government also excised Australias offshore islands from its immigration zone in order to deprive boat people of the right to claim asylum”( Marks, 2007). Ethics & Asylum Seeking Boat People Where do we draw the line on helping the unfortunate? What should be the guiding rule on welcoming and accepting people running for refuge in our more fortunate land? What are the human rights of an individual? The United Nations declaration of human rights proclaims the right: 1.) To life, to freedom from subjection, to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or to slavery, servitude or forced labor.2.To liberty and security of the person. 3.) To a fair trial. 4.) To freedom from retroactive criminal law or punishments. 5.) To respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. 6.) To freedom of thought, conscience and religion. 7.) To freedom of expression, peaceful expression and association. 8.) To an effective remedy against officials who violate these rights. 9.)To the enjoyment of these rights without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, color, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status(http://trinitytheology.org/?p=147#more-147).    This declaration is what people think is virtuous and ideal. Most often than not, it is just an idea that remains in our heads. With regards to the boat people seeking for refuge, people think in their heads what really is moral and right? The human cargos of MV Tampa were victims of war stricken land seeking for safe refuge where they can rebuild their already broken lives. Most of them were alienated from their families, and humans under this unfortunate condition can only hope for kind consideration; to be able to start on what’s left of their lives. While many issues revolve around the situation, it is certain that there are people needing help and a country like Australia can help. The Australian government under John Howard was seriously criticized due to the Pacific Solution policy it made. It was called the harshest border policy ever made under the westernized world. Many people groups surely uphold the United Nation’s declaration on human rights, but under the real pressure of the flooding illegal migrants, what should be again the guiding rules? Ethics should be the guiding system on which the right of an individual should be evaluated. Ethics do no depend on feelings, or the established laws or any religious beliefs; nonetheless law and religion are both entities that uphold the code of ethics in the highest form (Velasquez et al., 1987). It can be said the ethics is an established system on its own; it stands firmly on the grounds of justice and righteousness. It is a ruler in which right or wrong will stand and fall. Over the centuries humans tried to define what is right and wrong. Theories have been developed to support inclinations in the name of ethics. Theories of Ethics: “Consequentialism” or utilitarianism is one theory that needs to be investigated. John Stuart Mill, a celebrated 19th century philosopher followed squarely the consequentialist tradition. Happiness for a consequentialist depends or founded on happiness. The standard on which Mill tried to evaluate goodness is Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle; base on this principle, actions are right when it promotes happiness, and wrong when it produces the reverse of happiness (Mill, 1863). For a utilitarian like Mill, the supreme masters are pleasure and pain. This theory of utilitarianism may encounter many difficulties when applied on the level of individual choice according to Ruut Veenhoven in his article HAPPINESS AS AN AIM IN PUBLIC POLICY; however, he stands on the ground that greatest happiness theory is best suited for judging general rules. Veenhoven favors utilitarianism believing that one thing is morally correct if it makes a great number happy. Modified overtime from Epicurus to the modern utilitarianist, the meaning of happiness defined as more than mere indulgence to physical pleasures but happiness as a result of the overall wellness of men (Veenhoven, 2002). If this theory is applied on the case of the boat people, and would be the basis of policy for people seeking asylum, the question of whose happiness is going to be of more weight for consideration is going to be raised. Deontology ethics is adhering duty for duty’s sake. Immanuel Kant of the 18th century was primary supporter of Deontological ethics. “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” For Kant the morality of the action does not depend on the outcome thereof but on the motive behind the specific action (http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/#H8). If policy making body would take action based on duty alone, the same question should be raised. To whom the duty shall be addressed? Or to whom shall the higher duty be performed? People with immediate needs are at stake, but there are national policies to be considered as well. Virtue ethics can be defined as rivals of consequentilist, and deontological ethics. Virtue ethics concerns itself on what kind of person I should I be, in contrast with what action should I perform which is under the consequentialist theory and deontological. The morality of the action depends on the state of being. This theory is Aristotelian in origin. According to this theory, the goodness of the person’s action depends upon the goodness of the heart. If the agent of the action is good inside, it can be expected that good will be conducted. Anscombe, Williams, and McIntyre were proponents of this theory and contributed greatly on the increased interest on this principle, especially McIntyre (http://www.iep.utm.edu/virtue/#SH1c). The theory of Relativism springs from family of views with its theme pointing to everything is somehow connected or relative to another. There are many strands to relativism theory. However, supporters of this theory agree on two things: that moral values, beauty, knowledge, taste, or meaning are connected to a particular framework and standpoint namely: the individual subject, a culture, an era, a language, or a conceptual scheme. They also agree that not one of these standpoints is more privileged than the other (http://www.iep.utm.edu/relativi/). Surely and clearly ethical theories were systematically developed with humans as the aimed beneficiary. It is very evident that people endowed with higher understanding strived hard to attain what is good for oneself and for everybody. It somehow stems from the desire to live in peace, because peace is equated to well being and happiness. There is no right and wrong theories pertaining to ethics, especially each were developed in quest for a noble system to preserve humankind. One point of view worthy to be examined is the ethics from biblical point of view. The Scripture depicts God’s desire to preserve human kind so much more than the noblest man on earth. The Bible affirms the right to respect for every individual. Migration and homelessness are big issues in the entire Scripture (JPIT, 2000). The Bible upholds the right of every individual. The so called flooding of asylum seekers in Australia has caught the attention of many religious leaders as well as aid agencies. Given that fact, where do Christians stand on this issue? The answer can only be derived from the authority of the Scriptures. The Jews were repeatedly instructed in Torah to be kind to foreigners since they were once strangers in a foreign land of Egypt. Exodus 23:9 says, “Do not ill-treat a foreigner; you know how it feels to be a foreigner, because you were foreigners in Egypt.” The Lord’s instruction to the Jews was to be kind, do not ill-treat the foreigners. Followed by the words “you were at one time foreigners in Egypt”. In dealing with foreigners God wanted Israel to remember how they were once under the same ordeal. One should bear in mind that no person would willingly leave his birthplace unless there is a huge reason for doing so. Israel left their land to be strangers in Egypt because of famine. Third-world-country people are leaving their homelands to find pasture somewhere else; it does not matter on what expense they are going to achieve that. Westerners would do just the same in the given same scenario. Thus, the first obligation to be fulfilled here is the obligation to be considerate and kind to the strangers. This should rise above other issues. Leviticus 19:33 reads, “Treat (a foreigner) as you would a fellow-Israelite, and love them as you love yourselves …” Second obligation is to treat a foreigner as you would treat your own fellow Israelite. If you are white male westerner, you should treat that foreigner from Afghan or from Iraq the same way you would treat your fellow westerner. Third, you should love them as you love yourself. Surely, no one would like to be treated harshly. KIndness is the basic element of God’s unconditional love. Unconditional love means do what is right and just to your neighbor, when they are hungry you feed them, if they need shelter you have to welcome them. That is morally right according to the Scripture. Isaiah 58: 6-7 says "Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:  to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter - when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?” The circumstances surrounding the boat people were calling for immediate act of kindness. In the Biblical perspective, God is interested on the plight of the poor. Jesus never turned his back on the needy. When he saw multitudes of people following him as recorded in the gospel, he took pity on them and could not send them away hungry. In response to that need, Jesus fed the multitude. Numerous biblical passages are available to show God’s thought and desire about the poor. The fact is poor people will always be around; Jesus recognized that fact, John 12: 8 says “You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have Me.” In the biblical point of view discrimination has no room. When God said to the Israelite “do not ill-treat a foreigner”, God did not give qualifications. God did not say “do not be harsh with non-Arab/non-Islam foreigners”. Of course any country has rights to exercise caution in dealing with this kind of issues. Caution however should not overshadow the real issue of need. People fleeing from a land stricken with violence should not be furthermore subjected to humiliation. Being intercepted by Australian Navy at sea was demoralizing. Excising Australian offshore islands from its immigration zone in order to deprive boat people of asylum claim was definitely harsh (Marks, 2007). Pacific Solution policy must have been made with the thought of protecting the interest of Australia as a whole or protecting the interest of the “greater number”. If that is the case, who is suppose to help this poor people seeking for shelter? Who’s going to take care of the plight of unfortunate people when the strong does not want anything to do with weak? Who among the strong would play the role of the Good Samaritan? In the days of Jesus, he addressed issues such as this, the kingdom of God is revealed in Good Samaritans, prison visitors, political attitude and those who take care of the poor and the weak (http://trinitytheology.org/?p=146#more-146).The history of Israel is the story about a God and a group of people who were called into obedience to the Torah. God specified in the Torah guidelines on how to treat the homeless; He commanded a jubilee year to check social imbalance among his people (JPIT, 2000). Christian code of conduct should demonstrate that of what has been stipulated in the Old Testament writings as well as in the New Testament. For Jews and Gentiles has become one in Jesus Christ. The influx of migrants mostly from third-world countries to western countries raises this sensitive issue of who is truly qualified. There is no denying that caution must be applied. Dealing with people from different culture is complex; there are cases when people do not have respect of the law of the host country. The calling for Christians is to “seek justice and prioritize compassion”. Christians are called to give comfort to those who are suffering whenever possible. Legal assistance can be offered to the migrants in their ordeal, support for their physical needs should be given priority. They should be protected from being made “scapegoats” of society’s frustrations and unrest, this aptly said by the Joint Public Issues Team (JPIT, 2000). Conclusion: Ethics on its simplest definition is about conducting oneself right. States and religions did not invent ethics. It has its origin from God. In the Bible it is called wisdom. The efforts of men to systematize what is right and wrong are futile compared to what has already been established in the Scriptures. All other theories of ethics are good and somehow beneficial in one way or another. However if one is truly seeking for true justice and righteousness, it can only be found in the Bible. That is why the Bible declares boldly that “All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work (2Timothy 3:16&17- NLT). Works Cited: BBC News (Asia-Pacific) Q&A: Australia’s ‘Pacific Solution’ (2002), Accessed at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1802364.stm.Date accessed: November 10, 2009 Joint Public Issues Team, Migration, Immigration and Asylum as Major Themes in the Christian Scriptures (2000). Accessed at www.baptist.org.uk/Resources/resource_downloads/414.pdf. Date Accessed: November 10, 2009 IEP, Kant: Metaphysics, Accessed at http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/#H8. Date Accessed: November 10, 2009 Marks, Kathy, Australia scraps Pacific Solution for refugees (2007), Accessed at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australia-scraps-pacific-solution-for-refugees-764355.html. Date accessed: November 10, 2009 Mill, J.S., UTILITARIANISM (1861) ch.2 Oxford University Press, 1998 Velasquez, Manuel; Andre, Claire; Shanks, Thomas; S.J., and Meyer,Michael J., “What is Ethics” (1987). Accessed at http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/whatisethics.html. Date Accessed: November 10, 2009 Veenhoven, Ruut. “Happiness as an aim in Public Policy” ( 2002):p1, Accessed at: www2.eur.nl/fsw/research/veenhoven/Pub2000s/2004c-full.pdf . Date Accessed: November 10, 2009 http://trinitytheology.org/?p=147#more-147 http://trinitytheology.org/?p=146#more-146 http://www.iep.utm.edu/virtue/#SH1c http://www.iep.utm.edu/relativi/ Read More