A Practical Discussion of Australia's Role in Ethical Policy Formation - Essay Example

? A Practical Discussion of Australia’s Role in Ethical Policy Formation: The debate regarding asylum seekers and refugees BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE DATE HERE A Practical Discussion of Australia’s Role in Ethical Policy Formation: The debate regarding asylum seekers and refugees Introduction For those in global and domestic society that aspire to sustaining human rights, the debate regarding the moral and ethical constructs associated with establishing policy to allow asylum seekers and refugees to be sheltered by Australian government is paramount. The rationale for seeking asylum or selecting Australia as a migrant destination differ widely depending on socio-demographics in a foreign country, personal needs for security against public sources or government, or generalized personal welfare for establishment of a lifestyle in a nation that promotes justice and liberty. Whatever the rationale for asylum seekers and refugees, the acceptability of establishing government-mandated permissions and tolerance for these activities have conflicting social, political and moral concerns. A 2011 Lowy Institute poll of Australian voters in a randomized sample identified that 86 percent of respondents believed that refugees arriving in Australia by boat represented a significant security threat to the nation (Soutphommasane 2011; Hanson 2011; Perera 2010). According to one critical academic: “secreted in the crevices and dark, invisible spaces of these illegalised bodies and intruding small craft lurk the invading germs and threatening microorganisms of the tropics” (Soutphommasane 2011, p.3). There are few that could legitimately argue against the practical rationale for suggesting that some individuals seeking protection in Australia pose legitimate health risks to Australian citizens and also serve to potentially strain political relationships with foreign governments by establishing policies that tolerate and consent to refugee placement in Australia. However, outside of the pragmatic view of potential security risks and the aforementioned majority opinion supporting security concerns, there are broader moral and ethical constructs that range far beyond simply public opinion which have global implications. It is necessary to engage in discussion about the different schools of thought in ethics and morality in order to determine the magnitude of international implications for establishing tolerant policies toward the refugee and asylum seeker. Utilitarianism, Rawls’ Theory of Justice, Kantian Deontology, ethical relativism, and an argument of human rights must be identified and deconstructed to add support or refute arguments that asylum seekers or refugees should be turned away from Australia as a form of self-protectionism. These theories of moral and ethical function lay the foundation toward determining the acceptability and best practice standards related to social, political, security, and cultural implications of tolerance. Theories of Ethics and Morality Believers in the utilitarianism doctrine define the moral value of an action only by achievement of the most desired outcome of the action (Hume 2002). Utilitarianism seeks to identify the most pleasurable and desired outcome, where the ends will justify the means if the greatest utility has been achieved through a decision process or action. Hume (2002, p.52) refers to the “consequence of public utility” that should be the fundamental principle that guides government policy formation concerned with utility as the ultimate “bounds of duty” in order to achieve the genuine interests of public constituency. Utilitarianism maintains practical reasoning similar to the concept of hedonism, seeking maximum pursuit of self-serving pleasure, an action or belief that trumps benevolence and egalitarianism to assure maximum self-welfare and utility (Mees and Schmitt 2008; Lemos 2004; Overskeid 2002; Edwards 1979). Thus, under this principle, the argument against tolerating and permitting asylum seeking and refugee placement in Australia as it relates to protecting public or national security would seem to be justified and practical. The utilitarianism values would tend to negate the ethical or moral considerations associated with action so long as the outcome establishes maximized utility. The difficulty for those who do not hold true to utilitarianism principles is the nature by which human emotional constructs should be eliminated from the doctrine, a narrow-sighted view that excludes such activities as sadism, jealousy, resentment and envy that are characteristic of political and public actors in society (Harsanyi 1982). Stern utilitarianists that abide by classical notions of utility justifying the means by which an objective of utility is achieved would essentially turn a blind eye to presence of lamentable human behaviours and emotions so long as public benefit and service has been provided. There are some in society, however, that argue against the rationale and efficacy of utilitarianism, arguing rather sensibly that not all individuals in society are utilitarian, abiding by moral and ethical principles that are not as rigid as utilitarianism in its rather objective-ends acceptability. The utilitarianist, under classical viewpoints, would give no weight whatsoever to their moral feelings, where all that really matters are the consequences of a policy or action (Drury University 2008). Those who aspire to a more complex system of action versus ultimate outcome might aspire to Kantian deontology, a belief where moral actions and judgments are held to a principle or standard of moral behaviour. Kantian deontology stresses moral duty where a moral action can only be considered moral if it occurs without respect to consequences. For instance, providing asylum to an individual in a foreign nation being chastised by government would not be considered a moral act under Kantianism if this asylum were granted in exchange for political secret delivery or financial remuneration. Kantian ethics define morality as actions that occur out of duty and principle, ascribing to a universal maxim of behaviour, a form of perfect duty. There is a strong emphasis on rationalization of action and thought that should be intertwined with the moral maxim in order to be considered good and viable under a moral lens (Banham 2003; Banham 2000). Kantian deontology recognizes the importance of the Golden Rule, doing unto others as one would have done unto themselves, acting toward others as if they are an end and not as a means toward achieving the goal of utility. Utility under Kantian dynamics would recognize utility as a consequence for its hedonistic characteristics, thus not considered a moral good. Those who assign their own moral and ethical principles to Kantian deontology would be more concerned with the individual seeking asylum or protectionism as a refugee as it relates to their fundamental rights and importance as a relevant factor in moral considerations. Adhering to Kantian views on morality would reject the notion that maximization of public utility served as a credible argument for refusing asylum seekers and refugees as there is no adherence to a moral maxim that considers the well-being and needs of the individual. Kantian deontology is thus considered and classified as a broader moral system considering multiple factors of rational thought that must all be linked to a universal ethical principle to be considered a social or political good (Habermas 1993). Kantian deontology holds one primary principle: Sustaining a commitment to respect for persons and to promote the well-being of the individual (Mack 1998; Fried 1978). It should be said that this deontological view, as it relates to asylum seekers and refugees, would include the individual as a major consideration in the mathematical equation of policy formation and would refute any rejection of their rights and welfare consideration to be immoral and highly unethical. In somewhat differing moral and ethical views, there are those in society that prescribe to Rawls’ Theory of Justice, an ethical theory that maintains some principles supported by Kantian deontology, but emphasizes the imperatives of establishing social contracts. John Rawls takes into consideration the importance of distributive justice, in which the needs of the less-advantaged should be considered over the needs of more-advantaged in society (Rawls 1999). As in the Kantian deontological view, the needs of individuals and respect for their welfare aspire to a maxim or moral principle, however the depth of distributive fairness is considered when comparing to the whole of society and their wealth, happiness or other associated advantages over those in lesser positions. Rawls recognizes the rational appropriateness of Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand theory that suggests it is morally permissible for corporations to seek utility and maximize their profitability so long as there are trickle down impacts that consider the well-being of others. Rawls, however, adds ethics and morality to these decisions, calling them good only when distribute justice is involved that, first and foremost, consider the security and social promotion of the disadvantaged as a primary variable in the wealth equation (Rawls 1999). Rawls’ Theory of Justice, however, has some criticism about its relevance in a complex society such as Australia in which such equal distributions are not always feasible. Rawls’ moral and ethical viewpoints omit the possibility for libertarianism (Kukathis and Pettit 1990), a principle that strongly favours liberty, freedom, and the fundamental rights to acquire property and other assets for self-gain. In many respects, the Australian culture and political systems are libertarian as it supports such freedoms under capitalistic systems of consumption and social freedoms. Thus, those who would argue that there are fundamental constructs in Australia that impede effective and rational distribution of fair procedures between advantaged and disadvantaged would seem to have a practical argument. In relation to asylum seekers and refugees, Rawls’ Theory of Justice would consider the higher order of Australian citizens as being the advantaged and the individual being disadvantaged, demanding for equality and fairness to promote escalation of the asylum seeker or refugee to equal standing with more advantaged Australian citizens. Rawls would recognize, much like Kant, that respect for well-being be considered with a comparative lens against the Australian public. In order to determine which of the aforementioned moral viewpoints are most appropriate, it is necessary to fully understand what rights actually are as they pertain to individuals or collective society. Kantian deontology, utilitarianism, and Rawls all have differing views on the importance of rights in decision-making and policy formation, thus rights should be defined to determine which viewpoint is most realistic and morally sound. The United Nations considers human rights to be liberties that guarantee freedom, protectionism, and avoid exploitation through social and governmental systems. The UN established the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 which outlined human rights in detail, of which Australia voted in favour of its adoption post-drafting. These rights provide that no individual should be subject to slavery or indenturing, that none should be subjected to cruelty or degrading treatment, and that none should be subjected to arbitrary arrest or exile (United Nations, 1948). Taking into consideration this universal maxim of human rights, it can then be applied to determining whether permitting asylum or shelter for refugees is moral and should be tolerated in Australia. Australia ratified this universal maxim, thus implicating itself in establishing appropriate ethical policy as it pertains to rights guarantees. The key terminology in the UN declaration are protection from exile, degrading treatment, and freedom which are, by nature, moral and ethical constructs that are regulated by law and long-standing evolved guidelines on appropriate human behaviour against others in society. Now, those who aspire to uphold traditional rights guarantees and view human rights under the same doctrine as the United Nations would likely consider asylum seeking and refugee allowances to be a proverbial open and shut case, with Australia having a moral obligation to provide these considerations for the individual. Asylum is guaranteed under protectionism, asylum is guaranteed under preventing degrading treatment from those who exiled individuals from foreign nations, and asylum prevents for further exile by turning away individuals seeking their fundamental rights for freedom. Freedom, as previously identified, is provided in Australia that operates under libertarian values promoting self-efficacy and protectionism from aristocratic or uncivil leadership regimes. A social actor that prescribes only to the doctrine of human rights as outlined by the United Nations and rejects utilitarianism, Rawls’ theory, or Kantian deontology, would provide that Australia should be fundamental in allowing all refugees and asylum seekers to enter the nation to guarantee these rights. The problem, however, with viewing this situation only from a rights perspective do not necessarily maintain the public opinion of the majority, or the minority depending on the nature of broad public opinion. This is where ethical relativism must be considered, a theory in which it is recognized that there can be no universal maxim or construct of ethics and morality and that all conceptions of ethical appropriateness is determined by individuals or subcultures. Ethical relativism is a practical perspective as it relates to human rights, acknowledging that different cultures and societies all prescribe to a different set of values and principles thus there is no rationalization of what actually constitutes right versus wrong in society (Eyer 2008; Hall 1997; Fleischacker 1994). Cabrillo College (2008) further identifies the phenomenon of social isolationism theory where geographical constraints allow for unique evolution of cultural principles related to ethics and morality that distinguish one society from another. Moral isolationism is highly relevant when considering asylum seekers and refugees, as evolutionary changes in social habits and socially-based law formation have influenced what might be considered to be a universalist maxim about acceptable versus unacceptable moral behaviour. What Australian citizen identify as proper might well be considered highly inappropriate or even offensive in other cultures isolated by geographical constraints or less-developed economic reliance on foreign countries. Ethical relativism, according to Eyer (2008) creates a fallacy toward constructing a universal maxim, believing that this is impossible due to disparities in social programming that exists from one nation to another or one subculture to another. Berelson (1954, p.5) describes ethical relativism competently when acknowledging that: “All large-scale movements thrive on diversity. Movements need dreamers, for even if the dreams are unrealizable, they enable others in the movement to envision and fashion a better world. If all behaved similarly, the movement would fail”. Australian society is strongly motivated by diversity, which is ever-present in government legislation, business policy and administration, and in the social condition as it relates to human relationships. Diversity is not always ethnic-based or demographic based, it involves patterns of thinking that are influential in developing relevant social policy or business activities that benefit a majority. Those who believe in the integrity of ethical relativism could easily justify that there is no universal principle of moral and ethical rightness by citing diversity initiatives and then applying these to Australian culture. The Implications to Asylum Seekers and Refugees As it pertains to the utilitarianism perspective, the implications to Australian society are crystal clear. Since maximization of social utility should be the primary objective under this theory, with little to no regard for emotions in achieving an end, majority opinion about rejecting asylum seekers and refugees should be respected and all such individuals turned away from entry. The survey which identified an 86 percent majority opinion about potential security risks to the country due to potential disease introduction and other security interests would have their utility maximized by simply rejecting these individuals and returning them to their homeland. Under Kantian deontology, the needs of the individual should be respected and promoted, where the asylum seeker or refugee becomes a variable in the consideration process for allowance of entry. However, it would not be considered a moral and ethical good unless this was being permitted as it relates to sustaining the needs of the asylum seeker without consideration of consequences for taking this action. There would be no legitimate good or moral maxim fulfilled if political actors received utility-related gain for the action, such as improving national relationships with other Western countries or financial compensation. Under Rawls’ Theory of Justice, the individual would be allowed to have entry, as they would recognize disadvantaged in society as compared to Australian citizens who live in comparative abundance. There would be a distributive justice approach undertaken where the asylum seeker or refugee is mandated, by ethical programming, a fair and equal distribution of resources and assistance to help them become an equal member of society through attainment of various social programmes until they were ready to stand on their own proverbial feet. Opposition by Australian citizens would be refuted by this theory’s moral constructs suggesting that their own selfish pursuit for utility is over-shadowing equal justice. The concept of right versus wrong in society from an ethical and moral lens under the theory of ethical relativism would also seem to support the rights of the asylum seeker to enter Australia without interference or public opposition. Australia ratified the United Nations declaration that outlined human rights, many of which are guaranteed to global citizens and not just applicable to Australian society members. Thus, one could make the argument that refusing entry or protections of these individuals would be hypocritical and not fundamental to the diversity policies and values that drive Australian culture in contemporary society. At the same time, those who have differing moral and ethical viewpoints that differ from others would also be justified by suggesting that no universal maxim should be overly-promoted to gain support for entry and protection of asylum seekers and refugees since no such validity exists. Thus attempting to appeal to this universalism perspective on a singular concept of right versus wrong is absolutely unjust, impractical, and not representative of libertarian rights for maximizing utility common in the utilitarianism viewpoint. Based on the research on the different schools of moral and ethical thought, and whilst taking into consideration the majority opinion validated by quantitative research on the topic, it would seem that utilitarianism would be the most viable and widely-accepted moral principle by which to establish rejection policies for asylum seekers and refugees. Distress in majority society about the potential perils of allowing individuals to seek entry into the country is widespread, thus rejecting emotional variables or other associated considerations into policy formation would simply not outweigh the end results of guaranteeing national security and improving cultural utility. Rawls’ Theory of Justice involving equal distribution of goods, strictly from a rational and pragmatic viewpoint, simply is not realistic in Australian society that has been developed under a libertarian and capitalistic system that strongly reinforces individual freedom and wealth attainment for personal utility maximization. The basis of ethical relativism when added into this equation further supports that utilitarianism is the most viable solution, thus rejecting entry by these individuals. However, Australia’s well-publicized role in ratifying the doctrine in the United Nations that clearly outlines fundamental, global human rights protections complicates the process of simply adopting utilitarianism as the proper moral policy. As a member nation of the UN, simply rejecting the needs and potential ethical consequences of closing all borders to these individuals would be a conflict of interest that could have broader international consequences from other national actors witnessing such policy being enacted. The fundamental concepts of Kantian deontology would seem to apply in this situation, however not fully since there is consideration of consequences in allowing entry of these individuals thus it would not be considered a legitimate moral good. Conclusion The main question that remains when determining what the appropriate policy should be toward asylum seekers and refugees is whether society can live with international or even domestic criticisms if the country chooses a utilitarianism policy to reject these individuals. Without introducing personal bias into this discussion, it would be easier and fulfilling of utility simply to reject the individual. It is Australia’s role as a leader in the United Nations that has already decreed protectionism, individual security, protection from denigration, and guarantee of non-exile that makes Kantian deontology more effective to allow individuals to enter the country. Though such actions are good and would satisfy the rights and needs of the individual effectively, Australian culture would have to embrace moral chastisement, with sound justification from those offering the critique, if any of these individuals were rejected. The ethical and moral concepts associated with Kantian deontology is most appropriate for Australia as it satisfies human rights protections, makes logical considerations, and also maintains the ability to improve majority utility. References Banham, G. (2000), Teleology, transcendental reflection and artificial life, Journal of Philosophy and Technology, 6(1). Banham, G. (2003), Kant’s Practical Philosophy: From critique to doctrine, Palgrave MacMillan. Berelson, B.R. (1954), Democratic Practice and Democratic Theory, University of Chicago Press, cited in LaFollette, H. The Truth in Ethical Relativism. [online] Available at: http://www.hughlafollette.com/papers/truth.in.ethical.relativism.pdf (accessed August 31, 2012). Cabrillo College. (2008), Ethical Relativism. [online] Available at: http://www.cabrillo.edu/~cclose/docs/Ethical%20Relativism.pdf (accessed September 2, 2012). Drury University. (2008), A critique of utilitarianism, p.2. [online] Available at: http://www2.drury.edu/cpanza/williams.pdf (accessed September 1, 2012). Edwards, R.B. (1979), Pleasures and Pains: A theory of qualitative hedonism, Cornell University Press. Eyer, R.C. (2008), Ethical relativism and trust, Concordia University. [online] Available at: https://www.cuw.edu/Departments/institutes/bioethics/assets/relativism_and_truth.pdf (accessed September 1, 2012). Fleischacker, S. (1994), The Ethics of Culture, Cornell University Press. Fried, C. (1978), Right and Wrong, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Habermas, J. (1993), Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics, MIT Press. Hall, B.J. (1997), Culture, ethics and communications, In Casmir, F.L. (ed.), Ethics in Intercultural and International Communication. Mahwah: NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hanson, F. (2011), Australia and the World: Public opinion and foreign policy. The Lowy Institute Poll 2011, Sydney. Lowy Institute for International Policy. Harsanyi, J.C. (1982), Morality and the Theory of Rational Behaviour Cambridge University Press. Hume, D. (2002), An enquiry concerning the principles of morals, In Schneewind, J.B. Moral Philosophy from Montaigne to Kant. Cambridge University Press. Kukathas, C. and Pettit, P. (1990), John Rawls: A theory of justice, p.2. [online] Available at: http://people.cohums.ohiostate.edu/hubin1/documents/John%20Rawls%20A%20Theory%20of%20Justice.pdf (accessed September 2, 2012). Lemos, J. (2004), Psychological hedonism, evolutionary biology, and the experience machine, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34(4), pp.506-526. Mack, E. (1998), Deontic restrictions are not agent-relative restrictions, Social Philosophy & Policy, 15(2). Mees, U. and Schmitt, A. (2008), Goals of action and emotional reasons for action – a modern version of the theory of ultimate psychological hedonism, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38(2), pp.157-178. Overskeid, G. (2002), Psychological hedonism and the nature of motivation: Bertrand Russell’s anhedonic desires, Philosophical Psychology, 15(1), pp.77-93. Perera, S. (2010), The fear of small things: Australia in the arc of insecurity, in Perera, S., Seal, G. And Summers, S. (eds), Enter at Own Risk? Australia’s population questions for the 21st Century, Black Swan Press. Cited in Soutphommasane, T. (2011), A more ethical and realistic conversation: The Australian debate about asylum seekers and refugees, St. James Ethics Centre. [online] Available at: http://www.ethics.org.au/sites/default/files/Think%20Piece%20Ethics%20of%20Asylum%20September%202011.pdf (accessed September 1, 2012). Rawls, J. (1999), A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press. Soutphommasane, T. (2011), A more ethical and realistic conversation: The Australian debate about asylum seekers and refugees, St. James Ethics Centre. [online] Available at: http://www.ethics.org.au/sites/default/files/Think%20Piece%20Ethics%20of%20Asylum%20September%202011.pdf (accessed September 1, 2012). United Nations. (1948), 60th Anniversary: Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [online] Available at: http://www.un.org/events/humanrights/udhr60/ (accessed September 2, 2012). Read More