Philosophical Dialogue - Essay Example

Philosophical Dialogue on “It's our country, so we can admit or exclude whomever we like.” Name Professor Course Date Philosophical Dialogue on “It's our country, so we can admit or exclude whomever we like.” Mom: (Applauding to the claims that the government would only allow Christian Syrians in the country), I have lately experienced bad news in the past month but am glad the government is strong enough to set it straight that we determine who to admit or exclude in our country. It is great since allowing Muslim refugees will increase insecurity. Son: What? I thought you are still a strong fighter of equality as you led me and the entire nation to believe when campaigning for gender equality. I believe that security is a major concern but are all Muslims terrorists? Mom: I am still the same woman who fought for gender equality, and not all Muslims are terrorists but as a mother I am obliged to review all the consequences of any decision I make Hence I believe that since the terrorists some of the most secretive people, it will be hard to vet the refugees hence no need to spend more resources on vetting processes and risk the chances of admitting a terrorist in my country. Son: I concur that security issues are a major concern, but I believe that making decisions based on mere stereotyping is immoral and unfair. I believe that the woman who fought so hard to ensure gender equality would not assume that Christian Syrians are good and categorizing all the Muslims as bad. Mom: Gender equality is a necessity in a civilized community since women have suffered long enough by being discriminated in all aspects but admitting refugees is an act of mercy or favor not an obligation.1 Son: I am sorry to say this, but I believe you are just selfish and only interested with what benefits you rather than helping those in need. I believe that it is our moral obligation to help the Syrian refugees and not using religious beliefs to determine the people to admit or exclude. The Muslims feel just like women felt when discriminated since, in any society, there are people who are good while others are bad. Mom: I am not offended by your misguided judgment to claim I am selfish since I believe you meant to claim I have self-interests, which are a moral value. It is moral for everybody to help themselves firsts before helping others as it is impossible to help others if you cannot help yourself. I believe that prevention is better than cure hence although it may seem immoral to discriminate today, it would be the best decision by the government as it would the country aiding the enemy who will later repay our trust and hospitality with the most unimaginable terror attacks. Son: I agree with your argument but are we sure that the Islamic refugees will cause the havoc you discussed? I believe you are quite informed to understand that recent studies on Islamic refugees in America have only contributed to less than 3% of the terror attacks with most of them being loyal citizens who contribute to the American GDP. I believe as human beings it is better to pick up a stranger in a secluded and odd place and hope he is truly in need of help and is not there to harm us rather than ignore the stranger who would later be mugged and killed in our refusal to give them a ride as the guilt of having by-passed a chance to save a life in the stereotyping belief that they were focusing to harm us.2 Mom: I agree that the guilt would be challenging to take and blame ourselves for having left the stranger would live with us as long as we live, but the hope is not a reliable reason to pick up the stranger. It is because in the event the stranger is a criminal, physical abuse or even death would be the payment for you act of good will. The chances although minimal of the refugees being terrorists or radicals may lead to deaths of many people thus making the government guilty of exposing the citizens to insecurity. The few radicals may also influence our youths and engage them in their cult beliefs that may be undeniably devastating. I am proud of your support for equality son, but it is important to think of the bigger picture whereby the death of one innocent man to save many people is more ethical than letting the man free to result in the death of many.3 Son: The vetting process makes it very difficult for terrorists to risk impersonating themselves as refugees since there are easier ways to gain entry in any given country thus I believe the fear is just a misplaced judgment to support the notion that the government discriminates against Islamic believers. It is not difficult to note Wallace association of such actions and the similarities of Hitler's ideologies under Nazism while trying hard to illustrate our hatred and opposition towards discrimination. The government bases their rejection to admit Muslims with the stereotyping reasoning that Christians are safer options and show the world that they are helpful to the needy to gain international approval, which is similar to the Pharisees as described in the Bible.4 Mom: I am a sorry son, but you are quite illusions by comparing the government choice to help only the Christians with Nazism since it moral for the government act in free choice based on calculated measures that focus the future which is uncertain. It is the moral obligation of any government to act with the good of the citizens in mind and as I early claimed it is a favor to help the Syrians, thus we get to choose the people we want to admit in our country. It is similar to adopting a child; the foster family gets to choose the child but not the child or foster home to decide for the adopting parents. Do you want to claim that such an act is immoral?.5 Son: Free choice is moral only if it does not use the discriminatory mechanism when choosing between life and death and it is an obligation to help save lives. In the case of adopting a child, whether the child is adopted or not they will continue to live but abandoning the Muslims refugees to die as we save Christians will only lead to death of the innocent Muslims. It can also lead to developing negative image in the minds of the innocent refugees who may join terror groups to gain revenge to countries that opted to discriminate them based on religion or making it inevitable for the people who have tried to oppose the terrorists and radicalisation to join the groups to survive. It is our moral obligation to support these refugees to ensure they support our policies and work hard to replay our generosity just as the American government welcomed and assimilated the communists.6 It will also lead to more brutality as the Christians will be mistreated even after the war since they gained support from many countries and Islamic refugees had nowhere to go which will lead to deaths and displacement of the Christians in future so our action will cause more harm than good. Mom: I understand your argument but just as you base your argument on hope when picking up the stranger it is better to act now to save the Christians and hope that they will have better lives when there is peace rather than admit Muslims who may be connected with terrorism acts for instance in the recent terror bombings in France that were organised at carried out by Islamic refugees. The assumption of the Islamic refugees will be loyal as the communists welcomed in America is positive thinking, but the France attack may portray otherwise hence it is logical to exclude these refugees. The uncertainty of the near future will make it difficult to correctly determine the outcomes put it our moral obligation to act in the most beneficial way for the country and the refugees. I believe that admitting Islamic refugees will lead to imposing more discrimination from the citizens as any attack that may happen after their admission; they will be the first suspects hence limiting their adaptation that may force them into joining the radical groups and terrorizing us in future.7 It is thus better to help those who are in more danger and are more likely to face fewer adaptation problems. Son: You are just unbelievable, do you want to claim that you are doing them a favor by excluding them as they could face adaptation problems thus it is better for them to die in Syria? Mom: No, I mean that Islamic nations should admit them and save them from discrimination and stereotyping that may bring more misery in the future. Son: That proves you are biased and discriminatory which is surprising based on your speech on gender equality. It portrays that you fought so hard because you are a woman, and you are a Christian hence trying hard to justify the government claims but would your views be different if you are a Muslim or had Muslim relatives in Syria? Would you disown me if I became a Muslim or do you suppose Christianity is a superior religion as I believe you are? Mom: I agree that it would be difficult to support the government if I had Islamic ties but you misunderstood me and I am not trying to prove Christianity is superior to other religions hence would not disown you but I hate to admit that bearing the humiliation, abuse and stereotyping caused by discrimination. I would rather see my family admitted in Islamic friendly nations although I would try to give access to them since I know them and would be responsible for any activity they engage in. I understand it may seem that am discriminatory but having been racially and gender discriminated I believe it is morally justifiable to exclude the Islamic refugees whereas we admit the Christians. Son: I believe that such claims may be based on sympathy but failure to help is not a solution since it is similar to the white who viewed slavery and racism as inhuman but did nothing as they benefited to cheap labour thus financial gain and fitted to their social classes comprising of supporters of slavery and racism. The courage of brave leaders, for instance, Martin Luther King Jr. led to the abolishing of such inhumanity so I believe that the government should treat the Muslim refugees as people rather than using religion to treat them as means of changing their admission of refugees.8 Mom: I concur with your argument, but it is also the moral obligation of the government to weigh the risks involved and the strengths it has to take such a step. I believe that the government admitting the Muslims is against most of the systems thus as democracy defines it, the government should act in accordance with the wishes of the majority as it was elected to serve the citizens. Son: Do you claim that majority is always right? Do you intend to claim that if the society comprises most corrupt citizens, then corruption is good as it is accepted by the majority? I understand it is the duty of the government to protect the minority from being discriminated by the majority or the higher powerful social classes. I believe that Lorde claims, “It is not our differences that divide us. It is our weakness in recognizing, accepting, and celebrating those differences.” illustrate the notion of divisions and discrimination in the society. Mom: I do not claim that majority is always right, but it is moral to ensure the happiness of the majority in any given dilemma. Son: According to Kelsang, “Normally we divide the external world into that which we consider being good or valuable, bad or worthless, or neither. Most of the time these discriminations are incorrect or have little meaning. For example, our habitual way of categorizing people as friends, enemies, and strangers depending on how they make us feel is both incorrect and a great obstacle to developing an impartial love for all living beings. Rather than holding so tightly to our discrimination of the external world, it would be much more beneficial if we learned to discriminate between valuable and worthless states of mind.” The notion that the majority of the people are Christians, they believe that admitting Christian refugees is moral as they believe that the refugees are related to them due to their faith and regard them as friends while regarding Muslims as enemies. Thus, being blinded to see that act of good will and acceptance of the Muslims may lead to the end of religious conflicts and the economic benefits the Muslims may bring with their skills. Mom: I do not intend to disagree with you son but for decades, the Muslims involvement with terror attacks have led to collective fear as stated by Russell, “Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity to those who are not regarded as members of the herd.” It is not our fault that we wish to discriminate them, but their involvement in terror has ensured support for Christians who have suffered from their brutality over the years.9 It is important for our country to maintain sovereignty by choosing the people to admit or exclude based on the risks involved and nobody should question our morality. Son: I agree on importance to maintain sovereignty is essential, but the nature and importance of admitting or excluding of people should be based on saving lives and ending discrimination not propagating death and conflicts. References Audre Lorde, Our Dead Behind Us: Poems Bartels, D. M. (2008). Principled moral sentiment and the flexibility of moral judgments and decision making. Cognition, 108, 381–417. Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays Dunning, D., Leuenberger, A., & Sherman, D. A. (1995). A new look at motivated inference: Are self-serving theories of success a product of motivational forces? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 58–68. Haidt, J., Rosenberg, E., & Hom, H (2003). Differentiating diversities: Moral diversity is not like other kinds. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1–36. Henry A. Wallace Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61, 651–670. Kelsang Gyatso, Transform Your Life: A Blissful Journey Monin, B., & Miller, D. T. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 33–43. Norton, M. I., Vandello, J. A., & Darley, J. M. (2004). Casuistry and social category bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 817–831. Simon, D., Krawczyk D. C., & Holyoak K. J. (2004). Construction of preferences by constraint satisfaction. Psychological Science, 15, 331–336. Uhlmann, E. L., & Cohen, G. L. (2005). Constructed criteria: Redefining merit to justify discrimination. Psychological Science, 16, 474–480. Read More