Jump to navigation
Moral Duty
Art Sammler
It has been suggested that George Bush's determination to increase immigration and access to American citizenship is morally motivated: he values the welfare of non-Americans as well as of Americans, and the benefits to the former may greatly outweigh the harm to some of the latter.
There are two problems with this moral calculus. The first is that it opposes President Bush's duty to serve the interests of those who elected him, rather than of the whole world. The second is a simple question of efficacy: can the flame of freedom best improve the cold morass of human misery by being submerged in it?
Observations
I always thought Bush's stance on immigration resulted from his need to provide big business with cheap labor. I guess I'm just a cynic at heart.
/The first is that it opposes President Bush's duty to serve the interests of those who elected him, rather than of the whole world./
To an extent, but not completely.
To pick another example, after Katrina the state of Texas and city of Houston (as well as other cities and other states) stepped up and provided help to displaced Louisianans and ultimately helped the state of Louisiana cope with its catastrophe. It's paid a price for doing so, but I think that it is nonetheless laudible even if objectively speaking city and state leaders were acting contrary to the material interests of Texans and Houstonians.
Add an Observation
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
