9 ms·

>Apart from the idea of sorting people into useful and useless being inhumane How do you think it would affect a country to suddenly have a very large amount o

>Apart from the idea of sorting people into useful and useless being inhumane How do you think it would affect a country to suddenly have a very large amount of low-skill immigrants? How would the native citizens, the people by which their government is held accountable and to whose interests their government's purpose is to advance, be affected? The answer is probably that they would be very adversely effected, in which case however "inhumane" it is to sort people like this, it is also inhumane to do wrong by the native citizens who built the country that those immigrants would be living in. Immigration is not a human right, nobody has a right to immigrate anywhere and no country has an obligation to accept any particular person or group of people as immigrants.

bayesian_horse 10y ago
Humane or inhumane behavior has nothing to do with economic circumstances. You assume some people have a right to the infrastructure of a particular country, for example competing for certain jobs, while others don't. It's very hard or even impossible to make that case without referring to very subjective morality standards.
- Oxitendwe 10y ago
  >You assume some people have a right to the infrastructure of a particular country, for example competing for certain jobs, while others don't. It's very hard or even impossible to make that case without referring to very subjective morality standards. Would these "subjective morality standards" be any different from the ones that you use to define "humane or inhumane behavior"? In any case, I'd like to see a subjective moral framework where citizens of their own country don't have a right to the infrastructure that they and their ancestors created. What incentive is there to have made our society a better place by the time we die than it was when we were born, if our descendants don't even have a birthright to what we intend to leave them?

bayesian_horse 10y ago

Humane or inhumane behavior has nothing to do with economic circumstances. You assume some people have a right to the infrastructure of a particular country, for example competing for certain jobs, while others don't. It's very hard or even impossible to make that case without referring to very subjective morality standards.

Oxitendwe 10y ago
>You assume some people have a right to the infrastructure of a particular country, for example competing for certain jobs, while others don't. It's very hard or even impossible to make that case without referring to very subjective morality standards. Would these "subjective morality standards" be any different from the ones that you use to define "humane or inhumane behavior"? In any case, I'd like to see a subjective moral framework where citizens of their own country don't have a right to the infrastructure that they and their ancestors created. What incentive is there to have made our society a better place by the time we die than it was when we were born, if our descendants don't even have a birthright to what we intend to leave them?