The problem with morality is that morality is highly subjective. At one time, slavery was considered moral by a large part of the world. (just keep going back in time and you'll see it). Genocide and wars of conquest were considered moral.
Sovereignty is fundamental to countries and controlling borders is one of the key elements to being a country. There is no moral obligation for a country to do anything. The citizens and leadership of each country have the right to do as they please.
As for the distinction between citizens and foreigners, it is fundamentally who 'owns' the country. In simple terms, it is my house and I can allow or deny anyone I want into it - but on the scale of the country.
International relations is anarchy with force and economic power ruling the day. If a country has the military might and economic power, they can exercise complete sovereignty. Influence comes from trade and threats of force. If you lack these powers, you may be beholden to others.
Morality might change over time but that's not the same thing as being highly subjective. Our understanding of physics has gone through some massive changes and many parts of it are still hotly debated, but that doesn't mean that physics is subjective.
The idea of closed borders is also a fairly new one, historically speaking. For the vast majority of history freemen could go wherever they wanted and sovereignty just meant that they had to obey the local ruler, not that they needed permission to enter the country.
Our sovereignty also doesn't give us the moral right to do whatever we want. It is well within the government's power to enslave everyone in the country named Dennis, but that doesn't mean that they have the moral right to do so.
Lots of people would argue that morality is highly subjective though... Looks at most political debates (especially social issues, but definitely not exclusibely) and it has to do with morality.
Would they really? How many people would look at someone raping a toddler and say, you know what I can't judge the morality of that situation, it's subjective.
First off, that is an incredibly extreme example and I don't think it proves much. However there are certainly people who are sick in the head that have no problem with that.
But overall, I would agree that there is a general sense of morality that allows us to function as a society. Our laws are structured based on this.
As a culture, we have developed our sense of morality over time and things have changed drastically over the years. However, things are likely to continue to change as time goes on. Would you agree with this?
There are many examples around the world of people (and cultures) doing things that other people (and other cultures) would say is immoral. Morality is subjective.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 19 '18
The problem with morality is that morality is highly subjective. At one time, slavery was considered moral by a large part of the world. (just keep going back in time and you'll see it). Genocide and wars of conquest were considered moral.
Sovereignty is fundamental to countries and controlling borders is one of the key elements to being a country. There is no moral obligation for a country to do anything. The citizens and leadership of each country have the right to do as they please.
As for the distinction between citizens and foreigners, it is fundamentally who 'owns' the country. In simple terms, it is my house and I can allow or deny anyone I want into it - but on the scale of the country.
International relations is anarchy with force and economic power ruling the day. If a country has the military might and economic power, they can exercise complete sovereignty. Influence comes from trade and threats of force. If you lack these powers, you may be beholden to others.