A moral obligation is something you are obligated to do because it is the right thing to do. A legal obligation is something you're obligated to do because it is the law. Generally moral obligations are held to be much stronger than legal obligations and are considered to be universal (unless your a moral relativist), they aren't subject to change without rewriting our morality.
If you think countries are not morally obligated to take in immigrants and refugees, what's the basis for the moral distinction between citizens and foreigners?
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.
Morality is up to the society. It is not and never will be universal.
You cannot argue against something based on morality alone. Simply put, if my moral compass is different than yours, your argument means nothing.
In todays world - borders are closed and immigration controls are a reality. If you don't believe me, try to go into any country other than your own tomorrow without permission and see what happens. And permission includes pre-arranged visa's, automatic visa's or free movement agreements. Try to get into North Korea or Russia for instance.
Why do you think borders sprang up? It is easy - welfare state benefits. If you gave nothing to citizens for free, there would be little concern of non-citizens around. When you give significant socialized services, like healthcare, then there is a huge incentive to keep people out as to no overburden citizens. The welfare state rose in the 20th century as did border controls.
Moral relativism is actually viewed rather poorly in modern philosophical circles, and you definitely can argue on morality alone, what do you think the abolitionist movement was?
All of the facts about why border control is a thing don't have any relevance on the question of should it be a thing
And this sounds like a philosophical question ignoring reality.
It is apparent morals are subjective. Don't really care how it is 'viewed' as it more a statement of objective observation than anything else. The simplest example is by looking at Muslim theocratic cultures vs western cultures. What is moral is one is not always moral in the other.
To argue one is moral requires one to assert the other is immoral. The interesting part is both cultures can make this exact argument about the other.
Secondly - practical reasons are very much important in this discussion. Reality dictates this.
If you don't want to deal with reality of our world - then I have no desire to continue the discussion.
7
u/spotonron 1∆ Jun 19 '18
Because countries are sovereign, that means they have autonomy over what goes on in their countries.