Developed Nations have a Moral Obligation to accept Refugees

Thank you, Con, for presenting this debate and for supplying the definitions and your opening arguments. I argue that developed nations (even all nations) have the moral obligation to accept refugees. Argument 1: Small Scale Moral Obligation I would like to start my argument on the small scale, with a simple analogy: Imagine a person claims ownership of a tiny island. They live in seclusion, and have enough material and supplies for food and shelter for themselves. At some point, a nearby ship is destroyed, leaving all dead on board except for one. This one person has the capacity to swim to the nearby island. If this person did so, it would require the “owner” of the island to diminish his/her own supplies, albeit for a short while, to provide for the other until they can find the means to return back to their homeland. Does the “owner” of the island have a moral obligation to help the victim? If the victim is not helped, he/she will die. I would argue that the likelihood of death of the victim is more important than the minimization of supplies for the current inhabitant of the island. Argument 2: Ownership of Land My opponent starts her argument with the assumption that people have the right to the ownership of land. I would argue that this is morally unjustified. Of course, people have created communities together, crafted subjective laws and forms of government over themselves, and most of humanity operates under the specific subjective laws of a particular society. However, the claims that each society makes, and the laws that they force upon each other, are not morally permissible. The idea that people can create boundaries over arbitrary points of land is both barbaric and superstitious. Every person born on the earth has no more or less right to ownership to any particular land than any other. If my opponent wants to assert that land ownership is justified, they must show how so. Rebuttals: Argument 1: Morality My opponent has made a distinction between moral good and moral obligation, without defining how this distinction is made, nor which moral theory is used as a foundation for their ethics. My moral theory is one based on Theism. Everything that beings to exist is dependent on some prior cause. There must be some prime mover that caused all other things to exist. This prime mover must be beyond space, time, matter, and limitations. As this prime mover is necessarily eternal, and will always continue to exist, the teleology of nature must also act in concordance with this principle. Morality is based on continued existence. The principle of continued existence leads also to order in nature. In this understanding of morality, there is no difference between moral good and moral obligation. Acts are either those that are fulfilling moral obligations, or not fulfilling moral obligations. Anything that is less than good (obligation), is a form of evil (not meeting obligation.) If people inhabiting a specific land are preventing others from sharing that land, then they are committing an evil act, as they are forcing others against their free choice (order), and allowing them to suffer without adequate nourishment (continued existence). Argument 2: Overpopulation One consequence of destroying the concept of borders allows the possibility of free travel to any land. One complicated result could be the overpopulation of people in a land. The resources may not be enough to provide for all of the people. This issue would lead to debate about who has the right to maintain that land and who ought to search elsewhere for resources. While the above is agreeably a possible scenario, one with multiple resolutions, it is not one that is realistic given the current situation. Most developed nations are ones with superfluous resources, where the only reason for people without food or shelter is one based on a poor distribution of said resources. In societies where there is a high division of labor, the most important jobs are the ones are put near the bottom of a social hierarchy. This is silly, as the basic necessities of life are food and shelter. Why have a nation where some of the wealthiest people are the ones who add barely any benefit to society? The root cause for this is the superstition of statism and social hierarchies. However, even given nations that are steeped in religion and superstition, adding refugees could add positive benefits. If the refugees become part of the work force, where they add actual value by farming or building homes, they would then be very beneficial to a society. A politician may make unjustified claims in saying that refugees would be detrimental to the society, and that there wouldn't be enough resource for them, but what are those accusations based on? What would happen if a societies' birth rates grew; would a government then create a law to diminish the number of children? How barbaric would that be? Argument 3: Poverty and Looking After One's Own This argument seems to be more of a continuation of the last argument, namely that if refugees entered into a certain society, they would only become and increase the poverty level. First, just because a society may have a subjective definition of poverty, this does not mean that basic needs aren't being met. A poor family in a developed nation is better off than most families in less developed nations. Second, even if the refugees would come into a society to be at the bottom of the hierarchical level, this is still better than the situation in which they were in before, which is why they were in search for safety. Third, as mentioned before, developed nations are not without enough resources to provide enough for all the inhabitants. If my opponent wants to argue that a nation needs to look after their own, then why do nations not do this? Why create a wealth gap? If you argue that nations have the moral obligation to look after every citizen, are you then not arguing for communism? If so, then refugees should definitely not be a problem, as an equal amount of resources will be provided for them, thus solving all problems. If not, then your argument is inconsistent. Conclusion: My opponent has made an initial assumption in regards to morality. They need to explain their moral theory, their classification system between moral good and moral obligation, and their belief in statism and boundaries. I would also like to ask my opponent to clarify their position on what the best system of government is, and what that government ought to provide for it's citizens.