text stringlengths 0 1.71k |
|---|
impact on the interests of others, we come to a halt. We may |
wonder if the increased numbers will lead to a revival of racist |
feeling in the community. We could debate the impact on the |
Australian environment. We might guess that a larger intake of |
refugees will encourage others, in the country from which the |
refugees came, to become refugees themselves in order to better |
their economic condition. Or we could refer hopefully to the |
contribution towards international goodwill that may flow from |
a country like Australia easing the burden ofless well-off nations |
in supporting refugees. But all of these consequences are highly |
speculative. |
Consider the environmental impact of an extra 12,000 refugees. |
Certainly, more people will put some additional pressure |
on the environment. This means that the increased number of |
refugees accepted will be just one item in a long list of factors |
that includes the natural rate of reproduction; the government's |
desire to increase exports by encouraging an industry based on |
converting virgin forests to wood-chips; the subdivision of rural |
land in scenic areas for holiday houses; the spurt in popularity |
of vehicles suitable for off-road use; the development of ski |
259 |
Practical Ethics |
resorts in sensitive alpine areas; the use of no-deposit bottles |
and other containers that increase litter - the list could be prolonged |
indefinitely. |
If as a community we allow these other factors to have their |
impact on the environment, while appealing to the need to |
protect our environment as a reason for restricting our intake |
of refugees to its present leveL we are implicitly giving less |
weight to the interests of refugees in coming to Australia than |
we give to the interests of Australian residents in having holiday |
houses, roaring around the countryside in four-wheeldrive |
vehicles, going skiing, and throwing away their drink |
containers without bothering to return them for recycling. Such |
a weighting is surely morally outrageous, so flagrant a violation |
of the principle of equal consideration of interests that I |
trust it has only to be exposed in order to be seen as indefensible. |
The other arguments are even more problematical. No one |
can really say whether doubling Australia's intake of refugees |
would have any effect at all on the numbers who might consider |
fleeing their own homes; nor is it possible to predict the consequences |
in terms of international relations. As with the similar |
argument linking overseas aid with increased population, in a |
situation in which the definite consequences of the proposed |
additional intake of refugees are positive, it would be wrong to |
decide against the larger intake on such speculative grounds, |
especially since the speculative factors point in different directions. |
So there is a strong case for Australia to double its refugee |
intake. But there was nothing in the argument that relied on |
the specific level of refugees now being taken by Australia. If |
this argument goes through, it would also seem to follow that |
Australia should be taking not an extra 12,000 refugees, but an |
extra 24,000 refugees a year. Now the argument seems to be |
going too far, for it can then be reapplied to this new level: |
should Australia be taking 48,000 refugees? We can double and |
260 |
Insiders and Outsiders |
redouble the intakes of all the major nations of the developed |
world, and the refugee camps around the world will still not |
be empty. Indeed, the number of refugees who would seek |
resettlement in the developed countries is not fixed, and probably |
there is some truth in the claim that if all those now in |
refugee camps were to be accepted, more refugees would arrive |
to take their places. Since the interests of the refugees in resettlement |
in a more prosperous country will always be greater |
than the conflicting interests of the residents of those countries |
it would seem that the principle of equal consideration of in~ |
terests points to a world in which all countries continue to accept |
refugees until they are reduced to the same standard of poverty |
and overcrowding as the third world countries from which the |
refugees are seeking to flee. |
Is this a reason for rejecting the original argument? Does it |
mean that if we follow the original argument through it leads |
to consequences that we cannot possibly accept; and therefore |
there must be a flaw in the argument that has led us to such |
an absurd conclusion? This does not follow. The argument |
we put forward for doubling Australia'S refugee intake does |
not really imply that the doubled intake should then be redoubled, |
and redoubled again, ad infinitum. At some point in |
this process - perhaps when the refugee intake is four times |
what it now is, or perhaps when it is sixty-four times its |
present level - the adverse consequences that are now only |
speculative possibilities would become probabilities or virtual |
certainties. |
There would come a point at which, for instance, the resident |
community had eliminated all luxuries that imperilled the environment, |
and yet the basic needs of the expanding population |
were putting such pressure on fragile ecological systems that a |
further expansion would do irreparable harm. Or there might |
come a point at which tolerance in a multicultural society was |
breaking down because of resentment among the resident community, |
whose members believed that their children were un- |
261 |
Pradical Ethics |
able to get jobs because of competition from the hard-working |
new arrivals; and this loss of tolerance might reach the point |
at which it was a serious danger to the peace and security of |
all previously accepted refugees and other imI:p.igrants from different |
cultures. When any such point had been reached, the |
balance of interests would have swung against a further increase |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.