In this project, we seek to examine the ethics of the Danish government and the supporting parties in the question regarding refugees. The world has not seen this huge amount of refugees since World War II. After the end of the war, the nations agreed upon that this should never again be the situation. However, now that the current refugee crisis develops, many countries seek to close their borders and deny refugees the right to enter into the country. In Denmark, the government is taking drastic steps to keep refugees to coming to Denmark, processing new legislations to make the conditions for immigrants worse and make it more difficult to obtain citizenship. However, this could prove to be problematic when it comes down to ethics. Whereas the Danish government say it is important to help in the neighbouring regions, the government claims that Denmark has no obligation to accept refugees to enter the Danish society. This could prove to be problematic, as this would suggest unequal treatment to certain people not applying to those people who would be born with a Danish citizenship. We have looked into this matter by analyzing whether or not a state has a legitimate right to exclude immigrants and refugees and furthermore discussed the topic using the theories of Immanuel Kant (deontology) and John Stuart Mill (utilitarianism). The deontology suggests that all men must be treated as people with a right to live a fulfilled life and not having to suffer from i.e. war, whereas the utilitarianism discusses the benefits or problems that immigration has on a state’s economy. Our conclusion is that a state has an obligation to help refugees in one way or another, regardless of where the refugees come from. The Danish government defends its right to exclude refugees from obtaining citizenship but it could seem to be an ethical dilemma, as this holds an unequal treatment of people.
|Uddannelser||Filosofi og Videnskabsteori, (Bachelor/kandidatuddannelse) Bachelor el. kandidat|
|Udgivelsesdato||20 jan. 2016|
- Dansk politik