In this paper, we analyze the theories and underlying arguments of three theorists - Matthew Gibney, Joseph Carens and David Miller - on the subject of refugees. First, we analyze various definitions of what a refugee is. Our analysis shows that it’s a result of various factors, such as whether we have a moral duty to refugees, what refugee status requires, whether you have to be a victim or just a likely one and whether refugeehood is related to migration. Then we attempt to fit the various theories into two schisms: 1) partiality and impartiality and 2) realism and idealism. The first schism is whether states have a right or plight to prioritize its own citizens over others. The second schism is divided into two definitions: 1) how many assumptions about reality does a theory make (realism/idealism-1) and 2) is the conclusion of a theory a compromise between the underlying ideal and the assumed reality (realism/idealism-2). The purpose is to find out whether there’s a link between particular positions and whether any position is more morally justifiable than others. Our results show a varying coherence between idealism-1 and impartiality, realism-1 and partiality, and idealism-2 and impartiality. Additionally, we deem idealistic impartiality or idealistic partiality to be the most morally justifiable positions.
|Uddannelser||Basis - Humanistisk Bacheloruddannelse, (Bachelor uddannelse) Basis|
|Udgivelsesdato||20 jan. 2016|
- Ethics of refugees and borders