Moral Obligation is not Risk Averse: Ideal Theory vs. Pragmatism

• In Event: Outside In: The European Refugee Crisis through the Prism of Risk

Abstract

Since the outbreak of the Syrian war more than ten million people have been displaced from their home with over four million people making the perilous journey to seek refuge in other nations. Much of the contemporary political discussion has focused on the supposed risks associated with resettling refugees. However, the philosophical discussion has focused more on outlining not only the nature but the extent of the ethical obligation to take in refugees. Both the political and philosophical discussions have relied on two persisting assumptions: (a) granting refuge to these people is somehow supererogatory not obligatory. In other words, that it is an act of charity and not of justice; and (b) that these refugees somehow present a danger to US national security and that this risk outweighs any obligations (if there are) to take in these refugees. In my paper I argue that the moral obligation to accept refugees outweighs the supposed risks presented by the refugees. Furthermore, I argue that the focus of the debate needs to shift away from ideal theory and focus more on the pragmatism (in the philosophical sense) of accepting those fleeing the terror of ISIS. Overcoming the fear that individuals have regarding the potential risks of accepting large numbers of refugees should be framed in a more pragmatic manner if it is to be successful in overcoming the rhetoric of the political right that we must use “common sense” in this matter.

Author

• Jessica Otto, University of Buffalo