What are the strengths of an argument applying the utilitarian calculation to open borders? Is it a good argument? How could it be better? What are its main objections?
The main strengths of the argument applying to the utilitarianism goes as follows;
- Opening borders is better for the GHP, and human welfare as a whole.
- Open borders may speed of the end of poverty
- There could be a 50-150% increase in the global GDP
Conclusion: Open borders can increase the social and economic welfare of the world.
The argument is a good one, with the premises given, it is hard to try and disagree with the utilitarians in saying that this will bring less happiness. It will bring joy to many people to be able to go to and from countries without penalty or repercussion, especially into a safer environment for themselves. The thought of the end of poverty seems so distant, like it could never happen even in the lifetime of me or my baby cousins, but the end that sooner would benefit generations to come. The end of poverty means giving more people a better quality of life, which the greatest happiness principle makes a main goal in society. It was noted in the texts that even a ten percent increase in the GDP translates to trillions of dollars, which can affect the people that are not in the top ten percent, raising that which everyone earns.
Given all the good from this argument, there are still concerns that others have regardless of whether or not these arguments are pointing the situation in a positive direction. The first and weakest argument is that in the U.S., the amount of immigrants coming in will detrimentally lower the rates at which the country makes scientific and technological advances. This argument comes from the very illogical idea that “low IQ immigrants” will lower the productivity of “high IQ natives” of the U.S., which for one isn’t correct in any way, shape, or form. The argument relies on outdated and ill concluded facts that have no relevance to the U.S., like higher paying jobs being paid less in low income countries. Pay scale is not universal, and IQ has been proved wrong over and over again throughout time, mixing the two to come to the conclusion that immigrants drag their old society’s concepts and problems is also an issue. It implies that problems like communism will come in to a country because those who were once ruled by it will spread it into a new country by existing. The whole Golden Egg argument is one born out of darkness, which is sadly a strong argument for those thinking in out next issue, nationalism. The argument of nationalism is simple yet scary, that we, the U.S., should only look out for the good of the U.S., and screw anyone or anything trying to interfere. The final argument is less about the people, and more about animals. The concern is that more animals will be put to death to feed more and more people. My main issue with this argument is that thought there is avoidance in it, and then it distracts us from the issue of immigration and open borders. With the amount of waste in the states to begin with, there might not be much more added suffering anyways if now what was once being wasted is bought by new immigrants coming in and out of the country.
Word Count: 577
Disembodied Blog 
Though I would not say that the idea of open border is an impossibility but there are so much to take into consideration but you think of it as a whole, because even in the past in the stone ages people built walls and borders for reasons such as accountability and identification, one issue that may come up would be safety and order and not everyone who comes and goes may have the best intentions, but no regulations there are so many unknowns that may occur.
LikeLike