Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dropit_sphere 3855 days ago
Your question could be phrased as: "Why should we consider our own welfare over that of others?" Part of the answer to that is that for a thing to survive, it must discriminate in its own favor, especially because other things will also be doing so. The other part is that survival, and even preference, are legitimate ends, and need no justification.

That's not really an answer to you; rather, it seeks to provide rhetorical relief for the native pondering whether he is morally obligated to throw open his borders. He or she is not. Their survival, and even comfort, are legitimate goods. They may calculate utility differently than their would-be neighbors, and that's OK. Vote, let them vote, converse; but don't attempt to dialectically back them into a corner. Friends don't criticize each others' utility functions.
1 comments
dkural 3855 days ago
The main reason being ethical is considered to be difficult, and morality being a topic of study and debate is due to considering the question "why should we consider our own welfare over that of others?" - ie are there reasons to not act in a selfish manner 100% of the time. What is of higher utility to you, or what you consider your in group, is not necessarily moral. There's a big difference between physical survival and simply being more comfortable than one would otherwise be. Your rhetoric puts this as a question of survival in the same breath with different preferences. Surely no one is asking you to give up your life and die.
link
dropit_sphere 3854 days ago
"ie are there reasons to not act in a selfish manner 100% of the time."

Certainly, but the feeling I get from the original comment is: "There are no reasons to act selfishly ever." I'm not arguing in favor of 100% selfishness; I'm arguing against a zero-tolerance policy towards it.

Further, the form of the whole thing is troubling. If someone asked you, "How should we help the impoverished citizens of X?" My first response would likely be foreign aid of some sort, or perhaps free trade. But I don't get the feeling that proponents of open borders would be satisfied with those (assuming for the sake of argument that they would indeed help). Beggars can't be choosers; the focus on one method makes it feel more like a shakedown than a plea for help.

link