Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
If you were a philosophy student, you would have failed a test there. The answer is not the problem, it's the way you frame it, and the things you ignore. You are trying to reduce the logic behind actions you don't like as "grand gestures", which is completely unfair.
I mean seriously, you really think all those politicians all over Europe who are accepting those immigrants are just being nice? You don't get to power by being nice. Not in Europe, not in Canada, not anywhere.
As was abundantly clear in the hypothetical, as it is in real life, refusing to take in refugees is in no way a guarantee of safety.
It just trades one type of risk for another type of risk. You can make that trade if you like, but IMO the facts suggest that probably taking in the refugees is in the long run the safer choice.
|
Funny thing is that I agree with most of your post except its basic premise. You are concluding that not taking refugees does not increase safety of the country. I agree with you. But it does take away from its economic well-being. On the issue of open refugee acceptance: Arabic districts in Paris (
banlieue) are a strong proof that the immigration and refugee policies of France had failed their objectives miserably. That was my argument on your dilemma question.
ISIS does not share the same philosophical (and economical) imperatives that liberal democracies around the world base their decision-making process on. ISIS declared a war on the world and they intend to win the war using all means possible without any respect for your philosophical tests. The bigger (biggest) question is would the world be able to withstand ISIS by maintaining liberal democracy principles? History teaches us that the wars are won by those who are willing to do anything for the victory.