Blog Prompt 7: 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?
Before deciding if the Utilitarian calculation to open borders is a good argument we have to first know the definition of Utilitarianism. It is “The general idea that our goal should be to maximize total utility, and is related to the idea of cost benefit analysis” (p.3). We should take full advantage of any situation as long as it can promote happiness or pleasure and how much money is taken account for financially as whole. The Utilitarian justifications for open borders is sought to be seen better for human welfare than the status quo, being more for the general public than social and political views. A big part of the importance of it is the income gains because its seen to that open border is speeding up the process to end world poverty. Economically it is very beneficial because “open borders has a 1-percent increase in global production by means of several trillion dollars of additional wealth creation every year” (p.4). Poor people benefit from the increase, slowly an even playing field is being made between poor people and the rich; there is higher utilitarian gain and its being equally distributed. Large amounts of money is being added due to the open borders. Another topic that is brought up in the article is that it will “Kill the goose that lays the golden eggs” basically trying to empower the less fortunate than empowering the fortunate. This is where the fortunate do not agree with this and they have a problem with open borders. They decide it is bad and they decide that open borders can harm the global and political order and that’s where some of the main objections come from. One is, the killing of the goose that lays golden eggs argument and the second is animal welfare. The people who are able to make political decisions on open borders are fortunate and have the essentials needs one needs to survive and be stable so why not let the poor people have shot at becoming self sufficient and stable? The poor people are able to increase their income. If there are already people with money they have all the essential needs and more but having open borders gives the poor people opportunities in ways they can help themselves such as not having to worry about if they can afford food, clothing, shelter. The rich become scared that they can lose power. The killing the goose argument is ignorant in my opinion because they state that immigrants have low IQ when there is no actual way of measuring it, and on top of that IQ does not measure ones creative design, engineering and science work. Just because a human being is less fortunate as far as wealth and materialistic things in life means that they are not capable of inventing or being smart? That is false! Animal welfare is the increase of utility to more people which will increase the amount of meat consumed by people and it will increase the suffering of animals. That is false, there are thousands upon thousands of pounds of food being each week let alone in a day. These immigrants live around the world which means they have to eat, regardless there is food on this world for everyone to eat! Border control is not just for the United States, if it was some could argue about overpopulating but other than that there is nothing to disagree about.
613 Words
Sier Bafaiz Blog 
In regards to this topic of, the objections I can see where they are coming from, especially the political order and and chaos that may arise, If imagining it from a global perspective there so many factors to consider when talking about a global open borders, anyone can enter and exit without restrictions, the issue of crime, trafficking and drug trade comes to mind.
LikeLike
I agree that the objections seem to be quite ignorant, especially the argument about immigrants having low IQ and bringing the rest of us down. Regardless of ethnicity and upbringing, there will be people who supposedly are less intelligent, but in my opinion, IQ is a complete social construct that people created that isolates people into these discriminative categories. Even though someone may be less intelligent, it’s not a fixed aspect of him or her, it’s something that can be improved, and will never stop improving, and people should give immigrants a chance to prove that for themselves.
LikeLike
Nice post Sier another killer one bud. I agree with you that opening the boards would be good in the eyes of a utilitarian because it would bring more pleasure and happiness to those who are less fortunate. I also agree that the arguments against it are flawed. They argue that it’ll lower the IQ of the country but I disagree, when people get more opportunities they are more likely to learn and grow as people not the other way around. And the idea that it would increase crime, drugs and trafficking is purely conjecture. Right now with all the security and restrictions people still find a way to get their vices. Most of those people are at the lower end of society and turn to them because they don’t have opportunities so i think that you could argue that opening boarders would cause a decrease in those said areas. Just some food for thought.
LikeLike