In Plato's Crito, Socrates and his acquaintance Crito engage in a philosophical argument essentially over one's obligations to the state that had raised them and these accompanying laws. Today, there are unfortunately numerous cases in which infringement upon what is believed to be past the boundaries of humanity have been occurring in regions such as the Middle East. Migrant crises are not a new phenomena, but the causation of such chaos on the international stage deserve to be analyzed and evaluated for its ethical standards, both for the state AND for the citizens' actions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/14/world/europe/germany-emergency-measures-european-migrant-crisis.html?_r=0
In this New York Times article, the subject of the current migrant crisis into Europe (mainly concerning Germany) from the Middle East is discussed, as well as reactionary reform to be introduced concerning travel within the Eurozone. In the article, it is said to be estimated that as many as 800,000 immigrants may travel/find themselves smuggled to Germany by the end of this year (2015). While this influx may have presented some benefits by way of an increase in the younger, and as a result working population, the trajectory in which Germany and other states such as Italy, Hungary, and Austria are being swarmed by people from the Middle East is simply unsustainable. The source of these mass emigrations stems from unrest in states such as Libya concerning controversial practices and what is seen by many as inhumane treatment of civilians in addition to political instability in many areas.
Bringing it Back
In Crito by Plato (including other stories of the Five Dialogues), the question of "should one ought to follow the law?" is placed at the forefront of discussion and debate. As Socrates sees it, such heresy it would be for him to flee from prison and Athens altogether would be absolutely inexcusable morally, since he himself had been born and "reared" in Athens, as well as living there all of his life. In connection with the current dilemmas faced particularly in Africa and the Middle East, it could be stated that obedience to one's own state that effectively cared for them since birth/most of their life is in fact a moral imperative. Thus, one could ironically find fault for a citizen leaving a war-torn state, even if this very option seems to be the most sensible and obvious of all actions to undertake. Therefore, Socrates provides an argument that precedes even the subject of inhabiting European states such as Germany, as the singular notion of leaving the home state is put under moral investigation.
I really love how you connected the idea of refugee-ism with Socrates' refusal to leave Athens!
ReplyDeleteWhen you said that "it could be stated that obedience to one's own state that effectively cared for them since birth/most of their life is in fact a moral imperative," I would take the position that, in most of the current situations that are prompting refugees to flee their homelands, their states are not effectively caring for them. Of course, this raises the question of what, exactly, constitutes effective care? One could say that Athens was not effectively caring for Socrates by sentencing him to death and that he was justified in leaving.
However, the main difference that I see is that Socrates did break the laws of Athens (the fairness of those laws is another issue entirely), whereas the current refugees are almost entirely innocent of any wrongdoing.
Here's another question to consider: Is it just for the European nations to turn away the refugees if they feel that it would be detrimental to their own states and citizens?
When you raise the question that if it is just for the European nations to turn away, however, according to the news I read, regarding the enormous burden of refugees and especially unrecognizable-identity people among them, German borders have to restart the examination therefore completely slowing down the immigrating process, leading to more chaos and confliction, which I don't see at the very first point is German's problem. To secure their own citizen, from my point, European nations should put those into advance consideration.
DeleteIn addition to that, for Nathan's point, I think under such situation, it is the countries that first turn away their citizen by fail providing a secure place to live. Refugees can not even survive in their own countries, otherwise who want to leave their own homeland becoming a refugee? Thereby I agree with Rachel that it is some difference between what Nathan states from the context of Socrates.
Very good points; looking at the picture as a whole there are certainly many aspects that differ between the situation in Europe and that of Socrates. In terms of my blog post, I could even go as far as to say that it's meant to give more of a rhetorical perspective on the matter; the refugees obviously deserve (in my opinion) to relocate, and I'm sure in most cases this is of necessity, but it is always interesting to be able to take an argument like this and apply it elsewhere, even if in a modern-day example its conclusion makes absolutely no sense.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the matter of justifying relocation and the notion that Europe is justified to turn all of these people back is, in many ways, on a different platform of debate. So, I would still say the refugees are justified in fleeing, but when it comes to where TO, the ethicality of the subject changes.
I don't agree with the connection that you are making because I feel like the two sides of your argument are too different. On the one hand, you are mentioning the case of Socrates who is saying that he cannot leave his country because it will be unjust, since he has broken the laws of it in a way. On the other hand, you are talking about refugees. The word refugee is defined as someone who leaves their country in order to find a safer place in times of war or a political catastrophe. Therefore, I don't really see the connection because in the first case the country is doing what it is expected to do in terms of its citizens, whereas in the second case, the country is basically forcing its citizens to leave it because otherwise they will die.
ReplyDeleteIt is a very good connection you make between Socrates and the ongoing problem for the Syrians. I think you also explain Plato's theory well and clearly. As everyone gave brilliant comments on the connection between the relocating of Syrian and Socrates's idea, I will leave it and comment on the the problem that countries including Germany that accept refugees in the future.
ReplyDeleteThe first problem is the identity of each person. It is hard to examine the refugees' identities if most of the refugees have little or no identity certifications, which will certainly bring huge safety problem for the Germans.
Second, since they are from another country speaks different language and has different culture, the Syrians in the foreseeable future they would probably gather together in a area and live in a below average living condition, until next one to two generation of time.
In my view, I think the best way is to give the Syrian refugees visas of political asylum, since it is very hard for countries like Germany to accept such large amount of people in a short period of time. The European countries ought to arrange the refugees to live in new communities and let them enjoy most of the public resources (i.e. public schools, insurance plan). When the civic war is over, whether the refugees can stay will be depended on their behaviors. If not acceptable, some people will be sent back to Syria after the war.