10 Anthony Behar/SIPPL Sipa USA/Associated Press The United States in the Global Society Learning Objectives After reading this chapter, you will be able to: • Describe how differences in customs create dilemmas within a society. • Explain some of the ethical issues related to labor and immigrant workers. • Identify issues of justice and fairness related to terrorism and national security. • Discuss ethical difficulties related to the delicate balance between national security and the liberty of citizens. • Apply ethical theory to global issues including cultural differences, immigration, and national security. mos85880_10_c10.indd 275 10/28/13 1:41 PM Section 10.1  The Issue: Culture Clashes CHAPTER 10 Introduction T he world has grown smaller—in the sense that global trade and technology have brought different parts of the world closer together than ever. However, this does not mean that the global economy treats all persons fairly. In fact, some trade agreements might benefit some nations while hurting others. Research has shown, for example, that the North American Free Trade Agreement has harmed agriculture in Mexico through a practice known as dumping, where American agricultural products are exported to Mexico at prices below that at which Mexican farmers can produce the same products. One of the results of economic imbalance is that workers will often travel between countries, migrating to new places in order to find work. But in the United States, as elsewhere, immigration does not happen without difficulty. Some complain that immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens, many of whom find themselves unemployed. Other concerns are related to terrorism, much of which has been perpetrated by foreigners; allowing immigrants easy entry across borders might open the door to those who would ultimately cause harm to U.S. residents. And, even when it does not affect national security, the mingling of persons from different cultures, religious persuasions, and backgrounds can create societal difficulties. Many of these issues are debated on legal grounds. This chapter focuses on the ethical ramifications of a society in which persons of different nationalities, cultures, and beliefs must coexist, even as government seeks to uphold the rights of all. What moral issues arise within these topics? Are there human rights issues we should keep in mind when thinking about relationships between citizens and noncitizens? Ultimately, if ethics influences public policy—if we are to have policies and regulations that are founded upon moral standards—what should those policies look like? 10.1  The Issue: Culture Clashes I n the spring of 1997, police in New York arrested a woman for child endangerment. The woman, Anette Sorensen, had left her 14-month-old daughter in a stroller on the sidewalk while she dined in a restaurant. In her defense, the mother, a citizen of Denmark, argued that such a practice was common in her native country, where parents prefer to allow their children to stay outside in the fresh air. Additionally, Sorensen insisted that she had been watching her child through the window. Though the charges were ultimately dropped, the child spent several days in foster care while the case was being handled (“Top 10 Innocents Abroad,” n.d.). Situations like this one demonstrate how cultural differences can create problems, resulting from various—sometimes conflicting—expectations about standards of behavior. This is perhaps more commonly encountered when people are traveling in foreign countries, unaware of how their normal practices will be perceived. Such cultural conflicts can also arise within a country; the American Civil War may be arguably understood as representing a clash of cultures over the practice of slavery. How should we deal with cultural conflicts when they arise? What ethical considerations must we weigh? mos85880_10_c10.indd 276 10/28/13 1:41 PM Section 10.1  The Issue: Culture Clashes CHAPTER 10 Differences of Custom An ancient and well-known saying goes, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” The origins of this phrase can be traced back to a letter from St. Augustine of Hippo, dating to around 390 (Martin, n.d.). The idea is that people should adopt the customs and habits of the environment in which they find themselves. At the very least, this attitude represents a form of politeness, showing respect for the culture and its traditions and practices. Such cultural adaptability also serves to prevent unnecessary conflicts, because sometimes strong feelings may exist regarding something that is not considered important in another locale. For example, the foot— particularly the sole—is not merely the lowest physical part of the body in the Middle East or in Thailand; to Laurent Rebours/Associated Press display the bottom of the foot toward a person is an insult (Aquino, n.d.). Iraqi citizens showed their contempt for Saddam Hussein Thus, when Iraqis swarmed the topby touching his image with their shoes—a sign of a great disrespect in their culture. pled statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, hitting it with their shoes, the action had symbolic meaning (Gammell, 2008). Iraqis were showing their disdain by using their shoes—insulting Hussein by striking his image with an item that is considered among the dirtiest and lowest in that culture. Why would this matter? It matters because Westerners—men, in particular—have a habit of crossing their legs in a way that exposes the bottom of the foot, facing it toward another person. While Americans think nothing of this posture, some foreigners may view it as an extreme insult. The simple fact is that cultural disagreements are not always about the big issues like slavery; everyday habits, meaningless in one society, may have strong connotations in another. These cultural disagreements present ethical considerations. Ethics focuses upon our interactions with other people, and the ways in which we think about others. To do something knowingly that causes offense means that the person committing the act does not care that the other person is offended. Even when the offense is caused unintentionally, the message conveyed is that the individual did not take the time to understand the possible offense such actions may incur, and this lack of understanding represents a lack of respect for the other. Consider the ethics of Immanuel Kant, for example. The guiding principle behind his ethical framework can be stated in various ways, but one of those, as we have seen, is to say that a person should never act in a way that fails to respect the human dignity of others (Johnson, 2008). When people choose to act in a way that causes offense—or fails to prevent offense from occurring—they are failing to respect the humanity of others. mos85880_10_c10.indd 277 10/28/13 1:41 PM Section 10.1  The Issue: Culture Clashes CHAPTER 10 Even this idea has limits. We are certainly right to question whether something should reasonably be expected to cause offense. In the case of pointing the bottom of your shoe at someone, a respect for humanity would require us to recognize the insult that this conveys in some cultures, and to refrain from causing offense once we recognize this fact. After all, refraining from crossing my legs in that fashion does not fail to respect my own humanity in any way. I may think of leg crossing as amoral, but the meaning implied by crossing my legs certainly has moral implications in particular settings that the ethical person will bear in mind. We must be careful, however, because there are situations in which the “When in Rome” approach is not the ideal. In the pre-Civil War American South, slavery was accepted and common—a culturally established practice. Furthermore, slavery was a part of what enabled the Southern economy to function. While industrialization drove the economy in the northern United States, the agrarian-based economy of the South required the availability of manual labor. In this way, slavery was not a mere cultural tradition for Southerners; it was an economic necessity to ensure delivery of products to market at a reasonable cost. Does the acceptance of slavery in the South—and the economic need for such labor— mean that those visiting the South from other parts of the country or other nations needed to own slaves in a show of respect for Southern cultural tradition? In order to respect the humanity of those Southerners, would visitors need to purchase a slave or two before traveling in the South? Should a Black Northerner have presented himself as a slave when traveling in the southern states, or avoid acting in ways that would offend Southerners? The answer is “no” in all of these cases. The reason is twofold. First, the failure to own a slave would not be disrespectful of the choice of others to do so. That is, displaying the sole of my foot in Thailand is an insult, but failing to own a slave in the pre-Civil War American South is not. Second, and more importantly, even if owning a slave were required to fully respect the humanity of the Southern plantation owner, it would come at the cost of failing to respect the human dignity of the slave. Because of this inconsistency—one person’s dignity must be sacrificed to honor another’s—a deontologist must conclude that the refusal to own a slave (or act like one) should not be viewed as offensive. Being ethical means that we do not have carte blanche to do whatever we choose. It requires us to think about how our actions will affect others around us because ethics is about those relationships. Being ethical means that we are doing what we ought to do— including treating others appropriately. While cultural practices often create conflicts, the ethical response is to avoid creating further conflicts without disrespecting others in the process. Now, let’s consider the implications of this idea within a particular ethical framework that holds acceptance of cultural differences as its core premise: relativism. Cultural Relativism Since cultures contain different practices and traditions, some have suggested that ethics is nothing more than a social construct, dependent upon the culture. As Chapter 1 discussed, cultural relativism suggests that the practices of a society cannot be evaluated outside of the context of that culture; there is no objective standard against which cultural mos85880_10_c10.indd 278 10/28/13 1:41 PM Section 10.1  The Issue: Culture Clashes CHAPTER 10 practices can be measured. In short, right and wrong are not universal but are defined by each culture. This view, originating in anthropology, does seem to reflect the truth that different cultures appear to have different moral codes. What is acceptable in one place is very different from what is considered ethical elsewhere. One example might be different forms of criminal and capital punishment practiced in different societies. In the United States, criminal punishment is for the most part limited to fines and imprisonment; executions are now carried out primarily by lethal injection, although the electric chair, hanging, and firing squads have been utilized in the past. In other parts of the world, penal practices are very different. Execution by means of beheading, stoning, being burned alive, and public hanging is conducted in some places. Criminal punishments in these societies often follow retributive notions of justice: Someone guilty of harming another individual might have the same harm done to them (i.e., “an eye for an eye”). In one instance, a person who stabbed another individual, causing paralysis, was sentenced to surgical paralysis. In another case, a man who disfigured and blinded a woman with sulfuric acid was sentenced to have five drops of hydrochloric acid dripped into each of his eyes (the criminal was pardoned before the sentence was carried out). Thieves are often punished with amputation, as in the case of four teenagers caught stealing in Somalia; each of them was punished by having an arm and a leg amputated (“Punishments Around the World,” n.d.). These practices might seem barbaric to Americans unaccustomed to such punitive measures. While some would claim that the purpose of punishment is to deter others from committing crimes, others (like philosopher Jeffrey Reiman) argue that a refusal to inflict barbaric punishments sends a strong message about our lack of tolerance for such actions (Scully. n.d.). In other words, if taking a life is wrong, then refusing to take the lives of even those who deserve such punishment more strongly emphasizes the wrongness of the act, according to Reiman’s argument. Cultural relativists have a different take. In their view, the treatment of convicted criminals is relative to the culture in which the punishment is performed. Any condemnation that one society might offer another is based upon the ethical standards of their own culture, standards that may not transfer to other social contexts. In the relativist view, if no objective moral truths apply to all cultures, then on what grounds is it possible to judge any culture’s punishments as excessive? Cultural relativism argues that societies must respect differences among cultures, refraining from assuming that their own traditions are better than others’. Many philosophers, however, consider relativism a flawed ethical perspective. Among other problems, notice that the inability to criticize other cultures must apply to one’s own culture as well; if right and wrong are always defined by culture, then no society can ever criticize itself or suggest that moral progress could be brought about through change. In theory, cultural relativists cannot accept such thinking because whatever a culture happens to adopt for itself must be right for that culture. Philosophy professor James Rachels of the University of Alabama observes that cultural relativism is founded upon empirical evidence, which suggests that different practices mos85880_10_c10.indd 279 10/28/13 1:41 PM Section 10.2  The Issue: Immigration and the Labor Force CHAPTER 10 must imply varying moral codes. Rachels suggests that a better way to understand these differences is to recognize the common values underlying different cultural practices (which are distinct due to different living conditions, dominant religions, and so forth). Thus, all societies prohibit murder, for example, because such a prohibition is necessary for society to exist (Rachels, 1986). Because these underlying values are shared, there exists less moral difference than the practices through which those values are expressed would seem to suggest. Other philosophers, however, insist that cultural relativism is a valid ethical perspective. Richard Rorty of Stanford University is such philosopher. Rorty points out that all ideas are dependent upon a rational context—meaning that some reasons will appeal to some people (based on their experiences and understanding) but will have little value for others. It is impossible, Rorty argues, to find reasons that are able to transcend a cultural context and find universal validity (Grippe, 2006). Because of this, morality—and the reasons that support moral claims—are inextricably connected to cultural contexts. Undeniably, culture provides us with a lens through which we view the world, including that which we find acceptable or unacceptable. Ethics also influences these considerations, though, by helping identify those things that we should find acceptable. Perhaps we should be careful not to judge other practices too quickly because it may be that a certain way of acting—while foreign to the observer—is neither better nor worse than other actions that could be chosen. But even if ethical truth is restricted to a particular cultural context, as argued by Rorty, cultural practices can still be evaluated on ethical grounds; such evaluations are even more important when ethical truth is believed to transcend cultural boundaries. The goal of ethics is to help us understand what sorts of practices should be adopted or avoided. Because of this, it would be wrong to simply adopt a “When in Rome” approach under the assumption that whatever a culture happens to choose for itself must be right. Now that we’ve considered the question of distinct global cultures through an ethical lens, we turn our attention to a pressing social issue in which cultural differences play a central role: immigration. We’ll look at the driving factors surrounding immigration in the United States and abroad, and then consider some of those factors within an ethical framework. 10.2  The Issue: Immigration and the Labor Force W hen the carnival pulls into town, many of the workers who assemble and operate the equipment are foreigners who are legally working in the United States. In fact, fairs and carnivals often employ up to 5,000 foreign workers each year. These individuals are documented migrants under the H-2B program of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. The holder of an H-2B visa is allowed to work a job that is considered temporary, and for which the employer is unable to find willing and qualified American workers. Foreign nationals who come to the United States on a work permit are treated as any other worker. Employers must withhold taxes from their paychecks, and just like citizens, these individuals must file an income tax return each year. The foreign worker on a visa is distinct from someone not authorized to work or reside in the United States—who has mos85880_10_c10.indd 280 10/28/13 1:41 PM Section 10.2  The Issue: Immigration and the Labor Force CHAPTER 10 come into the country illegally—and who is not subject to taxation. Laws prohibit the employment of these undocumented residents (sometimes referred to as “illegal aliens” or just “illegals”), but it occurs nonetheless. In an effort to conceal the employment of undocumented workers, they are usually paid in cash. Different Classifications of Foreign Nationals in the United States U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issues different types of work permits to foreigners based on the type of work they are allowed to perform while they are in the country. These work permits are issued for different periods of time, which are appropriate for the type of work involved. Some classifications include: • H-1B—for specialty occupations, including fashion models, or research purposes (generally allowing the person to stay for up to 3 years); • H-1C—for registered nurses, when the Department of Labor identifies a shortage (generally offered for up to 3 years); • H-2A—for temporary agricultural workers (limited to the time period on the application provided by the employer, but not to exceed 3 years); and • H-2B—for temporary nonagricultural workers (limited to the time period on the application provided by the employer, which can be extended in 1-year increments, but not to exceed 3 years), In many of these classifications, those who stay within the United States for the maximum allowable time must return to their native country for a period of time (usually 3 months) before they can apply to be readmitted to the United States for another period of employment. The working conditions encountered by migrant workers are frequently harsh. Nicolas Perez came from Mexico in 2008 under the H-2B program. His job was to assemble, operate, and disassemble a roller coaster ride. Throughout the fair season, which lasts 9–10 months, Perez repeatedly had to climb the 130-foot-tall ride structure for assembly or disassembly with no safety equipment. He typically worked 12- to 13-hour days, staying in cramped, overcrowded, and unclean trailers provided by the employer. For his labor, Perez received a set weekly pay that amounted to a bit less than $3 per hour (Osberg, 2013). mos85880_10_c10.indd 281 Ric Francis/Associated Press Farm workers do hard work for low pay while facing dangerous working conditions. 10/28/13 1:41 PM Section 10.2  The Issue: Immigration and the Labor Force CHAPTER 10 Agricultural workers fare little better. Some reports indicate that 75% of U.S. farm workers are paid an annual salary of $10,000 or less, and many of them live in migrant housing, which has no plumbing or appliances. Approximately 300,000 farm workers are poisoned by pesticides each year, and they face other disabling injuries and illnesses daily, often with no health insurance coverage. The rate of disabling injuries among farm workers is three times that of the general population, and the death rate is five times that of the general population (Ahn, 2004). Why People Migrate Labor conditions in the destination country notwithstanding, migration remains a significant part of the global society. Families and individuals choose to leave a country or region for a variety of reasons, but these reasons are largely consistent no matter where the immigration is occurring. Generally speaking, motivating factors for migration can be grouped into three categories, as depicted in Table 10.1. Table 10.1: Motivating factors behind immigration Economic Social • Employment opportunities or careers that are not available in their native land •  Employment when natural disasters or other environmental factors (flood or famine, for example) cause disruptions •  Improved quality of life •  Nearness to family members •  Nearness to friends or other social connections Political •  Refuge from political or religious persecution •  Refuge from war Source: Based on information from http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/migration/migration_trends_rev2.shtml Migration’s Economic Impact The economic impact of migration should be understood because it is one of the central points of discussion—and disagreement—surrounding the issue. According to data published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), slightly over 8 million people immigrated into the 35 countries that reported data in 2012 (“International Migration Policies and Data,” n.d.; see the table “Inflows of foreign population”). Of these migrants, nearly 2.7 million entered the United States—32.7% of the reported migration for that year. The second-highest nation on the list, in terms of the number of immigrants (slightly less than 842,000) reported in 2012, was Germany—with less than one-third of the immigrants reported by the United States. Immigration is generally recognized as an economic benefit, despite claims that foreign workers take jobs from citizens and resident aliens. To the contrary, numerous studies suggest that overall wages for citizens increase when migrant workers fill jobs that others are not qualified to perform or that others simply choose not to do. (Several of these studies are identified in an article published by the Manhattan Institute [Furchtgott-Roth, 2013]). Within the United States, this is supported by data published by The Hamilton Project, which suggests that wages for American workers improve—albeit less than 1%— rather than decline when immigrant labor is available (Greenstone & Looney, 2010). mos85880_10_c10.indd 282 10/28/13 1:41 PM Section 10.2  The Issue: Immigration and the Labor Force CHAPTER 10 National policies regarding immigration vary. In the United Kingdom, for example, those requesting resident status are rated according to their skills, age, and income (“Migration Policies,” n.d.). This practice reflects something that is common to the immigration policies of most countries: Nations tend to welcome outsiders who bring a benefit to the society and economy. While migration is not driven solely by economic factors, the expectation is that people need to earn a living—so even when people are migrating for reasons other than economic ones, the labor force will be affected. Now that we’ve outlined some of the social and economic realities of immigration, let’s return to the ethics surrounding the treatment of migrant workers. We will first consider immigrant labor from the perspective of employers. The Employer Perspective The seemingly harsh treatment of migrant workers, mentioned earlier, is complicated by economic factors. Many of those who employ these workers in the United States cannot afford to offer workers better pay if they are to remain profitable as a business. Like companies who rely on inexpensive or so-called sweatshop labor (discussed in Chapter 9), the ability to hire workers at low wages is what enables the company to remain competitive. Regarding migrant workers, it’s important to note that those employers seeking H-2A and H-2B workers must certify that they are unable to locate able, willing, and qualified American workers; they must also certify that their employment of foreign nationals has no affect on the earnings of American workers who are similarly employed. In other words, migrant workers are often hired to do jobs that U.S. citizens are unwilling to do. Consequently, runs the argument, this practice fills a void in the labor market. Without the ability to employ foreign nationals at wages that are substandard to Americans, these businesses would not be able to operate. Americans who attend fairs are receiving entertainment that they would not have available were it not for foreign workers; in the same vein, we all enjoy lower prices at the supermarket because of the migrant workers in the fields. We also have to remember that no one is forcing the migrant workers to accept these positions. Economic factors in their homelands have driven them to seek jobs that may not be appealing to Americans, but that offer these foreigners better wages than they could make at home. From a purely economic standpoint, employers need jobs filled, and foreign workers meet that need. Those who criticize the practice are ignoring these simple economic truths. In short, the competitive market demands that companies take advantage of opportunities to keep costs low. No one would question a company choosing to purchase cheaper raw materials from a source that offers the same quality at a lower price. The same should be true of the labor market. If depressed economies in other countries create an influx of qualified and capable workers who are willing to work for lower-than-normal wages, this ultimately benefits everyone. Like raw materials, labor is a cost of doing business; when labor costs are minimized, those savings can be passed on to the customer. mos85880_10_c10.indd 283 10/28/13 1:41 PM Section 10.2  The Issue: Immigration and the Labor Force CHAPTER 10 The Migrant Perspective Economic factors are certainly important; after all, companies that are not profitable cannot remain in business. When a company goes out of business, that harms investors, employees, and customers alike. But the issue of migrant workers is not a purely economic concern. It also involves the rights of persons. To the argument that these are jobs that foreign workers agree to perform: The question arises of whether the migrants knew about the working conditions before they signed onto the job. In the case of Nicolas Perez, was he aware of the fact that he would be scaling a 130-foot-tall roller coaster with no safety equipment? Was he told about the cramped, overcrowded living conditions he would be provided? Or was he duped into thinking that the job would be more glamorous than it ultimately turned out to be? Once on the job, many foreign nationals do not feel that they have the freedom to quit. After all, their work permit only allows them to be in America for that particular job. They may not have the funds to return home on their own. And some employers reportedly confiscate the workers’ passports, making it impossible for the workers to leave even if they wanted to do so (Osberg, 2013). Claims that workers are voluntarily employed are invalid if those employees do not truly have the freedom to choose otherwise. Employers may feel that they have a clear advantage over these workers because a worker’s refusal to comply will result in deportation. Given the legal status of these documented immigrants, it is unfair for employers to take advantage of these workers, requiring them to perform tasks no other workers would agree to simply because of the threat of deportation. After all, foreign nationals who are legally residing and working in the United States are subject to the same taxation as American citizens. They pay their taxes, including Social Security, Medicare, and income tax (both federal and, where required, state taxes). These workers file an income tax return each year, just like everyone else legally working in the United States, although they will receive none of the Social Security or Medicare benefits. Immigrant workers are required to obey all of the laws of the United States, just as they would be as citizens. Additionally, they may have the opportunity to apply for citizenship and become naturalized citizens. If they choose to complete this process, then they will have all of the rights and privileges of citizenship. But this does not mean that foreign residents, temporary or permanent, lack rights before becoming citizens. Just as they are required to obey the law, they receive equal protection under the law during the time that they are legally working in America. (Some states prohibit noncitizens from purchasing real property or engaging in certain legal transactions; however, the civil rights of all persons—the right to be treated equally and without discrimination—applies regardless of citizenship status.) Several international groups have worked hard to have the human rights of migrant workers recognized; this issue is not isolated within the United States, of course. Among these organizations are the International Federation for Human Rights, the People’s Movement for Human Rights Education, and Migrants Rights International. The United Nations has also been involved, creating a treaty (effective 2003): the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. mos85880_10_c10.indd 284 10/28/13 1:41 PM Section 10.2  The Issue: Immigration and the Labor Force CHAPTER 10 At the heart of these movements is the recognition that a person’s citizenship should not warrant disparate treatment of that individual as a human being. Certain human dignities should be offered to all persons by simple virtue of the fact that they are humans. Thus, those who take advantage of noncitizen employees by offering them poor wages and unhealthy working (or living) conditions are refusing to respect the humanity of those persons. Straight to the Source The People’s Movement for Human Rights Education The following is a sample of the basic human rights and labor protections published by the People’s Movement for Human Rights Education (PDHRE). • The right to be paid wages that contribute to a reasonable standard of living, adequate to provide for the health and well-being of both the worker and his or her family; these wages should be equal to those of other persons who are similarly employed. • The right to be free from discrimination (based on race, nationality or ethnicity, gender, or religious beliefs). • The right to equal protection under the law. • The right to return home when the migrant wishes to do so, and to be free from arbitrary expulsion before that time. • The right to safe and clean working conditions. • The right to reasonable working hours, which will provide adequate time for rest and leisure activities. • The right to associate freely. • The right to be free from sexual harassment. • The right to be protected, during pregnancy, from work that has been proven to be harmful to pregnant women. • The right of children of migrant workers to have access to education, and to be protected from any work that may be hazardous to the child’s well-being and development. All of these are stated as human rights. The PDHRE points out that some of these rights are specifically linked to the vulnerable status of a foreign national. Source: http://www.pdhre.org/rights/migrants.html The preamble to the United Nations’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights notes that a respect for human rights is one mark of civilized society, and that those whose human rights are respected will have little reason to rebel against oppression. The right to legal protection is an often overlooked fact. A recent report on National Public Radio described how illegal immigrants in the United States are increasingly the targets of fraud: false promises of help in obtaining citizenship for which they often pay money they cannot afford. Fraudsters rely on the fact that victims will not report the crimes because they are hesitant to go to the authorities and reveal their illegal residency status. In many situations, that is exactly what happens; the illegal aliens are defrauded, and the perpetrators of the crime go unreported and unpunished (Wang, 2013). mos85880_10_c10.indd 285 10/28/13 1:41 PM Section 10.2  The Issue: Immigration and the Labor Force CHAPTER 10 Consider the case of Eduardo Flores, an undocumented immigrant from Honduras, who paid $4,000 to a person who promised to help one of his friends (also in the country illegally) but who failed to uphold that promise. Flores eventually won a civil suit against the person who defrauded him, despite warnings from friends and relatives that he would get himself in trouble if he pursued legal action. Although foreign residents are afforded equal access to the judicial system, migrant workers often still find themselves in situations that are dehumanizing. While employers may argue that they are simply taking advantage of labor conditions that are favorable to them, the truth is that they are often failing to uphold the human rights of those they employ. We might not fault a company for purchasing raw materials from a supplier who charges less. We can, however, find fault if someone uses deception or threats to pressure another person into providing labor at below-market values. When human lives are involved, economic issues cannot be the sole driving force behind the decisions. Be the Ethicist Value and the Migrant Workforce As pointed out in the text above, all persons within the United States are given equal protection under the law, regardless of their status (as citizens or migrants). We also see, though, that there are questions raised about whether all persons are aware of their ability to seek protection under the law—or whether they are sometimes led to believe that seeking protection would jeopardize their status within the country. Thinking about the ethical considerations involved in this, consider the following analogy. The hit television show Pawn Stars features individuals who bring in items that may have great value, but that raise questions of authenticity. Is this really a Civil War rifle? Is that really a celebrity’s signature? On the show, experts are often called upon to help substantiate the value of the items; this typically means that both the owners of the pawn shop and the customer get to hear the expert’s valuation of the item. The customer is generally offered less for the item, with the understanding that the pawn shop has to resell the item (at its true value) for a profit. 1. Would the owners of the pawn shop be wrong to seek expert advice of which the customer is unaware? 2. If a customer is offering to sell something for far less than the market value—and the owner knows what the item is truly worth—is the pawn shop owner obligated to tell the customer about the true value of the item? Or can the owner ethically purchase the item at the customer’s (unknown) bargain selling price? 3. Relate your responses to these questions to the issue of migrant labor. Is it ethical for an employer to take advantage of migrant workers—who may feel they have no choice in the matter—because those employers are seeking to reduce labor costs for the company? Should employers always pay workers a wage that would be attractive to any worker, regardless of the citizenship or status? Or should employers (or other citizens) encourage migrant workers to seek equal treatment through the judicial system? mos85880_10_c10.indd 286 10/28/13 1:41 PM Section 10.3  The Issue: Terrorism and National Security CHAPTER 10 10.3  The Issue: Terrorism and National Security S ince the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon (along with the fourth plane, which crashed in Pennsylvania before it could target the U.S. Capitol), terrorism—and the threat of terrorism—has been a continual focus of politics, military action, and national security, not only in the United States but worldwide. While this attack was by far the largest terrorist attack in world history, in terms of lives lost (nearly 3,000 died), foreign terrorists are not the only source of such threats within our country. Most would agree that terrorism is criminal activity that is motivated by ideological, political, or religious issues, and the goal of these actions is to coerce governments to change. In a simplified form, terrorists are fighting against oppression of some type; if the governments and political leaders who are controlling the oppression stop, then the terrorist acts will stop as well. Terrorism, whether perpetrated by individuals or groups, is an attempt to fight against perceived wrongs or injustices. How Terrorism Affects Immigration Some terrorist acts are domestic in origin—committed by a nation’s own citizens. More widely known are organizations around the world that commit international acts of violence in an attempt to further their causes. (The most well-known of these, responsible for the World Trade Center attack, is Al-Qaeda.) The U.S. Department of State has identified approximately 50 of these organizations (Bureau of Counterterrorism, 2012). Earlier, this chapter explored economic questions surrounding the topic of immigration. How does global terrorism affect individuals seeking to enter the United States for purposes of employment? Simply stated, the threat of foreign terrorism closes doors of opportunity for many who might otherwise seek these jobs. Of the nearly 200 countries in the world, individuals from only about 60 of those countries are eligible for work visas in the United States (under the H1-A and H1-B programs). Many argue that exercising caution with immigrants is appropriate, even necessary. Domestic terrorists exist, but most believe that the greatest threats to national security come from abroad. Thus, in this view, the issuance of work visas must involve greater scrutiny toward individuals allowed to enter the country. After all, many of the terrorists involved in prior attacks were in the United States as business travelers, students, and migrant workers. The United States is sometimes referred to as a “melting pot”—an image that acknowledges the fact that the nation is made up of a wide variety of peoples from different parts of the world. In the nation’s infancy, many immigrants arrived on these shores fleeing persecution. Today, as we have seen, people come to the United States for a variety of reasons, and the immigrant population has been growing quickly over the last 4 decades. Figure 10.1 shows how, after several decades of decline, the immigration population has steadily risen in recent years, along with the overall percentage of immigrants within the general population. mos85880_10_c10.indd 287 10/28/13 1:41 PM Section 10.3  The Issue: Terrorism and National Security CHAPTER 10 Figure 10.1: The U.S. immigrant population 40 30 10 20 5 10 Population (in millions) Percentage of Total Population 15 0 0 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year =Percentage of Total U.S. Population =Foreign-Born Population (in millions) Source: Based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau In 2011, an estimated 40.4 million immigrants (persons who were not U.S. citizens at birth) resided in the United States: 13% of the population. It is further estimated that 36% of this immigrant population entered the United States after 2000, with the vast majority of these immigrants coming from Latin America and Asia (Britz & Batalova, 2013). Immigration is important. America, for example, is a diverse nation, and we recognize that creativity and innovation in a technological world demand that we continue to bring in new talent. In February 2011, Apple Computers founder Steve Jobs proposed to President Barack Obama that foreign engineering students should be admitted to the United States in greater numbers for the simple reason that technology companies have far more engineering positions than can be filled by the domestic labor force (Furchtgott-Roth, 2013). The U.S. Department of State has conducted a diversity immigrant lottery each year since 1995, offering permanent residency to 55,000 legal immigrants from nations that had low numbers of immigrants to the United States in the previous 5 years (“Diversity Visa (DV) program,” n.d.) This does not target those qualified in specific occupations, like those suggested by Jobs, but it does underscore the fact this country values diversity and the opportunity it provides, both for the nation and for the immigrants. The flip side of the opportunities afforded by immigration is the threat of infiltration by foreign terrorists. National security for citizens of any nation remains a priority, particularly during an era in which political and religious ideologies have led to the development of organizations willing to participate in terrorist activities. mos85880_10_c10.indd 288 10/28/13 1:41 PM Section 10.3  The Issue: Terrorism and National Security CHAPTER 10 Immigration, Race, and the Question of Profiling In 2010, Arizona passed a highly contentious law (SB 1070), which gave law enforcement officers the right to question the immigration status of residents when a reasonable suspicion exists that the person might be an undocumented alien. Five states subsequently passed similar measures: Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah. In June 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that certain provisions of Arizona’s law are unconstitutional but upheld (at least for the time being) the ability of law enforcement officials to verify a person’s resident status. The Supreme Court on Immigration Enforcement In Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of four major provisions of Arizona’s SB 1070. • Upheld was the right of police officers to demand documentation related to a resident’s status when the officer suspects that the individual may be in the United States illegally. • The Supreme Court rejected the provision that allows persons to be arrested without a warrant when there is a suspicion that the individual may be an undocumented alien. • The Court also rejected the provision that it is a state crime for immigrants to fail to have their federal registration documents with them, for inspection, at all times. • Finally, the Court prevents Arizona from considering it a state crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or accept employment. Protecting National Interests As we have seen, discussion over immigration poses numerous concerns. For many, public safety must be the priority; the government’s responsibility is to protect its citizens and residents, and allowing people to easily immigrate without documentation presents a great risk. Others point to the simple fact that illegal immigrants receive the benefits of being in America without helping to pay for those services. Documented migrants are required to pay taxes (even though they don’t receive all of the benefits provided through taxation, like Social Security and Medicaid). Undocumented immigrants, on the other hand, do not pay taxes. Since it is against the law to hire them, mos85880_10_c10.indd 289 Ted S. Warren/Associated Press U.S. law enforcement agencies work to identify illegal immigrants in order to protect the public and prevent people who are in the country illegally from taking advantage of tax-funded services. 10/28/13 1:41 PM Section 10.3  The Issue: Terrorism and National Security CHAPTER 10 employers of these undocumented workers typically pay them in cash, treating them as an independent contractor. Even so, these individuals receive the benefit of tax-supported services—like law enforcement, medical care, and public education for their children. It is for these reasons that Arizona, and other states, chose to enhance their efforts to identify and deport those who are in the country illegally. Immigration laws exist to provide legal entry for those who wish to live in in the United States and enjoy the opportunities the country offers; those who choose to enter the country without going through those proper channels need to be held accountable. One side effect in the attempt to curtail illegal immigration, as well as terrorist activity, is racial profiling—law enforcement efforts that place greater scrutiny on individuals of a particular ethnic background. Arizona borders Mexico, and law enforcement officials there have been sharply criticized for focusing primarily on those of Latino descent. A U.S. District Court ruling against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office noted that the department admitted that “Hispanic appearance” was one of the characteristics used to determine potentially undocumented immigrants (Wang, 2013). Case Study Are All Borders Equal? Much of the recent debate in the United States regarding border security and immigration has focused on the southern border with Mexico. But what about America’s northern border with Canada? After all, there are 5,525 miles of Canadian border (involving borders with 13 states), but only 1,933 miles of Mexican border (involving four states) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). Some reports also suggest that the Canadian border presents a greater threat for terrorists entering the United States. Alan Bersin, the Commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, has reported that more terrorist suspects have been apprehended on the northern border than on the southern (Mora, 2011). • Do you think concerns about border security are primarily focused on national security issues? • Is there a perception of greater socioeconomic threats posed by those migrating across the Mexican border? If so, what role does racial profiling play in attempting to combat those threats, particularly in the states which border Mexico? • Armed volunteer groups have sprung up across the Southwest to patrol the U.S.-Mexico border. Most such movements claim they exist to support state and local law officials in their efforts to control illegal border crossings. What might be some implications of similar groups organizing along the northern border with Canada? Profiling Racial profiling is a concern with implications beyond the issue of immigration. A District Court judge in Chicago recently issued a ruling suggesting that drug sting operations in Chicago may have involved racial profiling, as all of those arrested were African American or Latino (Tarm, 2013) and the National Education Association reports that a disproportionate number of Black and Latino students are suspended and expelled from public mos85880_10_c10.indd 290 10/28/13 1:41 PM Section 10.3  The Issue: Terrorism and National Security CHAPTER 10 schools (“Campaign to End Racial Profiling,” n.d.). Stereotypes associated with different races often lead people—and law enforcement officers—to expect that certain individuals may be guilty of wrongdoing, not because of suspicious activity, but based on their race, ethnicity, or other immutable physical characteristics. Does racial profiling constitute a form of discrimination (not unlike that discussed in Chapter 6)? There are arguments on both sides of the issue. Those who would defend profiling in order to police illegal immigration suggest that the majority of illegal immigrants— particularly in states which border Mexico, like Arizona—will be of Latino descent. Thus, it makes little sense to suspect Caucasians of being illegal immigrants, when the bulk of the problem in that particular area is related to Latinos who have crossed the border without documentation. While the intention is not to discriminate, profiling is inevitable because the problem exists within a certain segment of the population. The same is true when immigrants from the Middle East are screened for entry. Many terrorist organizations that have targeted the United States find strong support in the predominantly Muslim countries of the Middle East. As a result, persons originating from those areas warrant greater scrutiny. According to government officials, the goal of such screening (whether based on race, national origin, or cultural profile) is not to persecute any specific individual; the goal is to preserve national security based on knowledge of where the greatest threats lie. Those who object to profiling, however, point to the abuse of liberty for innocent civilians who happen to share characteristics with a particular criminal class. Profiling, according to opponents, is basically a form of discrimination without basis. Statistics show, for example, that African Americans are much more likely to be stopped while driving, leading some to suggest that the only suspicious activity under scrutiny is “driving while Black.” (See, for example, David Harris’s article “The Stories, the Statistics, and the Law: Why ‘Driving While Black’ Matters” in Minnesota Law Review at http://racism.org/index .php?option=com_content&view=article&id=839:dwb01-1&catid=130&Itemid=241.) The Law School at Cornell University has also compiled empirical research supporting this point (Brown & Jantzi, 2012). Law enforcement officials point to other statistics that show a disproportionate number of convicted criminals come from particular demographics. Meanwhile, the practice of profiling creates fear, anger, and humiliation among law-abiding individuals who are singled out by police and other law enforcement simply because of their race or nationality. Following the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, Muslims and members of other religions have faced attacks, harassment, and worse. In August 2012, a White supremacist gunned down six worshippers at a Wisconsin Sikh temple (possibly mistaking the Sikhs for Muslims); the following day, in an unrelated incident, a mosque in Joplin, Missouri, was burned to the ground. At least seven mosques have been attacked during the Muslim celebration of Ramadan in recent years (Amer & Basu, 2012). For some, these represent extreme examples of cultural profiling, where Muslims and other religious groups are targeted because the extremists associate them with terrorist attacks perpetrated by Islamic radicals. mos85880_10_c10.indd 291 10/28/13 1:41 PM Section 10.3  The Issue: Terrorism and National Security CHAPTER 10 Even in the absence of cases like these, profiling poses difficult questions. If it is true that the greatest terrorist threat comes from the Middle East, does that warrant additional scrutiny for those who come from those areas? Indeed, while the innocent people being scrutinized may be inconvenienced, such practices are arguably reasonable and valid— something those same individuals can recognize. The difficulty lies in defining where scrutiny crosses the line and begins to violate the rights of those being investigated. An Ethical Perspective on Profiling At this point, ethical theories can offer some guidance on what would be appropriate. Duty ethics (deontology), for example, demands that the human dignity of all persons be respected, regardless of their race, culture, religious affiliations, or nationality. One way of framing this is to suggest that an action is only appropriate if any person performing the action could rationally believe the treatment fair if the roles were reversed. It is important to make a distinction between this and something like the Golden Rule: Duty ethics does not ask whether the person performing the action would like to be treated in such a way; duty ethics has nothing to do with personal preferences. (For example, people who enjoy pain would not be justified in inflicting pain under this principle because they would accept being hurt in return.) Further, the question does not center on what someone is willing to accept. I might accept, for example, that a company is inclined to hire the relative of one of the company’s executives, despite the fact that there are more qualified applicants for the position; this does not mean that it is fair for the company to do so. The question duty ethics poses is whether any person who is thinking rationally would believe the action being performed to be fair and reasonable if that person were the object of the action. This principle can guide law enforcement officials to conduct investigations in ethical ways. If they are detaining an individual, are they doing so based on sufficient evidence— evidence that any rational person would recognize as justification for detainment? If an individual is being scrutinized, is this oversight conducted in a manner—and to an extent—that any individual thinking rationally would acknowledge as appropriate to the situation? This test of rationality lies at the heart of the ethical perspective and offers some guidelines as to how biased profiling—based on race, culture, or appearance—might be avoided. When applying this framework to the question of profiling, a rational test might be to distinguish criminal profiling and racial profiling. Criminal profiling involves the assessment of a situation where certain factors raise reasonable suspicions of criminal activity. Some law enforcement agencies, for example, have gone so far as to publish information that would help identify places where illegal drugs are grown or processed. (See, for example, a publication by the Gwent Police Department at http://corporate.gwent .police.uk/fileadmin/documents/info_point/eleaflets/497_01_IllegalDrugs_Rental _PropertySCREEN.pdf.) Racial profiling, by contrast, is based on immutable personal characteristics of individuals, regardless of observed suspicious activity—in other words, unreasonable and unfair actions. Civil rights are more likely to be abused when racial profiling is given preference over criminal profiling. mos85880_10_c10.indd 292 10/28/13 1:41 PM Section 10.3  The Issue: Terrorism and National Security CHAPTER 10 Case Study New York’s “Stop and Frisk” Practice For a number of years, the New York Police Department has used a policy known as “stop and frisk,” giving officers the right to question anyone believed to be involved in criminal activity. The city has focused the use of this tactic in neighborhoods with the highest crimes rates, and reports suggest that violent crime in New York City has decreased dramatically as a result. The practice has long been under fire, however, from critics who argue that it involves racial profiling: The vast majority of those stopped under this policy are Black or Latino males. In August 2013, a U.S. District Judge ruled the practice unconstitutional; appeals are pending (Gardiner, 2013). 1. Does a reduction in violent crime justify the targeting of those individuals who may be most likely to be involved in such crimes? 2. If most violent crimes are committed in neighborhoods where the population consists of greater numbers of minorities, is there a way to step up enforcement that would not be accused of involving racial profiling? 3. This practice is very much like the Arizona law that targeted Latinos when searching for illegal aliens—or like practices that would apply greater scrutiny to immigrants from the Middle East. Thinking in broader terms, if a particular threat to national security is believed to be centered within a certain population, would any measures attempting to safeguard the citizens not be guilty of profiling? What is the best way to balance civil rights and security concerns? Balancing Security and Liberty One of the fundamental responsibilities of a government is that of protecting its citizens. This duty is recognized by the United Nations, which has issued a mandate—supported by international law—generally referred to as the responsibility to protect. The emphasis of this declaration suggests that the protection of citizens is a primary duty of a sovereign state, and that those governments that fail to uphold this duty are fundamentally flawed. (This is spelled out in the UN Security Council’s Resolution 1674, adopted in 2006.) For this reason, terrorism—foreign and domestic—is a focus of national security. Law enforcement agencies at all levels of government have a responsibility to take threats of terrorism seriously and implement safety measures to prevent attacks whenever possible. Acts of terror are punished, sometimes militarily (as in the war waged by the U.S. military against Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan) but often judicially (when individual perpetrators are tried and punished). But what steps may government agencies ethically take to protect citizens? In a stark case that drew international attention, the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) faced a public outcry and federal investigation when information leaked by one of its contractors, Edward Snowden, revealed that American citizens are subject to extensive government surveillance of their personal email messages, Internet searches, and telephone records. The federal government’s response, echoed by President Barack Obama, was to argue that the government’s intent was not spying on American citizens but rather finding and mos85880_10_c10.indd 293 10/28/13 1:41 PM Section 10.3  The Issue: Terrorism and National Security . Alex Milan Tracy/Demotix/Corbis The U.S. government claims that it monitors citizens’ communications in order to protect them. However, many people feel this is an invasion of their privacy. CHAPTER 10 tracking information related to terrorists. The case raises important ethical questions about the issue of privacy. Do governments have the right to peruse personal communications in an attempt to combat terrorist activities? United States law protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizure, as well as the right to not incriminate themselves. These are fundamental rights established by the U.S. Constitution. If information obtained via possibly illegal methods cannot be used as evidence in criminal cases, can it be justifiably used to fight terrorism? Those legal (and constitutional) concerns are mirrored by ethical considerations. Utilitarians focus on the consequences of an action to determine whether it is morally acceptable. When people discovered the extent of the NSA information-gathering efforts, they became concerned about the government’s power over their lives. At issue for a utilitarian is not whether people should be concerned—they are. Thus, the result (i.e., consequence) of the nowpublic surveillance is that citizens are upset and wary of the government’s power, particularly because of the secretive nature of this process. People are not able to know exactly what information is being gathered, or how that information will be scrutinized and used. It is unclear, at best, what terrorist plots the NSA can point to that have been thwarted through the use of this information. Thus, a utilitarian assessment might argue the information gathering causes more harm (that is, fear and mistrust of the government’s reach) than the good (preventing potential terrorist activity) it achieves. Ethics can also apply the same assessment to Edward Snowden’s decision to leak this information. Had the public been unaware of the NSA’s efforts, the public unease would not have occurred; people would remain blissfully unaware of the government’s knowledge of their personal communications, which seems to be a greater good. A utilitarian analysis, however, would suggest that it is unlikely that such a surveillance program would never come to light, and the longer the program remained in effect—the more information that it collected—the greater the public outcry would be when the public became aware of these activities. Additionally, public trust in the government can only exist when a certain level of transparency exists; the more secrets the government holds, the more wary the citizens become, especially when the extent of those secrets begins to be known. Thus, utilitarian thinkers might well argue in favor of Snowden’s disclosure of information for the good of the country and its citizens. Ethics and law might agree that maintaining a delicate balance between privacy and protection is necessary, if difficult. To provide security, law enforcement needs as much information as possible; if threats are known before becoming realities, then the citizens can be protected from intentional harm. However, the right of people to possess security and mos85880_10_c10.indd 294 10/28/13 1:41 PM Section 10.4  Applying the Theories CHAPTER 10 privacy in their personal lives, and to freely associate with whom they choose, must necessarily limit the amount of information the government can access and analyze. 10.4  Applying the Theories T his chapter has looked at a wide range of topics related to the global society in which we live. As we have seen, from an ethical perspective, immigration and national security are complex issues that pose difficult moral questions—questions that are being asked with increasing urgency in a global society facing a difficult economy and conflicts spanning continents. If ethics cannot dictate absolute policies, it can at least provide a framework within which appropriate action may be outlined. Chapter 10 concludes by evaluating one of these issues—the rights of the migrant worker—through two ethical lenses. Earlier, this chapter explored the story of Nicolas Perez, the migrant worker from Mexico working on a roller coaster ride for a carnival. Recall that his employer did not provide safety equipment for Perez to use when scaling the ride (for assembly and disassembly operations), and the employer made his workers live in crowded, cramped, and unclean living conditions. Working long hours each day, Perez earned less than half of the federal minimum wage for his efforts. Apart from the legal and economic arguments that might be offered to justify (or condemn) these practices, how might ethics apply to the Perez case? This section will apply virtue ethics and utilitarianism to the question of migrant worker’s rights. Virtue Ethics The focus of virtue ethics lies on the character of the individual performing the action; rather than assessing an act as good or bad, the character traits that lead one to perform the action help us assess the value of the action. This is an agent-based approach, seeking to determine whether any particular action is something that flows out of a virtuous (or vicious) character. Consider the wages and housing with which Perez and his co-workers were provided. The employer might argue that this is the best that can be afforded because the carnival does not bring in enough money to provide anything better. But does that same employer live in comparable housing? Is the employer being as generous as possible with these employees, in terms of their compensation? Without knowing the particulars of the employer in question, this might be hard to answer. It is likely, however, that a carnival owner who was living in a fashion similar to that described for the employees would close the carnival and pursue other lines of work. Within this context, virtue ethics demands the employer to establish and follow standards that would display an appropriate concern for the welfare of the employees. While this approach to ethics is not focused on the consequences of one’s actions, the virtuous employer will seek to find an appropriate level of compensation that adequately provides for the employees’ needs. Actions give evidence of a person’s character, and the person who has an appropriate concern for the welfare of others will demonstrate that concern through his actions. mos85880_10_c10.indd 295 10/28/13 1:41 PM Section 10.4  Applying the Theories CHAPTER 10 We might apply a similar kind of analysis to the lack of safety equipment provided for Perez and the other workers. A fall from a 130-foot-tall structure would be debilitating—if not fatal. Perhaps, in the employer’s defense, such safety equipment is extremely expensive and cannot be purchased because the carnival is failing to earn a sufficient profit. However, the fact remains that the employer’s safety is not at risk; Perez and other employees are being asked to take a risk that the owner does not. A virtuous perspective would lead the employer to demonstrate a genuine concern for the safety of these workers, recognizing that their lives—or at least their livelihoods—are being placed at risk when they are required to work without the appropriate equipment. Even if the employer could substantiate the fact that the carnival fails to earn enough money to provide better quarters and safer equipment, that economic argument would not offset the ethical concerns. A carnival that cannot adequately provide for the workers would not continue operations if the employer were seeking to act ethically. Cost-saving measures should be pursued in other areas, or revenues will have to increase, to ensure that funds exist to meet the human needs of the workers. A virtuous person will be concerned about the welfare of others, particularly those within his care. Failure to provide for the welfare of these workers (through adequate safety measures, sanitary housing, and reasonable amounts of time away from work), therefore, cannot be substantiated from a virtue ethics perspective. Utilitarian Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory; rather than being an agent-centered approach, like virtue ethics, utilitarianism is action centered: The outcome of an action determines whether the action is morally acceptable or not. In making this assessment, the outcomes for everyone affected must be taken into consideration, weighted by the degree to which each individual is affected. To understand the weighting of effects, consider a simple example. Suppose that John is thinking about selling his home and moving to a smaller place that will be less expensive to maintain. He might talk to his neighbor about his plans because the neighbor’s property values could be affected by the sale of John’s home. After all, real estate valuations could be adjusted based on the selling price, and John’s neighbor might also be concerned if the house is purchased and used for rental property because that would mean less stability in the neighborhood. At the same time, John might talk to his wife about his thoughts regarding their home. She will certainly be affected if John decides to sell the house and move because she will have a great deal of packing to do. Who should John consider more heavily in this matter? Both his wife and his neighbor will be affected by the decision, but clearly his wife will be substantially more affected. For this reason, the consequences for John’s wife outweigh any possible consequences for John’s neighbor. This formula informs all utilitarian considerations. Utilitarian ethics does not simply calculate how many people will be benefited and how many will be harmed, but weighs results based on the extent of the benefit or harm to each individual. mos85880_10_c10.indd 296 10/28/13 1:41 PM Section 10.4  Applying the Theories CHAPTER 10 With this in mind, now consider the case of Nicolas Perez. He is not provided with safety equipment while assembling and disassembling the roller coaster ride. Who is affected by this? It could be that customers are affected because the use of safety equipment might cause the work to take longer; rigging up a safety apparatus might mean that the ride cannot be open to the customers as long. For the utilitarian, this represents a minor inconvenience. The employer, too, would be affected: Purchasing the safety equipment, as well as any training that might be needed regarding its use—in other words a financial consequence. For the utilitarian, however, the greatest consequences of the missing safety equipment arguably are those that affect Perez directly. Even leaving the possible consequences related to a fall out of consideration, we can understand that safety equipment will provide Perez with a peace of mind that he cannot enjoy when he is forced to work without the equipment. As this analysis shows, the presence or absence of safety equipment creates consequences for a number of individuals. Since the greater consequences are borne by Perez, however, those considerations weigh more heavily in the utilitarian analysis. If the carnival owner purchases safety equipment for Perez and his co-workers, they will feel more secure, leading them to be more productive. Additionally, the workers will have a greater appreciation for their employer, knowing that he cares about their safety. Absent the safety devices, Perez and the other workers must work in an environment involving fear, and they have little reason to be committed to doing their best work for an employer who seems to care little about them. Based on these consequential considerations, the right thing for the employer to do would be to purchase safety equipment for the workers. A similar analysis would argue that the employer is wrong to require Perez and others to work long days with little time off. Requiring employees to work long hours means that the employer saves on labor costs, including the housing that is provided. This is a positive benefit for the owner. Customers also benefit because the carnival is accessible to them for a greater time. However, tired workers might also introduce safety concerns, and disgruntled employees cannot be expected to provide the best in customer service. From the customer perspective, allowing carnival workers additional time off affords both benefits and drawbacks. For Perez and his fellow workers, the number of working hours represents an undesirable outcome. People need time to relax and pursue other interests in order to maintain their health and their motivation, which is why employers typically provide workers with vacation leave each year. It is also why the U.S. Department of Labor has established specific guidelines on appropriate wages and working hours. Employers must offer overtime pay of at least 150% of the regular pay rate for any hours worked by an employee that exceed a 40-hour week. The primary reason for these requirements is to encourage employers to recognize that employees need time to relax and recuperate. When these consequential evaluations are applied, utilitarians would contend that the long working hours and low pay are unethical. Whatever benefits are reaped by the employer are offset by the workers’ inability to enjoy a fulfilling work experience, in addition to the safety concerns that arise when workers are tired. mos85880_10_c10.indd 297 10/28/13 1:41 PM Key Terms CHAPTER 10 Conclusions In this situation, virtue ethics and utilitarianism agree in their conclusions: Nicolas Perez and his co-workers are being treated unfairly by their employer. Such agreement between ethical theories is not always the case, but it can be expected in many instances. For instance, duty ethics would likely come to a similar conclusion. Notice that each ethical framework has different justifications that support the same conclusion. From a virtue ethics perspective, what is important are the character traits that lead one to act in a particular way, and whether those character traits are among the virtues (i.e., character traits that enable us to live as we ought). For utilitarians, the focus shifts to the consequences of the actions performed, and whether those consequences are beneficial or harmful. Duty ethics would shift the focus to the principles underlying the actions, specifically looking to see whether the reasons for an action are logically consistent. The migrant status of Perez and his co-workers does not play into these considerations, however. The focus of ethics—regardless of which perspective is utilized—will always be to treat humans with dignity and respect. Factors such as race, age, gender, or national origin do not change the humanity of the individuals involved, and from an ethical perspective, any analysis that skews the conclusion based on those factors is inherently flawed. Chapter Summary T hroughout this chapter, we have seen that many of the ethical issues related to a global society center on human rights. In considering what rights immigrants may be entitled to, ethics offers clear guidelines for treatment, regardless of legal status. Maltreatment of any person cannot withstand moral scrutiny. Any well-founded ethical theory will include a desire to respect and uphold the dignity of humans, regardless of national origin, ethnicity, race, gender, or other traits that the individual in question happens to possess. Being ethical involves, among other things, learning to overlook qualities that have no bearing on how a person deserves to be treated. The more clearly we can see, the more fully we can uphold our ethical duties to those with whom we interact. Key Terms criminal profiling  Assessing a situation based on factors that lead to a suspicion of criminal activity, without regard for the personal characteristics of the perpetrator. cultural relativism  An ethical perspective suggesting that morality is determined by each culture for itself. mos85880_10_c10.indd 298 deportation  Sending noncitizens back to their homeland. diversity immigrant lottery  A program of the U.S. Department of State in which immigrant visas are granted to individuals randomly, with the sole purpose of increasing diversity within America. 10/28/13 1:41 PM Critical Thinking Questions CHAPTER 10 dumping  In the context of trade, this refers to the flooding of a foreign market with surplus goods, generally sold at extremely low prices, which disrupts the foreign economy. North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)  An agreement between Canada, the United States, and Mexico, where the goal is to eliminate barriers to trade and investment between the three countries. H-2A and H-2B  Visas allowing foreigners to legally work in the United States in particular types of occupations (typically low-paying manual labor). racial profiling  Suspecting persons of criminal activity based solely on their race or ethnicity. human rights  Those rights—like freedom from discrimination—to which all persons are entitled simply because they are humans. responsibility to protect  The fundamental duty of a sovereign government to protect its population from harm, particularly from harms caused by genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and other crimes against humanity. immigrant  A person who seeks to live and work in a nation in which he or she is not a terrorism  Criminal actions that are performed by individuals or groups who are citizen. trying to coerce a government to change its policies; terrorist attacks are often performed in the name of some perceived wrong or injustice. Critical Thinking Questions 1. Duty ethics seeks to uphold the human dignity of all persons. What punishments would be excluded because they are degrading to humans? Would duty ethics support extradition from a country without the death penalty to one that uses it? That is, is it ethical for one country to subject an accused criminal to more extreme punishment than the individual would receive in the country making the arrest? 2. Utilitarian ethics determines what is right and wrong by looking at the consequences for everyone involved; the “greatest good for the greatest number” is the goal. How would you apply this ethical perspective to proposed legislation that seeks to limit access to education and medical care to persons with a certain immigration status? 3. How might a deontologist assess the actions of an informant who seeks to expose wrongdoing by a government entity by leaking information that could place national security (and by extension, citizens) at risk of a military attack? mos85880_10_c10.indd 299 10/28/13 1:41 PM Suggested Resources CHAPTER 10 Suggested Resources United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ Migrant Workers & Resident Immigrants http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/policy_research/AgNAFTA.html http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/ ?vgnextoid=d1d333e559274210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=d1d333e55 9274210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD http://www.fidh.org/en/migrants-rights/ http://www.migrantwatch.org/about_the_convention/BasicRights.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alien http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/studyguides/noncitizens.html www.apsanet.org/imgtest/supremecourtalienright.pdf Culture Clashes http://www.beyondintractability.org/bi-essay/culture-conflict Cultural Relativism http://www.cultural-relativism.com/ http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Cultural_relativism.html rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1100/relativism.pdf http://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/PSPA/3040/02/Donnelly.pdf http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/cultural-relativism.htm Terrorism http://terrorism.about.com/od/originshistory/a/US_Terrorism.htm http://www.terrorism-research.com/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/terrorism/ mos85880_10_c10.indd 300 10/28/13 1:41 PM Suggested Resources CHAPTER 10 http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm http://rt.com/trends/nsa-leaks-snowden-surveillance/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/10/politics/edward-snowden-profile http://www.cis.org/ImmigrationPolicy%2526Terrorism http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-cohen/the-importance-of-immigra_b_2566100 .html Racial Profiling http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/racial-profiling http://racerelations.about.com/od/thelegalsystem/g/racialprofiling.htm http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/racial-profiling-arizona http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/01/arizona-police-immigration-law_n_633108 .html http://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/supreme-court-deals-blow-3-provisions -arizonas-racial-profiling-law-allows http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Categorical_Imperative.htm http://www.calea.org/calea-update-magazine/issue-86/accreditation-works/criminal -profiling-versus-racial-profiling mos85880_10_c10.indd 301 10/28/13 1:41 PM mos85880_10_c10.indd 302 10/28/13 1:41 PM
Purchase answer to see full attachment