Critics of open borders often feel satisfied simply pointing out the theoretical possibility of harms from open borders, or the failure of direct generalizability from another argument to open borders. To some extent, this is simply a response to specific pro-open borders arguments rather than their full case. Still, I get a sense that critics often feel content just finding some flaw/hole in the open borders case rather than actually weighing costs/harms against benefits. Do you think this is the case, and if so, how can critics be encouraged to work harder to weigh the costs against the benefits and explain why they think the costs overcome the benefits, rather than feel that identifying costs or identifying holes in philosophical reasoning is enough to end the discussion?
Posted on: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 18:01:48 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015