Moral Cowards!

[Ryika]

I had an interesting discussion with a friend today, about refugees and the moral implications of granting them refuge in Germany. The basic for that were the Crime Statistics gathered by the BKA (Bundeskriminalamt - Federal Criminal Police Office), which, in very short summary as it related to the discussion, basically say that refugees are overrepresented in pretty much every field of crime, and that that's to be expected because of the demographics of the refugees (many young men), but that the amount of crimes per capita is still reasonably low.

So based on that, we had a little back and forth that began with us agreeing, and then things went downhill very quickly when I said something along the lines of the following:

It is true that, by accepting refugees, we ultimately cause a statistical increase of crime in Germany, and that we create additional victims among our fellow Germans. Statistically, for every X Refugees we take in, an extra girl will be raped for example, but because the number of girls raped by refugees is so low compared with the many people we help, the moral decision is to help refugees, and accept the negative consequences of that, as they're far smaller than that what the innocent refugees might face if we did not take them in.

Now, I admit I phrased it in a way that was meant to upset him and BOY did it upset him LOL. I think I've never seen him so angry, he looked like he's about to hit me, or something (he wouldn't, of course!), and could not believe that I basically calculated what is the "best outcome", instead of just coming to the "logical conclusion" that taking refugees is the moral thing to do, because they need help. But... well, it's true. The consequences of taking in refugees are that we prevent a LOT of harm that might come to them, and accept that in exchange for that, a very small group of Germans will receive a potentially quite large amount of harm that they would not receive if we had not helped the refugees. That's a statistical truth, and the reason why I think we should help the refugees is the fact that the overall amount of theoretical harm that is prevented by doing that, is in my opinion greater than if we did not.

However, he simply did not want to hear that. He wanted to take the moral position of helping the refugees, but did not actually want to think of the consequences of the actions he takes. Now, there are some good reasons to not make that a big talking point in public discourse, as right-wing hatemongers could for example use it as a method to rally people against the refugees, but if a person cannot even admit to themselves the consequences of their actions, does not think about why they hold the position they hold, then I have to say, in my opinion, those people are not acting on a moral framework at all - those people are acting on what feels good to them, not on what creates results. That works as long as the moral decision is easy, but the moment the moral decision is not the one that feels right, or good, anymore, they will show themselves as the moral cowards that they are.

I'm sure nobody will disagree with this at all.

 

[Berzerker]

I'd feel crappy if refugees I advocated for hurt people, but I wouldn't be happy seeing refugees dying for lack of help either... Where does my moral obligation lie? With my current neighbors or the refugees? Cant be both...

 

[Ryika]

Depends on how tribal you are. Ideally, you would not differentiate between your neighbors or a group of refugees at all, and just do what is likely to cause the better average result for the people in both groups. Of course few, if any, people truly act that way.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Statistic is about dehumanisation, don't like it for that reason.

Morality is arbitary anyway because who is it to pick what is moral?

 

[Ryika]

It's not dehumanization, it's... depersonalization. Well, that word probably doesn't exist, but it describes what it does, it takes your personal feelings towards the individual groups out of the equation and focuses on what creates the best possible outcome for all individuals involved.

It's not perfect of course, because... how do you compare 100 people being tortured vs. 1 people being tortured and killed? 20 people being sexually assaulted vs. 1 person being raped? What's the right decision there? But in general, just realizing that every choice leads consequences, and then evaluating which consequences are worse, is the way to get the most objective view on the matter. Just going with what feels right, is likely not to prevent suffering as efficiently when matters aren't so easily categorized into black and white.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

but it describes what it does, it takes your personal feelings towards the individual groups out of the equation and focuses on what creates the best possible outcome for all individualss involved.

It don't as you still give the groups labels such as refugees or women and you can still have feelings for a group.

It's not perfect of course, because... how do you compare 100 people being tortured vs. 1 people being tortured and killed? 20 people being sexually assaulted vs. 1 person being raped? What's the right decision there? But in general, just realizing that every choice leads consequences, and then evaluating which consequences are worse, is the way to get the most objective view on the matter. Just going with what feels right, is likely not to prevent suffering as efficiently when matters aren't so easily categorized into black and white.

I don't make choices, maybe because I may not be any better than the people I criticize. Politics is not for me. I guess everyone dies in the end, maybe that is how they think?

 

[Ryika]

It don't as you still give the groups labels such as refugees or women and you can still have feelings for a group.

Yes, but you still look at the likely outcome, not the name of the groups. Of course you might be biased towards one group and thus misjudge the likely outcome even without noticing it, but it will certainly produce better results than just going by what feels right, without even knowing the consequences of your actions.

It's not that easy to see in this case, because what "feels right" to many people and what "produces the best outcome" (in my opinion) match pretty well, but you just have to look at the other side of the issue to see the problem with it - a lot of people who are against refugees have come to that conclusion by being very tribal and only looking at their own people, whatever group that is (usually their countrymen). From that angle, it makes perfect sense to be against taking refugees, but it's a very narrow angle. It would certainly be an improvement if they actually looked at the consequences of that stance, which would be a lot of trouble for the refugees. The same is true for all moral decisions, the people who do not look at the outcome are right only because this is an easy decision, not because they follow a good moral framework.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

produces the best outcome

It is very hard to say what the best outcome is if you go down to the individual level. The prison dilemma is a good example on this.

If a person could choose between something very bad like death but it would mean something good for society such as peace vs something very good for the individual such as godlike power but something bad for society such as death for rest of humanity. It may not be so easy to pick here? Is one choice more moral than the other?

 

[Cheetah]

Politics is not for me.

Everything is politics. "Not making a choice" is simply choosing to support the status quo and the powers that be. You don't get to be apolitical.

Statistically, for every X Refugees we take in, an extra girl will be raped for example, but because the number of girls raped by refugees is so low compared with the many people we help, the moral decision is to help refugees, and accept the negative consequences of that, as they're far smaller than that what the innocent refugees might face if we did not take them in.

I don't find your statement controversial at all. It's simply the truth.

What bugs me is the people who argue for taking in more refugees, but not for increasing the resources spent on those refugees enough. Helping is all well and good, but people are not numbers, so one can't simply "take them in", pat oneself on the back and call it a day. People need guidance in a new culture and society, people with PTSDs need psychologists, they all need houses and school and work and purpose. It should already be evident that we've done a terrible job at assimilating most of the regular immigrants from Muslim and African countries, so even more resources must be spent on assimilating refugees, at the very least.

I miss someone actually arguing from the point of view of how many resources we should expend on helping people, and what sacrifices we should make. We're already low and housing, psychologists, and teachers, so why not say that we're planning to take in X number of refugees, plan to pay for it so and so, and this is how we're intending to build more houses, train more psychologists and teachers, find work to uneducated newcomers, etc.

Having said all that, I suppose I'm more tribal than you, and I'd use the statistics to argue for what I consider a better solution: "Helping them where they are." The money and other resources would go further, the costs of extra harm to our own citisens and of assimilating people of a different culture could be cut, and low-educated manual labour goes further in a less developed, and possibly wartorn, society. That would make it easier to give people work, and it would also give them a purpose and a sense of achievement to build their own country.

I'm also strongly in favour of military intervention to stop genocide, ethnic cleansing and other acts of war. I think it is perfectly possible to do that competently, if that is actually what one sets out and plan to do.

 

[Ryika]

It is very hard to say what the best outcome is if you go down to the individual level. The prison dilemma is a good example on this.

If a person could choose between something very bad like death but it would mean something good for society such as peace vs something very good for the individual such as godlike power but something bad for society such as death for rest of humanity. It may not be so easy to pick here? Is one choice more moral than the other?

Yes, like I said, it is not possible to compare every outcome directly. However, the point is that you should not ignore the consequences of the decision that you take, just because it feels right. Even the moral choice has some negative consequences, and one should be aware of them, and one should have the courage to acknowledge them, and then evaluate the outcomes based on ones personal morals. If a person cannot do that, then they simply do not have a solid moral foundation for their opinion. If all you see is: "Okay, there are people who suffer!" and then make a decision purely based on that, without thinking about the consequences of your action, then you have made the right decision, but for the wrong reasons.

What bugs me is the people who argue for taking in more refugees, but not for increasing the resources spent on those refugees enough. Helping is all well and good, but people are not numbers, so one can't simply "take them in", pat oneself on the back and call it a day. People need guidance in a new culture and society, people with PTSDs need psychologists, they all need houses and school and work and purpose. It should already be evident that we've done a terrible job at assimilating most of the regular immigrants from Muslim and African countries, so even more resources must be spent on assimilating refugees, at the very least.

I miss someone actually arguing from the point of view of how many resources we should expend on helping people, and what sacrifices we should make. We're already low and housing, psychologists, and teachers, so why not say that we're planning to take in X number of refugees, plan to pay for it so and so, and this is how we're intending to build more houses, train more psychologists and teachers, find work to uneducated newcomers, etc.

That's very true as well. A bit of a personal anecdote, but particularly where I live, the housing situation for example had become much worse at the height of the refugee crisis. (Not sure whether it has gotten better in the meantime) Interestingly, the conversation on that topic focused very much on discrimination against refugees on the housing market, and the overall lack of housing got very little attention on a local level (That was different in the country-wide discourse though), which seemed to me like people are focusing on the secondary problem, while not really talking about a solution for the main problem; the general lack of housing for low-income families and singles.

Having said all that, I suppose I'm more tribal than you, and I'd use the statistics to argue for what I consider a better solution: "Helping them where they are." The money and other resources would go further, the costs of extra harm to our own citisens and of assimilating people of a different culture could be cut, and low-educated manual labour goes further in a less developed, and possibly wartorn, society. That would make it easier to give people work, and it would also give them a purpose and a sense of achievement to build their own country.

To be honest, I would prefer that as well, not only for the situation here, but also because the situation in the countries where the refugees came from is not going to change in the long-term if the people flee. It just seems that that's much easier said than done. Can't say I am very knowledgeable on the issue, but most experts who sounded to me like they knew what they were talking about, were pretty much of the opinion that "Helping them in their country" is more or less an empty phrase with very little we actually do to achieve it without endangering those people further.

 

[Traitorfish]

"I said something something obtuse and obnoxious and my friend responded appropriately, lol random".

 

[Birdjaguar]

It depends upon one's goals. If keeping rape to a minimum is higher priority than helping those fleeing terror, then you act accordingly. But if reducing rape is such a high priority, I would suggest that fewer German boy children be allowed to reach adulthood. Castrating 10% of German males at age 11 would probably cut rapes a lot more than keeping refugees out.

 

[Berzerker]

Depends on how tribal you are. Ideally, you would not differentiate between your neighbors or a group of refugees at all, and just do what is likely to cause the better average result for the people in both groups. Of course few, if any, people truly act that way.

Ideally is the golden rule... No doubt Jesus would be helping the refugees. I think... But what does Jesus say when more people are hurt because of the refugees? A woman is raped by someone Jesus invited into the country, ouch! This is the battle we're having over 'the wall'. Well, I have to believe even Jesus would be a bit more upset if Mary was raped than someone down in Egypt or China. So family and friends come first, then the tribe and then the refugees. What if Jesus had invited a refugee in who slaughtered his family? He might...might have a dimmer view of inviting more refugees into his neighbor's homes.

Course Jesus' ideology is based on life being a test and we need to be worried about the results, not our existence in this world which is passing... Thats a tough religion to follow, I think some Buddhists have a similar belief system. But this is the world we know, risking ourselves for someone else is one thing, taking those risks when others depend on us is another.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't find your statement controversial at all. It's simply the truth.

Oh, Cheetah, come on now. The crime statistics are themselves racist distortions of reality, so the argument is fatally flawed.

 

[Cheetah]

Oh, Cheetah, come on now. The crime statistics are themselves racist distortions of reality, so the argument is fatally flawed.

Crime? I, what? Oh!

Sorry, I might need to elaborate a bit. I think me and Valessa understood this the same way, but I can see how it's easily read other ways.

I wasn't so much focusing on the specific example she started out with, but more on the general cost vs benefit issue. I didn't check the link to the BKA stats, but Valessa even says that "the amount of crimes per capita is still reasonably low" among refugees. I stand by what I said though, that there seems to be too little concern for the consequences of taking in more refugees among certain people, and a lack of interest in discuss how to properly provide for them, and how much we should spend on it, and how.

 

[Traitorfish]

Immigrants commit more crimes, so immigrants are a problem.

The young commit more crimes, so the young are a problem.

Men commit more crimes, so men are a problem.

And has anybody else noticed that almost all crimes are committed by the living?

 

[Ryika]

This thread is not about crime statistics, the fact that immigrants in Germany cause a disproportionate amount of crime was merely the start of the conversation, and I think I already did put it in proper context.

 

[Virote_Considon]

The safety of one's own people is of paramount importance.

The rape of one singular German girl is not worth the so-called rescue of any amount of refugees. They shouldn't be running off with their tails between their legs when their own women, children, elderly and infirm are left to fend for themselves anyway.

 

[inthesomeday]

Valessa this isn't how statistics works.

 

[Senethro]

The safety of one's own people is of paramount importance.

The rape of one singular German girl is not worth the so-called rescue of any amount of refugees. They shouldn't be running off with their tails between their legs when their own women, children, elderly and infirm are left to fend for themselves anyway.

Yeah, this is straight up racism.

Additionally, I don't see a person as having any obligation to fight for a non-representative state.