Matthew Wong

Instructor Spendlove
Philosophy 1020
11/28/2015
Syrian Refugees: A Moral Dilemma
In this brief essay, I will define both viewpoints of the moral dilemma regarding refugees
from Syria coming into other nations and justify why accepting these refugees into the
country would be the morally right choice to make. With an estimated 4 million Syrian
refugees in the world who are fleeing a deadly civil war in their country, it should be no
surprise that the world would not only take notice of the issue but also disagree on how to
solve the problem. Many people, including political leaders around the world, disagree
entirely that accepting Syrian refugees would be the morally right thing to do. Many
others, myself included, disagree with this. To keep this essay within the six page limit, I
will be focusing on the moral issue solely on the basis of accepting or rejecting a human
into a community, not the effects caused by the acceptance or rejection (i.e. a
philosophical discussion on the economic impact on less wealthier nations being asked to
take in refugees.)
Accepting the refugees and integrating them into societies around the world seems
obvious as an ethical choice to make. You have a large population of human beings
fleeing their homes and possibly leaving behind their friends and families, while most of
the population is under the age of 17, and even taking life threating measures to try and
save their lives, why would you do anything but take them in? Unfortunately, this is not a

sentiment that is universally shared by the world. In fact, you could make the argument
that based on Ethical Egoism, where the consequences of an action are more favorable
than unfavorable with regards only to the agent, denying the refugees could be the ethical
thing to do. The agent in this case would be the people of some sovereign nation and
those being acted upon are people not belonging to that sovereign nation. Again though,
why would anybody try to justify that rejecting people in need is the morally right thing
to do? A major reason for this would be the various terrorist attacks claimed to be done
in the name of terrorist groups causing the Syrian Civil War, the November 2015 Paris
attacks being the most recent in which over a hundred civilians died and over 300 more
were injured. Seeing that the terrorist attacks are somehow related to Syria, many claim
that there must be hidden terrorists within the refugee population. This mindset has
managed to achieve that half of The United States governors are unwilling to take in
refugees. By this logic however, it can be argued using Ethical Egoism that this is
morally right. If you take into consideration that terrorists could potentially be in the
refugee population, than accepting refugees could potentially put more innocent lives at
risk by giving events such as those that recently took place in Paris more of a possibility
to happen. This means that the agent, being some sovereign nation, denies refugees into
their country and assumedly reduces the chances of being the victim of a terrorist attack.
However, this logic doesnt seem based on reality, merely a what if scenario.
Referencing the recent attack on Paris again, nine European Union citizens were
responsible for the attack, meaning that terrorist organizations already have agents hidden
in populations with more access than refugees. Also, it doesnt make much sense why a
terrorist organization would try to disguise their agents within the refugee population.

The refugees go through multiple life threating events to even attempt to find a safe
haven, with many countries detaining them and treating them little better than animals.
Another argument against accepting the refugees and integrating them into society
focuses on denying integration. Either fearing disguised terrorists or some even stating
for the safety of the refugees, some believe that segregating Syrian refugees into separate
and supervised communities would be the most ethical thing to do. Roanoke Mayor
David Bowers defended such a position by citing the Japanese internment camps after the
attack on Pearl Harbor as a perfectly logical thing to do then and would be acceptable to
repeat. Mayor Bowers stated that this was so due to the dangers from terrorists seeming
just as real today as the dangers from foreign Japanese nationals then. Again, this could
be justified with Ethical Egoism as a morally right action. The agent, The United States,
keeps all suspected terrorists secluded and monitored which would result in less of a
possibility of an act of terrorism being committed. However, the Japanese internment
camps have since been thoroughly denounced as a racist and paranoia fueled decision,
with the only effect being the uprooting and destruction of over a hundred thousand
Japanese Americans lives and utterly failing to stop any supposed actions of treason. The
concept of completely denying the refugees or the concept of repeating internment camps
could have been stronger arguments if they didnt solely rely on Ethical Egoism, a
consequentialist theory that seems rather easy to argue against.
Using another consequentialist ethics theory, utilitarianism, I can put forth a much more
logically sound option than the complete rejection or internment of refugees. This option
is literally the exact opposite of the other two, acceptance and integration. John Stuart
Mill, an English philosopher from the 19th century, put forth the idea that the happiness of

only the agent was not the greatest importance. Instead, Mill put forth that the greatest
amount of happiness possible was to be considered the greatest importance. After looking
at the rejection and internment options, options that were based on only the agents
happiness, it seems plausible that Mills philosophy would be more aligned with what
seems morally right. Taking in refugees, adequately spreading them around the world,
and integrating them into those societies would most likely produce the greatest amount
of happiness for all. This doesnt simply mean the most happiness, but the highest quality
of happiness. Obviously, the refugees would have quite a high quality of happiness due to
a safe place to call home and probably not fear being victims of a civil war. While on the
other hand, the refugees would be introduced in small enough numbers in enough
locations that even those opposed to the idea probably wont have their lifestyles effected
in any notable manner, resulting in their current happiness potentially unaffected. Even
critics of utilitarianism, such as philosopher Bernard Williams and author Ursla Le Guin,
would have to agree that Mills definition used in the current issue of the refugees from
Syria that utilitarianism could succeed quite well here.
In conclusion, I have defined both viewpoints of the moral dilemma regarding refugees
from Syria coming into other nations and justified why accepting these refugees into the
country would be the morally right choice to make. Although the fear of the possibility of
terrorist attacks is an extremely effective motivator, it is none the less a flawed motivator
that will only lead to flawed decisions being made. Instead of letting fear motivate us to
only do what is best for us, we should examine that fear in order to nullify it and carry out
actions that benefit more than our own livelihoods.