I don't actually massively disagree with your conclusion, but I have to say I don't find your initial premise as intuitively obvious as you seem to.
As well as being a UK citizen, I am a member of another social unit as a result of an accident of birth. The people with responsibility for assigning resources within that unit have favoured me, and have granted me substantial privileges which it would not occur to them to grant to people who were not born into the same social unit. The social unit in question is my family, and I don't think my parents were acting immorally by feeding and clothing and accommodating me while not doing exactly the same things for all other children.
Specific circumstances can confer particular obligations, or make particular instances of favouring certain groups appropriate, without implying anything about the absolute value of that group relative to any other. For example, I buy birthday presents for my close friends and relatives, but not for other people. That doesn't mean I think my friends and relatives are intrinsically more deserving of nice things than everyone else, but just that the relationship I have with them makes it appropriate for me to be the person buying the nice things.
Of course, it being legitimate to favour one group doesn't remove all obligations to other groups. I don't have to buy presents for strangers, but I have a basic duty to treat them decently, and probably to help in certain cases of urgent need - though exactly how far that extends is a whole other ethics essay.
I'm personally inclined to feel that the obligations national governments have to people in general (simply on the basis of their being fellow human beings) are sufficient to mean that many of the restrictions currently in place shouldn't be. But to my mind, that doesn't imply that governments favouring people born within their jurisdiction must always be the result of racism - in some cases, it may be more like parents favouring their children. There are arguments one could put forward for it falling at various points on the spectrum - but it doesn't strike me as a trivial question.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2015-07-02 03:18 pm (UTC)As well as being a UK citizen, I am a member of another social unit as a result of an accident of birth. The people with responsibility for assigning resources within that unit have favoured me, and have granted me substantial privileges which it would not occur to them to grant to people who were not born into the same social unit. The social unit in question is my family, and I don't think my parents were acting immorally by feeding and clothing and accommodating me while not doing exactly the same things for all other children.
Specific circumstances can confer particular obligations, or make particular instances of favouring certain groups appropriate, without implying anything about the absolute value of that group relative to any other. For example, I buy birthday presents for my close friends and relatives, but not for other people. That doesn't mean I think my friends and relatives are intrinsically more deserving of nice things than everyone else, but just that the relationship I have with them makes it appropriate for me to be the person buying the nice things.
Of course, it being legitimate to favour one group doesn't remove all obligations to other groups. I don't have to buy presents for strangers, but I have a basic duty to treat them decently, and probably to help in certain cases of urgent need - though exactly how far that extends is a whole other ethics essay.
I'm personally inclined to feel that the obligations national governments have to people in general (simply on the basis of their being fellow human beings) are sufficient to mean that many of the restrictions currently in place shouldn't be. But to my mind, that doesn't imply that governments favouring people born within their jurisdiction must always be the result of racism - in some cases, it may be more like parents favouring their children. There are arguments one could put forward for it falling at various points on the spectrum - but it doesn't strike me as a trivial question.