The existing philosophical debate in pornography regulation is between liberals and radical feminists. However, this debate is currently stuck in a position where neither side is willing to...Show moreThe existing philosophical debate in pornography regulation is between liberals and radical feminists. However, this debate is currently stuck in a position where neither side is willing to incorporate the other side's concerns. This thesis aims to further this debate by viewing the debate from a new lens. It argues that neo-republicanism, specifically their understanding of freedom as non-domination, is a useful way of understanding the effects of pornography. Through this analysis, this thesis aims to assess whether pornography regulation is justifiable in a neo-republican approach.Show less
The question of whether wealthier states should give aid to developing states is on the agenda of most political debates and is also highly discussed in the academic world. Within the luck...Show moreThe question of whether wealthier states should give aid to developing states is on the agenda of most political debates and is also highly discussed in the academic world. Within the luck-egalitarian theory, scholars disagree about whether the wealthier states are causing, at least partly, poverty within the developing states. This research will provide a normative answer to the question of whether wealthier states are morally obligated to provide distributive justice towards developing states. The crux of this essay involves the question of whether poverty is, at least partly, a form of brute luck imposed upon the developing states by the wealthier states. To conclude, this thesis claims that by abusing their borrowing privilege and resourcing privilege, the wealthier states are, at least partly, responsible for the plight of the developing states and therefore are morally obligated to provide distributive justice towards the developing states.Show less
Within this thesis, the morality of the objectification of women within social media is explored. First of all, the theoretical perspectives on objectification are examined through a feminist lens....Show moreWithin this thesis, the morality of the objectification of women within social media is explored. First of all, the theoretical perspectives on objectification are examined through a feminist lens. It is found that there is a considerable debate within the scholars. Some are of the opinion that objectification is always morally wrong, and others believe that it is dependent on the context in which it occurs. Next, the criteria necessary for the context are developed and analyzed through some examples. Finally, these criteria are applied to social media, and it is discovered that not all criteria are met. This indicates that a negative form of objectification has occurred which can be harmful. The conclusion is drawn that the objectification of women within social media is morally unacceptable.Show less
This thesis examines how brain drain can be problematized in light of relational egalitarianism. This approach views the existing economy as that of joint production as it relies heavily on mutual...Show moreThis thesis examines how brain drain can be problematized in light of relational egalitarianism. This approach views the existing economy as that of joint production as it relies heavily on mutual dependency between citizens. Here, it aims to find whether the moral duty citizens hold towards one another can legitimately place restrictions on freedom of movement in the case of brain drain. Through taking relational egalitarianism to its normative furthests, it becomes clear that the right to exit can legitimately be constricted.Show less
The issue of immigration seems to be more and more present in recent years. To illustrate, the number of migrants has more than tripled over the last fifty years. Whereas the number was estimated...Show moreThe issue of immigration seems to be more and more present in recent years. To illustrate, the number of migrants has more than tripled over the last fifty years. Whereas the number was estimated around 81.5 million in 1970, five decades later it extended to almost 281 million (IOM, 2022). As the world globalizes and the crises at borders grow, the question of how to deal with migration is becoming beyond complex. There are various reasons for individuals to emigrate and leave their country. Some move voluntary, others leave because their interests are violated, and they do not see another way out. Whereas most are on the run for war, violence, or persecution, some seek to find better opportunities for work, starting a family or education. Yet, these migration trends are not secured by a support base, rather governments increasingly impose restrictions on entrance. Hence, it is questionable what are the rights entitled to migrants, and what are the obligations towards them. The moral importance has been politically and societally debated for years and will continue to be of relevance for years to come. On the one hand, advocates for open borders say that there exists an unjust world in which millions of individuals experience poverty or a shortage of basic needs. On the other hand, supporters of closed borders argue that restrictions are required to prevent the economy, public order and culture that are otherwise at stake. Aside from the political and societal debate that received much empirical attention to immigration issues over the past decades, little attention was embraced in the philosophical debate in the first instance. Luckily this changed over recent years, which created a clash of philosophical understandings arguing either for or against the justification of restricting immigration. Though there are many contradicting arguments, this paper will only focus on a subset of arguments, namely those that have to do with the right to freedom of movement and the value of equality of opportunity. Mostly because commitment to these values is disputed to be essential for open borders. Amid this apparent tension, Carens argues that the right to freedom of movement and the right to equality of opportunity are interrelated. So, to protect the value of equal opportunity, one must also have the right to move to places where one can release oneself to the advantages of opportunities provided both domestically and internationally. Simply, this means that open borders are necessary and restricting immigration cannot be justified (Carens, 1987; Carens, 2013). Carens’ position is often criticized and challenged. Some have questioned the need for an international right to freedom of movement, whereas others emphasize the moral significance of citizenship. The first objection relates to the adequate range of options argument presented by Blake (2001), Miller (2005) and Hosein (2013). The second objection shows that there is ambiguity about using moral equality and political equality interchangeably. This misuse should be attended so that it can be prevented (Blake, 2005; Blake, 2020). The aim of this thesis is to assess whether, and if so, to what extent the right of freedom of movement and the value of equality of opportunity can justify open borders. This will be done by analyzing both the international and national line of reasoning regarding the concept of free movement and equality. In line with the aforesaid, the research question is as follows: Can Carens’ liberal egalitarian defence of open borders overcome the criticisms made by Blake, Hosein and Miller? Before this answer can be established, a number of sub-questions should be posed. To start, this thesis will outline the argument of Carens in favor of open borders. In this chapter (II) Carens’ use of the Rawlsian perspective and his original position will be provided as an attachment for international use. Also, the usefulness of the cantilever strategy will be explained. Second, chapter III substantiates the arguments against open borders. Here, these thoughts will be summarized and compared. To end, this thesis will consider to what extent these objections are valid. This will be critically analyzed in chapter IV, to see if the argument made by Carens still holds. Following this review, I will argue that it does. As will be clear, it is in no way justifiable that the freedoms of a citizen that is luckily born in an advantaged position outweigh the freedoms of an immigrant that is unluckily born in a disadvantaged position. We should all be treated equally, regardless of our backgrounds. As such, immigrants are in fact owed as much as citizens.Show less
