26th APRIL 2010 - LECTURE 8

On this day in 2010, the President of Mexico, Felipe Calderon, condemned Arizona's new immigration law, describing it as being discriminatory. The legislation required Arizona police to question people about their immigration status if they suspected that they are were trying to enter the country illegally. President Calderon warned that relations along the border would suffer and that he would use all means at his disposal to defend the rights of Mexican nationals.

In relation to Monday's lecture, there are several key points that raise questions about the ethics of this issue.

The first is this: the immigration law presumed that the Arizona police staff who would be asking the questions were not racist or biased in regards to the legality of immigrating Mexicans. In ways this is unethical, because it classifies and groups all Mexican people stereotypically as the same, with certain identifying characteristics. In regards to what was discussed in the lecture, the Arizona government assumed that the police staff would act derentologically towards the Mexican people wishing to immigrate, following the rules more strongly than their individual judgements about a person. That the police would do their duty.

However, the second point raised in regards to this issue is a matter of consequentialism, the concept that it is getting a good or right outcome that matters. This can be related back to the Arizona government and their introduction of the legislation in the first place. In the minds of the Arizona government, introducing the legislation was acted for the benefit of the people of Arizona, as such acting for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The legislation was introduced to protect the Arizona people. As was mentioned in the lecture, the end may justify the means. The Arizona government were simply creating a law that they thought would best help the people of Arizona feel safe or protected or any other variation of emotion.

The third and final ethical theory that was discussed in the lecture was of virtue ethics, so my finally point shall relate to this. Virtue ethic theory is about the goodness within people comes from them doing good deeds. Mr. Calderon, in his statement that he would do anything within his power to ensure that the rights of the Mexican people were not limited or manipulated, embodies this concept of a good person doing good deeds for the good of others. Whilst it is very possible that Mr. Calderon did have alternative motives, such as elections and the like, in regards to the theories discussed in the lecture he was displaying a use of virtue ethics in his quest for justice for the Mexican people.

Overall, I would say that the issue presented above may be considered both ethical and unethical for various aspects within the issue. Altogether though, the main idea is this: both parties felt the need to protect their people. Both parties were displaying a use of virus ethics.

We all want to believe that there is a little bit of good in everybody.

That is of course assuming that there is a little bit of good within ourselves first!






Image available: santosamaru.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/mexican-group-asks-icc-to-probe.htm