CEU Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2018
| Author | Turculet, Georgiana |
|---|---|
| Title | Movement as an Essential Interest: A Case for Just Borders |
| Summary | This thesis is a philosophical inquiry about human movement. My interest begins from one very basic observation. Contemporary accounts aiming at answering “what should be done with border policies?” argue that policies affecting human movement should be more permissive or restrictive. Interestingly, however, neither camp of philosophers, open and closed borders advocates, sufficiently addresses the most essential element at the basis of all forms of migratory projects: what is the value of movement itself? This question not only is not answered in the philosophical migration literature, but it is also not problematized in the first place. Assuming that migration is beneficial to all parties, simply moving in view of lifting borders, may not entail (positive) freedom to move, just as simply marrying may not entail freedom to form meaningful relationships - if counterfactually one is forced by circumstances into marriages that bring about better distributive outcomes to all, and especially to the vulnerable partners. I therefore aim to provide an account of movement, in order to contribute to determining permissible ways to regulate movement: to restrict, protect or promote it. I argue that movement is an essential interest. Humans have an intrinsic interest in movement, similarly to the interest to establish meaningful sexual and intimate relationships. Further, moving to mate, escape predators and find favorable climatic conditions, need not be thought to hold true only in the animal realm. Humans have an instrumental interest in movement as well, although for reasons that are often more complex and less basic (related to survival) – for example, instead of escaping animal predators, humans move to escape dictators. With this leading idea in mind – that movement is intrinsically and instrumentally valuable – I consider the value of movement for underprivileged groups, economic migrants and refugees. In view of the fact that most human movement is voluntary, I argue, policies regulating movement should reflect the moral ideal that people should move out of choice. A holistic policy approach, taking into consideration normative and empirical considerations, is needed to address contemporary conditions under which movement takes place – generally out of need. Upon considering the value of movement, the focus of the theorizing shifts from the main inquiry, which is currently about whether states should restrict or permit movement. I suggest instead to anchor our thinking around movement, more consistently, in liberal and democratic doctrines. Lifting movement restrictions, in my view, is too modest a moral goal, if for instance, a higher moral goal, that of more just movement – movement out of choice – is not achieved. Lifting restrictions will permit more unjust movement, if the poor is ‘stuck’ into perpetually moving out of dire need. My account satisfies sufficientarian and egalitarian accounts of justice, as it engages both trends into considering that just movement should approximate an ideal consistent with the liberal tenets they stem from: everyone should choose whether or not to move. In this work I defended my thesis on sufficientarian premises, but with further argument, I preliminarily see egalitarianism having its way with my core argument as well. Furthermore, it contributes to open borders theories by showing that the case for more permissive and inclusive policies is more consistent with liberal justice, upon reconsidering how we conceive of basic liberties and movement as an essential interest. It contributes to closed borders theories focusing on reasons for movement restriction, such as the value of the community and self-determination, upon considering the value of movement in sedentary communities. If it is true, as I argued, that restrictions are harmful practices, then restrictions are justified only if a holistic policy approach seriously tackles the reasons for contemporary migratory movement – out of need. Restrictions, however, are hardly justified, when movement is undertaken out of choice, and for morally important (and non-malicious) reasons. |
| Supervisor | Andres Moles |
| Department | Political Science PhD |
| Full text | https://www.etd.ceu.edu/2018/turculet_georgiana.pdf |
Visit the CEU Library.
© 2007-2021, Central European University