Suppose it is claimed:

That countries should allow open borders for the sake of the impecunious to migrate where their labor is needed is comparable to American chattel slavery.

What has happened here? First, there is an idea:

Countries should allow open borders.

Secondly, there is a declared motive:

This is because it will allow those in poverty to improve their circumstances.

Finally, a comparison is stated:

This idea is comparable to American chattel slavery.

The author has claimed that a belief principled on justice has an actual justice fungible with a system known for injustice. The logic for the original claim may be:

Poverty can be alleviated through the ability of the indigent to acquire jobs where their labor is needed.
Open borders allow for the migration of the indigent to jobs where their labor is needed.
Poverty can be alleviated through open borders.

And for the judgement:

Those who are financially underprivileged are significantly less likely to be able to work high-specialization jobs as they require education.
Those who are financially underprivileged are disproportionately racial minorities.
Among low-specialization jobs there are typically low wages, low social mobility, and low worker protections.
American chattel slavery was characterized by race, virtually no mobility, a lack of compensation for work, no legal protections, and it being compulsory.
The conditions of low-specialization jobs are simply moderately ameliorated conditions of American chattel slavery.
The enactment of the open-borders theory would make much of the workers racial minorities.
The enactment open-borders theory is comparable to American chattel slavery.

Presupposing that all of the claims made are sufficiently accurate, and that the intent of the original proponent is honest, there is a point of contention—that people who are proponents of justice are regarded as proponents of injustice. By the principles of justice, agents cannot be punished for actions or beliefs which are not theirs. As such, this representation is unjust because the common use of the sentence structure in the claim imputes the final claim to the character of the original authors, a claim which would be untrue if made.

In the final computation of morality, however, a consideration here is overlooked: utility. That

Wherever there is even a modicum of injustice, obloquy as a response minimizes the probability of such an iniquity coming to pass again.

The truthfulness of this theory, however, is dependent on the weights in a moral system and the weights in a system of judicial considerations. As such, it is only possible to prove that this judgement is inconsistent with a current system, requiring an analysis of previous judgements or responses to hypothetical.

If one seeks to counter this description, likely for the sake of justice, the optimal approach would be to disambiguate the sources of contention:

Are all people who believe in open borders proponents of American chattel slavery?
Are these people necessarily characteristically bad?
What is the use of the claim you make?
Is it possible to express this statement such that it is impossible to be misconstrued unjustly?

Statements of this sort may be extremely challenging to evaluate. This analysis, however, seems to be the most effective consideration.

POLEMIC

THE HOME OF REASON

Home

Topics

Featured

Trending

Hall of Fame

Official Posts

Account

Sign In

Subscriptions

Polemic

Pro

About

FAQ

Stats

Games

Privacy Policy

Content Policy

Terms of Service

Polemic

Moral Comparison

Discussion (0)

21

2

10.6K

POST

Recommended