In 1901 Australia passed the Immigration Restriction Act, which aimed to limit nonwhite immigration to Australia, particularly Asian immigration, and thereby preserve the predominance of the British within Australia. Suppose that a large majority of Australians would have been made happier by passage of this law. Would a utilitarian advocate for such a law in these circumstances?
A) No, because it is unjust for a country to accept only white Europeans.
B) No, because the safety and welfare of refugees is more important than the happiness of Australians.
C) Yes, because the consequences of passing this law would be better overall than if it were not passed.
D) Yes, because refugees would lack moral status under utilitarianism.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q1: Undocumented immigrants provide an enormous benefit to
Q3: In just a few years, Hispanics will
Q4: Many people, including many politicians, overestimate the
Q5: Americans tend to overestimate immigrants' share of
Q6: In 1939 the United States turned away
Q7: Libertarians argue for cosmopolitanism by pointing out
Q8: There is universal agreement on all sides
Q9: Which of the following would be a
Q10: Immigrants are taking jobs away from American
Q11: Consider the following premises of a moral
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents