Is Trump's immigration ban ethical?

According to The New York Times, President Donald Trump has recently increased the restrictions on immigration from several countries including: Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Libya, Yemen and Somalia. In my blog post, I will first be applying Mill’s principle of utility through the Potter Box to conclude that Trump’s action is morally justified. Next, I will be applying the Judeo-Christian ethical principle through the Potter Box to discuss how his action is not morally justified. I hope you enjoy this ethical debate!

The Potter Box first requires me to analyze the definition of the situation, or what actually happened. This is a very important step in the ethical process, and it must be handled with care. According to The New York Times, the executive order reads, “I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from this date of order,” Trump said. These are the implicating facts of the situation I am analyzing. It is crucial that the definition of the situation come from a credible and reliable source, which is why I chose to gather my information from The New York Times.

The next step requires me to determine the values Trump used to make this decision. Trump’s professional value in this situation was human interest. Specifically, he made the decision, according to The New York Times, to “protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States.” Trump morally values nonviolence because he has made this decision in order to prevent violent acts of terrorism from affecting the citizens he vowed to protect. He also morally values commitment. This value is seen by his seemingly extreme act to protect U.S citizens, which reflects his commitment to his duty as president.

The third step is where I will apply Mill’s principle of utility to morally justify Trump’s decision. One of this principle’s main ideas is that the good end must be promoted, and the bad end must be restrained. Trump’s decision is promoting the well being of U.S citizens, and, according to Politifact, is restraining countries where government officials have seen substantial terrorist training occur. Trump’s decision reflects act utilitarianism because it addresses terrorist entry in the U.S. This is one specific case and not a generalized idea. Trump’s act to prevent terrorist entry will result in a balance of good over evil for the people of the U.S, which is what his role demands he must protect.

The final step is analyzing where Trump’s loyalty lies, and then I will be able to determine the moral judgment of his decision. Based off his actions, Trump’s duty is to his society, which is the U.S. This action also reveals his duty to his supporters, whom he promised throughout his campaign he would take action to prevent terrorism from affecting the U.S ever again.

After going through the Potter Box and applying Mill’s principle of utility, I am able to morally justify Trump’s decision.

However, I will now take a few steps back in the Potter box and apply the Judeo-Christian principle instead. This principle states to “love your neighbor as yourself,” which will provide an entirely different perspective on Trump’s decision.

The Judeo-Christian principle views all humans as being made in the image of God and with unconditional value regardless of their circumstances. Under this principle, all immigrants, regardless of the country they reside from, have unconditional value. Based on the Judeo-Christian principle, Trump’s decision is neglecting that these people have value and they need a place to escape the dangers of their homeland. Another idea from this principle is “to love all men everywhere alike.” This idea would mean that men and woman from Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Libya, Yemen and Somalia deserve the same love and care as U.S citizens. Therefore, according to the Judeo-Christian ethical principle, Trump’s decision would not be morally justified.

In my own opinion, I side with the Judeo-Christian principle because my personal loyalty is to care for others. This situation would call for me to view the immigrants and refugees as my neighbors, and treat them like I would want to be treated.