Ethics

In the contemporary world today much of the life difficulties are, by and large, moral difficulties. To put this in better terms, many problems in the contemporary world are more of a moral nature. People just find themselves in very challenging situations and circumstances not knowing what exactly to do at those moments. Such a moral problem occurred in Australia when the government, with the approval of the majority of Australian, decided to round up all Korean-Australians and relocate them in internment camps. This is an order ex cathedra or from the chair, and its impact must have been severe to the Korean-Australians since they are the direct objects of such a sanction. In no way can they react to it like opposing it or demonstrating against it. What actually makes it worse is the concurrence of the Australian people with the Government. In this regard, this paper seeks to analyze the whole saga in the light of moral principles. The study seeks to evaluate a case where one of the victims particularly a Korean-Australian seeks refuge to an Australian citizen after they have been allies for quite a long time where in turn a federal agent comes looking for himher after realizing that the Australian is hiding the Korean-Australian. To critically elucidate on this scenario, different ethical theories will also be considered namely Kantianism, Act utilitarianism, and Social Contract Theory.

A reflection of the Australian Case
Before even commencing to a deeper analysis of this case there are several factors that need to be considered. In other words there are several questions that need to be addressed. The questions are as follows who is a Korean-Australian Why would or what would make the government of Australia and the Australian citizens see it worth to relocate Korean-Australian to the internment camps These questions are very important to be addressed to be able to establish the morality of the whole saga. In so doing it will be established that the course of action taken by the Australians authorities is not mere racial discrimination because if it is then the whole sanction is morally unjustified and an offence in the eyes of just laws.

As indicated above it is important to justify the decision of the government first before doing anything else. It is worthwhile to establish the legality or the legitimacy of the whole situation then give a good judgment on that Australian who decides to hide the Korean-Australian in her premises. By analogy, consider the case of a priest who decides to rescue a thief by hiding him in his very house, and whats worse, in the church. The police together with the mob come looking for the thief in the churchs premises the priest declines to reveal him and says that he has not seen the thief neither has he hidden him in his house. The same question arises is the priest acting in good faith Are his actions justifiable This is a very complex moral dilemma, very complex.

As the name suggests a Korean-Australian is a description of a native originally from Korea but with the identity of an Australian. This, therefore, means Koreans who identify themselves as Australians simply because they live within the Australian territories.  In law, it is said that jub soli which literally means the law of the soil. It is the principle that a persons nationality at birth is determined by the territory within which he was born (Devlin 1961). This principle looks at the status of the Korean-Australian as legal and legitimate. Therefore and for the sake of this study it can be assumed that the rationale behind the relocation of the Korean-Australian into the internment camps was not racial discrimination but a civic exercise in eradicating other citizens from a different origin.

Ethical Theories
The overall tone in utilitarianism is the famous dictum the end justifies the means. Actions are considered proper if they uphold the best results (Hursthouse 2001).  The best results ever are those which maximize happiness (Hurtshouse 2001). In the Kantian perspective, an action is justified if it reflects the would-be universal inclination (Lara et al. 2007).  Kant further notes that a moral decree is one that is grounded on rationality (Allen et al. 1992). Social contract theory is the view that individuals moral responsibility andor political responsibility are punctuated by the contract or agreement among themselves in a bid to form a society (Gauthier 1988).  Social contract theory is an expression of total conformity by which people let go of the state of nature in order to form a society which they live presently. This was first coined by Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan doctrine and John Locke (Barker 1962).

In the case of a situation where the Korean-Australian comes seeking refuge one would be quick to provide a place for the person to hide. This is because and as noted from Kants moral assertion that a person ought to act in manner which would be adopted universally. In this regard, one will seek to protect the Korean-Australian native after considering oneself in the same situation. One would respond to the situation in a manner similar to what one would like others respond if it were himher in that situation. But on the other hand, by being an Australian citizen one ought to cooperate with the government directives as this is what social contract theory is all about. This has been clearly stated above. In this light, the Australian citizen by virtue of hisher allegiance to the government ought to safeguard its interests no matter the circumstance. Therefore, the Australian citizen ought to corporate with the federal agents notwithstanding whether she knows the Korean-Australian for a long time. That, indeed, does not matter what counts is the objective of the government, period

As an Australian citizen one can decide to protect the Korean-Australian citizen because of the perceived good in it. It could be that the Korean-Citizen is a potential husband or potential wife. It could be that the Korean-Australian native is an asset to the Australians business may be they traded together to earn their living. In fact, the many years they have known each other could be that they have been doing business together. See that, the Australian therefore, can decide to forgo hisher obligation to cooperate with the government because she wants to safeguard hisher interests and the benefit she can get from this Korean-Australian native. It is also worthwhile to consider that may be the Korean-Australian native promises some wealthy compensation if the Australian citizen accepts to hide hisher identity. It could be large sums of money or property or anything so long as it is money-worth. On the other hand, the Australian can decide to reveal the identity of the Korean-Australian native in case the federal agents offer himher some reward, again that which is money-worth.

Conclusion
As you can see from the reflection above the Australian citizen would respond differently given the circumstances. Well, looking at the three moral theories we can see that there are extremes to each. The Australian will hide the Korean-Australian on the ground that shehe would wish others to do the same to himher if in the same situation. On the contrary, the Australian may decide to cooperate with the government agents if they offer himher a reward that is money-worthy. On the other hand, the Australian citizen will decline to cooperate with the governments directives due to the perceived good in protecting the Korean-Australian citizen. Civil disobedience is not permissible at all and is detrimental to nation-building. Social contract if well adhered to, admits not any inclinations to civil disobedience. So, in the case of the Australian citizen who decodes to deliver the Korean-Australian citizen violates the principles of social contract. In my opinion though, and quoting Devlin (1961) that necessitas non habet legem which means that necessity knows no law. In a critical situation where a serious consequence involving ones life for example is at stake, the law and all its intricacies may be ignored. However, if really the Korean-Australian native had done criminal offences, then it would be wrong for the Australian citizen to hide. This is not acceptable in law, you know, hiding a criminal.