Question

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.

Answer

This answer is hidden. It contains 77 characters.