The existentialist on the refugee crisis

The existentialist on the refugee crisis

In the following I will try to oppose certain present perspectives on the refugee crisis with a couple of notions in Sartre’s existentialism. I want to reflect on whether certain arguments and stances on the refugee question in Europe (and especially Denmark, which I have the most insight in) at present are acting in bad faith.

Regarding the refugee crisis and the personal responsibility ordinary citizens have, the Danish (very) right-wing commentator wrote the following in an article in the Danish newspaper Berlingske: “It would be beautiful to aid with different forms of help to the neighboring areas of these poor and displaced people. Economic, logistic, personal. But this good deed can surely not be something which one can demand from Danes, which moreover is not a part of the conflict ridden areas?” (freely translated from http://www.b.dk/kommentarer/er-det-vores-ansvar)

This raises the question: whether cultural difference and/or geographical distance can be justifications for rejecting and refusing responsibility?

Another common argument often made by politicians against taking in refugees, is that they are an economic burden on society, which could be devastating to the current welfare-state’s economic. To maintain economic stability we simply have no choice but to refuse to take refugees.

I think Sartre would see these arguments as actions of bad faith.

If we are to try and interpret the thought of Sartre on the refugee question it helps to be aware of that when refugees fled Vietnam by boat in the late 1970s, Sartre reconciled with his rival Raymond Aron to join front in an appeal to the French government to help and take in thousands of Vietnamese boat refugees. 

Sartre wrote in “Existentialism is a Humanism” that: “man being condemned to be free carries the weight of the whole world on his shoulders: he is responsible for the world and for himself as a way of being.”

We must realise that we are free in our choice, in other words we are both capable of helping or not helping refugees. We must acknowledge that our society rests upon an enormous responsibility and moral duty to constantly reflect upon such a situation and the system we find ourselves in. Is it really true that taking in refugees is an unbearable economic burden for our system? We are not predetermined by the system, as humans our choice is free. When politicians reject responsibility for refugees with the objection that it is going to destabalize/devastate the economy of the welfare-state they act in bad faith and negate our freedom to act in a non-predetermined way and thereby negate our moral responsibility. We must acknowledge the extent of freedom we have in taking in refugees and the responsibilities which the decision we make entails. Simply rejecting responsibility for refugees on the basis of geographical and cultural distance would be acting in bad faith, as Sartre believes as we make choices we carry the weight of the whole world. We must therefore choose in accordance with what is best for mankind as a whole. Therefore I believe that the existentialist stance on the refugee crisis would be pro helping and taking refugees on a much larger scale than what must european countries are currently doing.

Is this an adequate understanding of what an existentialist perspective would be on the refugee crisis? Further implications may also rise from such an existentialist moral stand as it is abstract, and therefore does not give answer to questions, such as: How many refugees can a country take? Is it therefore even possible to be an existentialist and to do real politics?

(P.S. the arguments opposed to refugees described in this post should not be seen as perspectives held by the general public of Denmark. Although, I would claim that the Danish government and other countries in Europe are acting in bad faith regarding the question of refugees)