Republic Act 9225 A stateless person is a person who does not have nationality or citizenship.

There are a number of ways in which someone can become a stateless a person, but this condition is most common among refugees. Since 1954, when the United Nations held a conference to address this issue, the position of stateless persons has been greatly clarified, and many nations attempt to prevent people from becoming stateless. One of the classic ways for someone to become a stateless person is the collapse of a national government. If the government is not replaced, former citizens may become stateless because they do not have official residency anywhere. Ethnic, religious, and cultural minorities who are denied citizenship may also be stateless. On a day to day basis, this may not be an issue, but as soon as these individuals travel, their stateless status will become a problem. It is possible to become a stateless person by voluntarily renouncing citizenship, but this is rare, because consulates will usually not allow a person to renounce his or her citizenship without providing proof of citizenship somewhere else. This citizenship status may also occur when someone renounces citizenship without realizing that his or her citizenship in another nation has expired or not been validated. Both of these cases are increasingly rare, thanks to efforts to reduce the numbers of stateless persons worldwide Citizens can also be expelled by their governments, in which case they may become stateless as a result. People who are expelled can usually apply for refugee status on the strength of their expulsion, and some nations provide programs which are designed to help refugees attain citizenship quickly, especially if they are stateless. A stateless person may also be given special travel documents which allow him or her to pass through immigration to reach an end destination, as for instance in the case of a stateless person trapped in England who has been given refugee status in the Netherlands. Stateless people face a number of problems. They are not entitled to the protections and benefits provided to citizens, for example, and they also usually cannot travel internationally. In some famous instances, stateless persons have been shuffled from place to place as they are repeatedly refused entry by immigration authorities. Many of them are the victims of violence or persecution, and their stateless status makes it difficult for them to seek assistance or find advocates. The argument between legal versus moral has been, and is currently, an ongoing discussion differentiating the two. Legal is something that has been appointed, established, or authorized by the law that has consequences if violated. All citizens of society must obey these laws, even if they dont necessarily value them. Morality is concerned with the principles of right versus wrong that are based on ones personal feelings, values and opinions. According to philosophers, the argument between legal and moral can be distinguished in many different ways. Kant, a relativist, believed that ones morals are based on experiences and determined throughout their life through self-rule. The hedonism theory is based on actions and beliefs that motivate and maximize self-interest, with little pain for others. I will use the theories of philosopher Immanuel Kant and Aristotle, a hedonist philosopher, to discuss this argument further.

s a relativist philosopher, Immanuel Kant believes that humans values are based mainly on the culture they grew up in (Kant and Cultural Relativism). He says that people choose whether something is right or wrong according to the influences of their familiar culture. They grew up learning right from wrong in their culture, so they believe in those values. An individuals morals are based upon their personal values, but motivated by their culture. Looking again at the abortion example, if one has the choice of having an abortion but it is

against their religion, then they may feel that the right, moral choice would to not receive one. Kant says that humans are subjective and base their values on their personal values and opinions.

f the purpose of life were just to achieve happiness, then we would all seek pleasure and gratification and hope that it would lead to happiness. The problem is that happiness is not totally within our power to achieve; to a large extent, happiness is a matter of luck. Consequently, being happy and being good are two different things. (Kantian Ethics) Kant stated that the good will is the only good without any qualification. This means that a good attitude or feeling about something is moral, to that specific individual. One persons values and beliefs shape their individual personality and character. Essentially every person does things primarily to help themselves, whether its helping the homeless for the self-satisfaction of helping others, or accomplishing something for happiness and contentment, such as stealing possessions, that affects other people. Hedonists, such as Aristotle, believe that pleasure and happiness is the primary factor of ones morals and values. Choices are made by a hedonist to provide personal pleasure and the satisfaction of accomplishing something. The choices that are valued and acted upon do not harm others, but at the same time give an individual enjoyment. According to hedonism, moral goodness is doing the right thing, but it may not always lead to happiness in the long-run. (Ethics) Aristotle states that the highest good must be something final. (Nichomachean Ethics 200) His arguments are mainly based on Hedonism where happiness and pleasure comes from fulfilling our human nature, and that nature is originated in excellence. Aristotle came up with two kinds of virtues, intellectual virtue and moral virtue, which is generosity and self control of an individual. A hedonists morals are somewhat similar to a relativists morals where they believe in human nature and their personal values. They can be distinguished where Aristotle says that a humans morals are things they act upon, or believe, to maximize their pleasure, whereas Kant says that humans morals are based upon the influences of their culture and what they learned throughout life. Sometimes if something is legal, it is not always moral, in fact, there are many things in which this is true. For example, if someone wants an abortion, they have a right to because it is legal. However, this doesnt mean it is the right or moral thing to do. It depends upon the individuals values and opinions of whether or not it is right. A hedonist would do what he or she values the most, that will promote their self-interest. In addition, if something one believes is moral, it may not always be legal. For example, if somebody morally thinks it is okay to steal from other people because their moral values are low, does not make it legal. Stealing most likely motivates self-interests, given that the individuals morals are low. It may give them happiness and pleasure, therefore it is possible for them to think it is moral. Kants and Aristotles theories of moral ethics are similar where they believe that morality is based on free will and freedom of choice. They differ because in Kants, he says that individuals free will is not entirely based on their own opinions and values, it is influenced by

culture and experiences; Aristotles hedonism theory states that peoples moral values are based on motivating their self-interests, essentially giving them freedom of choice. Looking at both sides of the argument, legal and moral are not synonymous. Morality is based on an individuals opinions and values whereas legality focuses primarily on the law system and forces of the government.