Once And Future Sins

   This starts out fine--though with a thought that I can't believe that anyone will find original: that we've made moral errors before, and that we're undoubtedly making some now, and that we might be judged harshly for it in the future... It also points out that (again, this isn't an original point) thinking about what we might be condemned for in 100 years can give us a slightly original angle on our own possible errors. (The authors fail to mention that there's no guarantee that the moral orthodoxy will be better 100 years hence...) Sadly, it descends into bullshit about open borders and the unreality of free will. It may very well be a covert attempt to defend wacky SJW/neo-PC conclusions by suggesting that, in 100 years, everyone will think that they were right...
   I don't think it's crazy to deny that we have stronger obligations of certain kinds to our countrymen than to others... In fact, it's notoriously uncomfortable to try to defend that view... OTOH, down that road lies the view that we have an obligation not to have any sort of moral or quasi-moral preferences...and that, e.g., even showing any preference for those we love is impermissible... And that view is likely daft... And, since a world with entirely open borders is almost certainly a world in chaos--at least as things stand currently--entirely open borders are not currently a genuine option, morally speaking. Ergo it would be daft to condemn us for it.
   Anyway, if you've never thought about this stuff before, this might be worth a read.