Is Breach morally justifiable

Although I would not agree with the creation of something like breach, I would still argue that its existence is something that is morally justifiable. As with every country, border control is a necessity to ensure that people are not just coming into and leaving the control too freely. Countries don’t want too many good people leaving and too many bad people coming in. And so, because Beszel and Ul Qoma are two distinct cities, a border exists between them. Because of the border, there now has to be something to enforce that border or else they might as well merge together into one big city like the unification want. However, until something like that happens, the border exists and Breach will be there to enforce the separation between the two cities. However, having said that, I am against the methods that are used to ensure that the people in the two cities don’t interact with each other. Punishments are necessary to deter people from crossing over, but to go as far as forbidding any form of interaction between the two cities is far too extreme.


If I were living in East Berlin at the time that the wall existed, I most likely would have complied with all of the rules of the government. Because of the intensity of the government in restricting the movement, I would not be willing to risk the lives of myself or my family trying to get out to west Germany. My family and I would likely not have noticed the intentions and actions of the east German government until it was too late and we would not have been able to get out. Even still, once realizing what is happening, I would definitely try to take any legal route out of the country, but as long as all of my and my family’s basic needs are met, I would likely not have that much of a concern about what the east German government is trying to do. If there were starvation and rioting, I would have much larger concerns over trying to get out of the country.