I n times of humanitarian crisis it always comes down to morality. The existing rules and laws may not be able to keep pace with an unstable situation that is unravelling too fast to get a hold of it. We are left with our first-aid kit: our sense of moral rectitude. In the face of waves of migrants and refugees pouring into Europe, we are mainly confronted with one question: What is our moral responsibility towards the newcomers?

It was only after the body of the three-year-old Alan Kurdi was washed-up on a beach in Turkey that leaders and the public began to dig deeper into their inner selves to look for remnants of morality. The implementation of EU directives and regulations on asylum were not the priority anymore. The new rhetoric revolved around rediscovering Europe’s humanity.

David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, said that Britain would fulfill its moral responsibilities over migrants. His statement came after there was increasing criticism for his unwillingness to take in more refugees from Syria and elsewhere. In the year up to March 2015, UK granted asylum to 40 percent of the 25,000 people who applied for asylum; most of them are Eritrean and Syrian nationals. UK’s isolationist foreign policy and its consideration to exit the European Union reverberate into the migrant crisis – Britain will take in 20,000 Syrian refugees, but over a five year-period. Nevertheless, even if Britain’s borders may not be wide open, its purse is. It has spent £900 million in humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees, being the second-largest bilateral donor (Home Office).

The memory of Nazi’s horrendous acts of inhumanity is still haunting a country that is trying hard to repent for its past crimes. The images of desperate German refugees crowding onto trains to get out of Berlin in 1945 are still vivid. From the beginning of September 2015 when tens of thousands of immigrants reached Western Europe through the Balkan route, the reaction of the German public and officials was heartwarming. They have welcomed almost 170,000 refugees so far in Bavaria and the number is increasing on a daily basis (FAZ). At the recent United Nations General Assembly in New York on September 25-27, even Bono, the lead singer of U2, thanked Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, for her exemplary leadership in Europe. Germany expects to receive up to 1,000,000 applications this year alone. Daily, four to five trains take thousands of immigrants directly to Germany.

Germany encourages a ‘face-to-face relation’, the basis of Emmanuel Lévinas’ ethics – being responsible for the Other without expecting reciprocation. It is an asymmetrical relationship, but this is the essence of being human. To ignore the Other’s suffering or to let him die is like becoming an ‘accomplice’ in his suffering or death, would Lévinas say. By praising her fellow citizens for the outpuring of donations and support to migrants, Angela Merkel encourages what Joel Feinberg, a political and social philosopher, calls ‘collective moral responsibility’.

Sweden is also showing signs of impartial benevolence, accepting 72 percent of all its asylum applications, whereas the acceptance rate for Syrian refugees is over 90 percent. Sweden and Finland show their moral responsibility by offering generous welfare benefits to refugees; their families are also allowed to join them within the first two-three months and they can enter the workforce immediately. France will accept 24,000 refugees over a two-year period. Its moral responsibility translates also into pursuing justice by launching air strikes against the Islamic State in Syria to tackle what France probably considers to be the root cause of Europe’s migrant crisis.

In Eastern Europe, Germany’s open door policy is considered idealistic. It is especially Victor Orbán, the Hungarian Prime Minister, who is an avid critic of open borders. The acceptance rate of asylum applications in Hungary is a meagre 9 percent. By building barbed wire fences along Hungary’s borders, Mr Orbán says his responsibility is to secure EU’s external frontiers. This, in addition to his other ‘pragmatic’ arguments – maintaining cultural continuity, preserving the safety of his citizens and highlighting the right to political self-determination. According to Michael Walzer, an American political theorist, freedom of association is an important factor of political self-determination. A state has the right to associate with whomever it wants. This policy is a prerequisite in Europe as well. There are certain countries like Switzerland and Norway which do not want to join the European Union and it is just fine. They are acting upon their right to self-determination.

So, based on the right to freedom of association, why would Hungary accept immigrants it does not want? It is indeed not obliged to, but it does have to provide an entry point to refugees because Hungary has ratified the 1951 Refugees Convention and its 1967 Protocol. Article 31(1) states that there will be no penalties for illegal refugees who cross into another country if they are ‘coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened…provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.’ As we know, for the last few weeks laws have been only selectively applied. Migrants enter Hungary mainly from Serbia, a safe country, and the vast majority of migrants do not want to register in transit countries like Hungary. They want to head west and north to more affluent countries. For the time being, their individual claims trump the necessity to follow the rules and, to a certain degree, Hungary concurs.

Hungary’s moral responsibility could best be described as a ‘lifeboat ethics’, an expression coined by biologist Garrett Hardin. A state is like a lifeboat and accepting people beyond its capacity will sink it. Mr Orbán has warned that encouraging migrants to come to Europe would spur ‘millions’ to join them and in the end it would be too much a burden for Europe. Most of the Eastern European countries share his opinion.

There is a passage in Dante’s “Inferno” where Virgil explains to Dante that those who remained neutral in times of moral crisis and ‘lived without disgrace and without praise’ are worse than the biggest sinners. The moral responsibility of some European countries may be minimal, but indifference is much worse. In times of crisis, any sign of humanity matters.