My guess is that if a French team came to play in the U.S., that they would likely be booed by Americans. I hope you would denounce such behavior, and would similarly be against the childish antics of congressmen renaming “French Fries”.
I agree with others here that patriotism is the tool of leaders to manipulate people. In fact if I were to identify a single underlying principle of the American founding fathers, it would be that power should be distributed among the people rather than being concentrated in the hands of kings and despots. Since the patriotism I see in practice is usually blind allegiance to policies of national leaders, I would have to call patriotism un-American.
I have never gotten the impression that the people who consider themselves most patriotic give any real thought to what this country might actually stand for. They are among the most likely to denounce the ACLU when it defends some unpopular cause on behalf of the Bill of Rights. Instead they get all worked up about emotional songs and catch phrases and flag waving. This is utterly hollow and works just as well for tyrants as for noble causes.
I see no difference between patriotism and nationalism except that nationalism is the other guy’s mindless loyalty to their country and patriotism is my mindless loyalty to my country.
Patriotism may be better than utter selfishness, but my recommendation is that we all try to figure out what is best for humanity as a whole. We cannot always assume that America is going to be on the right side. Fight for it when it is, and oppose it when it is not.
Basically I don’t see good and evil as existing in their absolute form in any action. There’s always a mixture and that mixture is usually dependent upons own personal morals and viewpoints.
I actually do believe that the morally superior choice when choosing between someone’s life and you own is always your own. However, moral superiority in this case is absolutely impractical, since all of these morally superior people would just die off anyway.
Nevertheless, pragmatism does not turn a morally wrong choice into a just one. My morals do not change based upon the necessity of my actions, for survival or otherwise. Since I do not posit evil as an absolute, it is perfectly acceptable for me to say that killing for preservation is less evil than out of spite. But it still remains at least partially evil or selfish and destructive to human life.
Now you are painting with a really broad brush. AFAIK the colonists were not being treated fairly, but it was nothing I would have killed someone over. Yeah, taxation without representation sucks, but that doesn’t mean I would need to make some English woman a widow. I’m interested as to why you mentioned the civil rights activists here since they are taking the sort of action I would propose.
But if in taking that risk one is simultaneously trying to do the same to others, moral clarity has been muddled. Furthermore if one is doing this for a cause that is unjust then even the best intentions are paving the way to hell.
There’s no need to take this personally, but if you insist I may have to quit.
I don’t hold myself as holier than thou. I recognize that soldiers have been trained for obedience and human beings respond to training very well. And once one is in a survival situation moral arguments can fade into the background. The soldiers around you depend on you doing your job, which may very well include killing people.
However, what got you into that situation can be quite a moral mess indeed. Basic training does not give soldiers an understanding of international politics. The moral decisions are made by others. Namely politicians, some of whom I have a great amount of disrespect for.
No Boromir, the ring must be destroyed. Seriously… I don’t know if you get this reference but Tolkein was a soldier who’d seen the evils of mustard gas and trench warfare. We need to be cautious about becoming like those whom we wish to overcome.
You seem to think that because an action is necessary for survival than it is just. I cannot agree with you.
I feel that I should also point out that it was our founding fathers that died to make this country. They died for the principle of freedom, a freedom of oppression. If it wasn’t for their own patriotism, their love for this country, we wouldn’t be having this discussion today in an open forum. I guess what it really boils down to is what you believe in. I like to believe that our ancestors didn’t die in vain, that they died to give us the many freedoms that we have now. So, I don’t see how patriotism could possibly be a bad thing. If our idea of freedom was being threatened in anyway, I would be willing to sacrafice myself for the generations to come, so that they may also be able to discuss ideas in an open way, without fear of persecution.
You need to meet a better class of patriot. Hi, I’m Spiritus Mundi.
Ah, I see the problem. Patriotism does not mean mindless loyalty to one’s country. Glad I could clear that up for you. I can certainly understand how you would see no difference between patriotism and nationalism if you define them each to be “mindless loyalty to one’s country”.
I prefer “fight for it when it is, and guide it when it is not.” I don’t see any way to ethically “oppose” my country while continuing to accept the benefits of citizenship, and I don’t think my voice will be more effective in opposition to the policies of an administration after I make myself an expatriate.
errata
this only seems to make sense if it is a choice between “taking someone’s life or losing one’s own,” so I assume that is what you meant.
If so, then I am confused by your earlier recognition of self-defense. If you believe deathof the moral individual is the best moral choice, then you obviously do not take your ethos from consequentialism. Why, then, is it a flaw if all of the moral people die? Alternatively, if it is a flaw if all of the moral people die, how can it be the best ethical choice for any arbitrarly moral individual to let himself be killed?
It does if one’s ethos is pragmatic. But, really, to me it just seems like you are a bit muddled about what it means for a choice to be moral. If you argue that something isn’t moral but that people should do it anyway, then you are probably confused about what it means for a choice to be moral.
Unless, of course, your position is that in some situations there is no moral choice. I do sometimes see that position argued by moral absolutists, but you tell me you are not a moral absolutist.
This makes no sense to me. In one breath you tell me that your moral evaluations do not alter because of circumstances. In the next you tell me killing is more or less evil depending upon the circumstances.
Actually, this is becoming a real hijack from the OP. Let’s just leave it at: I place no weight one way or another upon your description of any action as “good” or “evil” since I see no coherence in your application of those labels. that makes it difficult for me to respond to the OP personally, of course, but I can still address issues of patriotism in the abstract for those not concerned with your particular application of the labels “good” and “evil”.
What difference could that possibly make? You have just said that you will always consider killing to be evil, to one degree or another. For that matter, my response had nothing to do with the exact details of the American Colonists’ cause, I simply noted my disagreement with the idea that one should evaluate human history through a lens that dismisses the thoughts, deeds, and emotions of the people living at the time.
You casually dismiss the context of the American Revolution because Canada has a republican form of government. I think that is about as silly a perspective on history as I have ever encountered.
Well, setting aside the issue of whether every civil rights activist was a pacifist, you seemed to think that no historical struggle could be considered important if another nation achieved a similar result without said struggle. Canada, so far as I know, manages to allow blacks and whites to integrate without ever having gone through such a turbulent period.
Not to me. But then I do not confuse moral clarity with the application of force. That two men might each try to kill the other
does not imply that the moral position of each man is identical.
Why muddle the issue with unjust causes? Unless, of course, you are assuming that any patriotic cause is necessarily unjust.
If you mean “quit comparing soldiers to executioners,” please do.
If this was meant to be in any manner conciliatory to the morality of soldiers, I confess that I cannot see where. You seem to be suggesting that soldiers act amorally due to their training. Perhaps I am simply confused by what “holier than thou” you are denying.
Are you saying that you, too, allow moral arguments to fade into the background due to some training to which you have been subjected?
I disagree. There are reasons why we have the term “war criminal”. One thing basic training does instill is an understanding that one has a moral and patriotic duty to disobey unjust orders. You are correct to the extent that a soldier does not choose which wars to fight, but you are incorrect to imply that choosing which war to fight is the only moral choice that matters.
Hey, I love those books, too.
But unlike Middle Earth, this world has more than one ring. Also, our enemies won’t suddenly be destroyed when we toss our patriotism into Mount Doom. I do like mushrooms, though.
Once again, this argument would be the same if you substituted “violence” for “patriotism”. I am not sure whether you think an army can function just s effectively without patriotism or whether you think that it isn’t important for an army to function sa effctively as possible, but I think it is safe to say that I disagree with you in either case.
Not at all. There are many cases where I might think the moral choice would be to sacrifice my own life. You seem to forget that I was the one who initially addressed patriotism as sacrifice. You are the one who preferred to focus on the killing.
What I don’t agree with is the application of the label “evil” to an action that has been judged ethically proper. To me, that is sensible only under an absolute morality, and I do not believe in an absolute morality.
Patriotism doesn’t condition people to stop questioning the government, in fact in some cases it can be seen patriotic to question the government’s actions because you think what they do does not benefit your nation/country. Some politicians, of course, would like you to believe that in order to be patriotic you need not question authority.
Another thing: nation and (independent) country are usually, but not always, hand by hand. The Kurds are a nation. They share customs, language, and even a general territory, but they do not have their own country. Spain is a multicultural nation. The Basque are a group of people with their own culture, customs, and language, a nation within the larger country (Spain).
Patriotism to what? To the section of geography that lies between two oceans, and Mexico and Canada. Well, thats just dirt, isn’t it?
And it is fairly clear that patriotism as nationalism is a source of far more mischief than anything else. Men massacre other men in the name of “Greater Serbia”, fervent in thier allegiance to a third rate, half assed “nation”. Makes about as much sense as swearing allegiance to MTV.
I regard myself as a patriotic American, but my patriotism is not contingent upon geography. I am loyal to the revolution, the Novus Ordo Seclorum, if you will. I admire the humanist zeal of Tom Paine, and loathe the imperialist vigor of Teddy Roosevelt.
So long as America remains the best hope for freedom and justice in the world (and despite numerous misteps, so we are), my loyalty is unswerving. But I will not pledge allegiance to an Empire. America should be in the business of breaking chains, not forging brighter, shinier, more comfortable chains.
If you agree that this is patriotism, we are comrades. If this be treason, make the most of it.
The issue here is that errata, for some reason seems to feel that there is a moral absolute.
I disagree. We could go into a whole other thread as to why, but suffice it to say that I am sure, deep in my bones that some of the things you think are evil are no trouble at all. You cannot apply the personal moral relativity to the world of global politics that you are trying to do here.
Also, the major problem with the world concept that you seem to be describing is that it doesn’t take into account human nature or the realities of a global society. It would be great if the US could completely dissolve their military. However, once it happens, the North Koreans would be loading their army onto boats and pretty soon we would be part of North Korea. The only possible solution would be for a global government to do a global disarmament… and that odds are pretty good that’s not going to happen.
Whether or not you let yourself be killed is not a moral choice to me, it is a personal decision. Taking someone elses life against their will is selfish and destructive.
Pragmatic ethos are very troubled. Survival is a poor reasoning for a basis of morality to me. Let’s say there’s this serial killer,Bob. Bob attacks a victim but the victim knows self defense. Bob gets locked in a life and death struggle and it soon becomes apparent that he must kill to survive. Bob does so. Was his decision still moral?
Actually what I said was basically: killing is always bad even in self defense, but it can be less bad if it is in self defense. I’m absolutists in the sense that I see violent destructive acts as evil, but a relativists in that I can see different degrees of evil depending on the circumstances.
So while it is understandable to kill in self defense, there’s nothing glorious about it. It still winds up being evil even if less so.
Yes it was a casual dismissal. I am not a scholar of 18th century American history. But neither are most people that get all worked up over the national anthem. Given what I do know about the situation however, I see nothing that would have made me want to kill people. Therefore, I don’t sympathize.
Maybe if I studied American history more in depth, I could develop an appreciation for why they wanted to kill people to have their own government, but since I haven’t, I’m not going to worked up about something I know very little about. And why should I? Because it’s “patriotic”? How ridiculous.
That’s a very broad generalization of what I said. Canada
faced the same oppressor on the same continent yet managed independence. I am not supposing that therefore any country could have won independence from Britain on this continent, but I have clear example that it was possible. Therefore I have reason to doubt that the only way I could have a representative government here is through bloody revolution.
Rather I’m saying that a patriotic cause isn’t necessarily just and soldiers are not in a position to determine that. Politicians order troops into battle their reasons that are often suspect.
If I were trained in that manner thrown into a battle situation where the lives of my companions depended upon it, yes I would probably kill. Therefore I don’t see myself as morally superior.
I don’t think I mentioned that specifically, I’m glad our soldiers recieve training on war crimes.
Actually there were lots of rings on middle earth (9 rings for the kings of men etc…) but they all wound up being bound to the one ring. So the metaphor still holds on that point.
If we all ditched patriotism, then I think the situation would improve dramatically.
I understand you feel this is like the “if nobody had armies we wouldn’t fight wars” argument. But I honestly don’t think patriotism is necessary for an effective fighting force, and furthermore patriotism makes for bad citizens.
I know you like to say that anything bad about patriotism is really nationalism. But when you take away nationalism there’s really not that much left to patriotism. Tell me what are some good patriotic actions that couldn’t otherwise be motivated simply by kindness and a love for humanity?
I consider myself patriotic – right down to the Stars and Stripes in the living room. I love this country, the ideals of the Constitution and the blend of cultures. I like the idea of a balance of power.
What I don’t like are those people who are currently in power. That includes many in both primary political parties. The government is just not functioning as it should and it is getting worse.
But I never let my love of country interfere with my world citizenship. That comes first. And I can easily admit that there are other countries that I had rather live in.
Hi. Perhaps it was too braod for me to characterize everyone who calls themselves patriotic as not understanding what the country stands for, so if you are an exception to this, good for you. I do find, however, that the people who are most enthusiastic about their “patriotism” are rarely very thoughtful in their positions, but instead usually just echo the positions of their leaders and hate the opponents they are supposed to hate.
You cleared up nothing. You just make a claim to the contrary. I base my definition on the way people who pride themselves on being patriotic seem to choose their positions. Usually it seems very simplistic. Just like nationalism.
My use of the word “oppose” is pretty much what you mean by “guide”. I try to encourage the government to change its position or get people to elect different leaders.
Motivating people on the basis of “patriotism” makes it far too easy for the people in power to get a large backing even when their policies may actually be detrimental to the country or the world as a whole. I feel we would be far better off if we stopped considering patriotism as a virtue and instead expected people base their actions directly by support of things like democracy, civil liberties, human rights, and the benefit of humanity.
How strange. It is not a morla choice to let myself be killed, but it is a moral choice to resist murder with deadly force. As I said above, I can find no coherence in your morality. I have no idea how to respond to a choice in which only one answer is considered an element of morality.
Fair enough, I’m not a pragmatist either, though I can see how an earlier response of mine might have misled you to that conclusion. That was just a joke, not a statement of my ethos.
A serial killer? You must be joking.
Do you go out of your way to make your metaphors and hypotheticals insulting? I’ll make you a deal. If you can quote any of my words in this thread which might indicate that I would find it moral for a serial killer to murder his victim then I will answer your hypothetical.
Ah, so you do believe in an absolute morality. That does make some things more clear. I do not, since I lack an absolute perspective from which to understand moral choices.
We will always disagree on this. (The evil, not the glory.)
So what? That another man might be ignorant is hardly an excuse to embrace your own.
What’s ridiculous is passing judgment upon the actions of men without even making an attempt to understand teh context in which those actions were taken. Why should you do it? Because it is the honest thing to do. Patriotism has nothing to do with it. If you don’t know about something, and you can’t be bothered to learn about it, then don’t voice a dismissive opinion of it.
Personally, I would suggest not even forming a dismissive opinion of it, but that’s between you and your conscience.
It is a mistake to imagine that the British relationship to Canada was unchanged by the American Revolution.
I see. And the actions of men more than 200 hundred years ago should be evaluated solely upon how your personal life might hypothetically have been different? Understand, I don’t imagine that you really feel this way, but that is the argument you seem to be making.
And as I said, why muddle the issue. Unless you would like to rephrase the OP “What is patriotism in an unjust cause good for?”
That’s hardly pertinent to the question of whether you see yourself as you are today to be morally superior to soldiers. Let me phrase it this way: Would you consider enlisting in the armed services to be an equally moral choice to whatever alternative path you yourself have taken?
Hardly. there is no “one ring” of patriotism.
If we all ditched violence, then I think the situation would improve dramatically. Yet I do not expect to become a pacifist any time soon.
I disagree. Actually, I agree that patriotism is not necessary for an efective fighting force. One can build morale around religious fanaticism, racial antipathy, etc. In general, though, patriotism is one of the better means of encouraging men to risk their individual welfare for the good of a greater community.
I disagree strongly with your presumption that patriotism makes for bad citizens. Care to back that up?
I don’t recall saying any such thing. Frankly, I’m not sure what you mean by taking away nationalism from patriotism. Can you elaborate?
How about the Civil War? It was not kind. It was not motivated by a love of humanity. It was a horrbiel and bloody and monstrous good thing.
bullfighter
I find that the most vocal and enthusiastic Christians rarely exemplify the best in humanity. That does not mean I judge all of Christianity by the standard of Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson.
I have no idea how to respond to this. In a philosophical debate, I woudl just refer you to the no true scotsman fallacy. But this thread seems more like an investigation of personal perspectives.
Let me put it like this, then: if when a man says, "I am a patriot and I think . . . " you answer, “I base my definition of patriotism on other people.” then you will never learn anything new about patriotism.
Glad to hear it. Me too. This is not “opposing” one’s country (at least not in a country that allows freedom to dissent). In fact, I consider it to be good citizenship and thus quite in accord with the ideal of patriotism.
The same can be said of religion, radicalism, environmentalism, capitalism, rational self-interest, etc., etc., etc. It is a facet of human behavior, not a consequence of patriotism. Perhaps you imagine that there is some causal correlation between patriotism and retarded wisdom. so that if you simply removed peoples’ patriotism they would necessarily become more wise and generous and community-minded.
I do not agree.
I am curious. Is it that you imagine there is a limit to the number of virtues which can motivate human behavior, or do you think that patriotism is antithetical to one of the other virtues that you have nemed?
Yes, other "ism"s are also used by leaders to manipulate, and I also disapprove of emotional attachment to them, although I’m not sure why “rational self-interest” would be on the list.
I like to imagine that people already consider being wise and generous and community-minded as virtues, and that if we removed patriotism as a virtue, these others would fill in the gap. If they do not consider these as virtues, then we would do better telling them to be wise, generous and community-minded than telling them to be patriotic.
As a kid in school, I was taught that the United States was wonderful because it supported truth, freedom, democracy, civil liberties, and the good of the world. Thus, the reason for being patriotic was to advance these other noble goals. I later found out that while the U.S. sometimes supported these things, there were also some rather serious exceptions. It seemed to me clear that if I wanted to truly support these noble goals, it was better to measure my actions against them directly than to base them on the “middle man” (or intermediate goal) of patriotism, which would sometimes lead me down the wrong path.
I hate to butt in on this argument here, but i thought i’d offer my perspective on this matter.
My view is that there are no benefits that only patriotism and nothing else can supply.
The only benefit mentioned above is basically that patriotism adds motivation to certain occupations, most notably the military. I’m not going to dispute this. But is patriotism the only possible source of motivation? Of course not. A concern for people, a willingness to fight for human rights, for freedom, would suffice. Before the British soldiers went into Iraq they weren’t told “do this for your country”, they were told “do this to liberate ordinary Iraqis”. I think the motivation provided by knowing you’re fighting for a nations freedom is greater than the motivation of knowing you’re doing it for your country.
I challenge you to think of a single situation where patriotism and only patriotism can supply benefits. Given that patriotism can have significant costs such as nationalism, less tolerance of diversity, prejudice, blind faith in leaders etc, i believe it should not be encouraged. What should be encouraged is a belief in freedom, and human rights.
By the way, correct me if i’m wrong but i get the impression than the US is far more patriotic than the UK. Yet we don’t have any shortage of people willing to join up and possibly be killed in the armed forces. How do you account for this, unless patriotism actually isn’t that important?
Is that the test, now? Find an action that can only possibly be motivated by patriotism? I cannot. It is what is known as an impossible test. Try turning it around:
Find an action that can only possibly be motivated by freedom/justice/truth/civil liberties.
Human beings are not single-input deterministic devices. If the above represents your standard then we might easily conclude that there can be nothing good about any human virtue, nor anything bad about any human vice.
I’m not trying to say that there are certain actions that can only be motivated by love of freedom etc. That isn’t the debate here. I am trying to say that there are no (beneficial) actions which can only be motivated by patriotism. Thus patriotism is unnecessary, and we shouldn’t be encouraging it.
And thus freedom is unnecessary and we shouldn’t be encouraging it.
And thus charity is unnecessary and we shouldn’t be encouraging it.
And thus egalitarianism is unnecessary and we shouldn’t be encouraging it.
And thus justice is unnecessary and we shouldn’t be encouraging it.
.
.
.
If that is your standard, then it would be honest of you to apply it to all human motivations, not just those you personally dislike.
You seem to be trying hard not to understand. Morally speaking the two are unrelated. It’s not a moral act to sharpen my knife, but there are moral consequences to using it. Self determination that does not inflict upon the rights of others doesn’t create a moral judgement for me.
Sorry you got insulted. I wasn’t trying to represent your argument, it was a reductio ad absurdum. I’m trying to indicate there needs to be more clarification.
Your reactions seem to indicate you have some pretty serious emotional attachments in this discussion. Keep them in check and you my position may become clearer to you.
I have based my opinion upon what I know, which is considerably more than nothing. You’re saying “without even attempting to understand the context” is overboard. I’m willing recognize additional information could change my opinion, but until I recieve more information, I can’t help but form an opinion. Which is simply" From what I know their actions haven’t given me any reason to care"
This is not “muddling the issue”. If patriotism does more harm than good, than I think it can be an important point in establishing it’s necessity. Hence if more often than not, patriotism gets people to kill each over causes that would otherwise be irrelevant, then I say,“trash it.”
I don’t think equating my choices with others is fair. Nor is making generalizations about people I’ve never met. I can’t help but feel you’re trying to bait me here and impose feelings on me that I don’t possess.
Yes on a personal level, since there hasn’t been a war I’ve completely supported in my lifetime, it would be an immoral decision for me to join.
I think I misspoke because I don’t think we share the same opinion about what patriotism is. Let me say something else though, a good soldier is a bad citizen. Good soldiers don’t question leadership, they generally act on their orders without question. They cannot debate the philosophical necessity of their battles, they have a job to do.
So far you’ve only justified patriotism for it’s capacity to efficiently wage war, if you can’t come up with anything else than how can it be any better than violence?
Do you mean the patriotism shown by the confederates or the union soldiers? (this is a rhetorical question not an inference BTW) The patriotism shown by the confederate soldiers was a truly awful thing that should have never happened.
Not at all. I simply do not imagine that my life exists in a vaccuum. You state that it is morally neutral to choose to die. I disagree, since my life is not insulated from the lives of those around me. In the case of resisting a killer, the moral aspect is even more complex unless yo uthink it is also a morally neutral act tostand aside while a killer takes someone else’s life.
I am unsure of what you mean, here. Perhaps my above hypothetical is on target. Are you morally obligated to act to prevent one man from murderingf another?
Clarification of what? What is it about a serial killer that illustrates some aspect of morality hich you would like explicated?
Perhaps you might spare me the pop psychology and simply develop your arguments in a straightforward manner. thus far you have asked me if I thought serial killers were justified in murdering their prey and likened a soldier’s job to an executioners. What, exactly, do you expect to make clear from such rhetorical devices?
Earlier you said: **Maybe if I studied American history more in depth, I could develop an appreciation for why they wanted to kill people to have their own government, but since I haven’t, I’m not going to worked up about something I know very little about. And why should I? **
So you know “very little” yet “considerably more than nothing” about the topic. And somewhere in that range is a value which I should not categorize as “not attempting to understand the context.”
Right.
Let’s just leave it at: I find your method of historical analysis uncompelling.
Right, because you personally might have ended up living in a representative republic anyway. I got that part.
Well, “necessity” is a different OP, too. If you think it provides clarity to the question “what is patriotism good for” to examine scenarios that start “assume patriotism is in the service of a unjust cause” . . . well, knock yourself out. I have no interest in that exercise.
That is yet another different question. Of course, “trashing it” is a practical impossibility, unless you perfect the worldwide human atitude adjustment ray.
You appear to be a hypocrite, but perhaps I am again misunderstanding the clarity of your argument.
And you imagine that the only place a soldier can exercise citizenship is in battle? Well, I guess no civilian can be a good citizen, either, since they don’t get to exercise their citizenship in battle.
Then, of course, there’s that whole little detail about being willing to risk one’s life for the continued welfare of the body politic. Nah–no good citizenry shown there.
Actually it is not I who chose to focus this discussion exlusively upon patriotism as it relates to external conflict. That focus was present in the OP. As a purely internal matter, patriotism helps form communal bonds and motivate civic involvements. Patriotic ideals, in fact, were an important motivation for many of the civil rights protesters that you seem to admire.
As for the “better than violence”–Well, if the OP had asked “what is violence good for” I would probabl have some answers, too, since we do not yet live in a world of utopian goodness.
Agreed, but you asked for an example of good actions motivated by patriotism that would not otherwise have been motivated by kindness and a love of humanity. If you read the words of Lincoln and the Union commanders, it is pretty clear that the motivation for the Civil War was a patriotic concern for the integrity of the United States (hence the term “Union”). The north did not go to war for love of humanity. The slaves were not freed for the sake of kindness. Patriotism was a, if not the, prime motivation for the Union commanders.
And, yes, one could argue that patriotism fueled the Southern cause, too, though the issue is complicated by the fact that the nation for which that patriotism was felt did not exist prior to secession. Since I have no interest in pretending that patriotism can never motivate people to evil ends, I have no reason to deny that point.
In a strict sense no I don’t think the non-interference is immoral. The killing is strictly the killer’s responsibility, bystanders take none of the blame. I don’t empathize with those who would do nothing, but it is still the killers whom I would imprison.
You have taken my argument to the extreme. Now take your own. Is it moral to pour yourself a cup of coffee? Is it moral to turn on the radio? Is it moral to sleep in late on a Saturday? Your action’s aren’t in a vacuum, so these actions must carry some moral weight don’t they?
I was simply demonstating that self-defense was not sufficient for moral justification. The implication being that one’s nation could be engaging in an unjust war.
I also use an Arabic numeral system. Does that mean I’m obligated to study middle eastern history until I fully understand the depth of their historical situation? My life is the sum of the entire history of the world. If I really wanted to understand the constitution, I’d also have to understand the framers of the Magna Carta, and then maybe even the society of the Greeks which inspired the enlightenment, etc… I expressed a lack of enthusiasm for continuing further study, and you act like I was trying to make some sort of historical analysis.
I’m not impressed with your “historical analysis” either, since you would have your own burden of proof if you want to posit we would still be living under the tyranny of England now.
Well why don’t you focus on what I was talking about which was weighing the unjust acts against the just acts accomplished through patriotism.
I’m the one that happened to post the OP and I have a pretty good handle on what I was trying to discuss. Yes it’s entitled “Patriotism: what is it good for?” because that fits into the title line easily, and in 50 letters or less, it’s a fair approximation of what I’m trying to discuss.
Upon the actual reading of the OP you can find statements like this “In the end I think it winds up being a destructive force in the lives of the peoples of the world.” Which clearly brings up the idea of weighing whatever good might result from patriotism versus the bad.
As I said, it is relevant to my OP, and you should try backing up this assertion of yours. Please.
Actually you’re splicing different sentences that are addressing different subjects together and trying to infer a new meaning to them. That tends to result in misunderstandings.
Of course, the same person can be a citizen and a soldier but the behavior of one role is not preferable in the other.
It might be good and it might not since you have to acknowlege that the soldiers risk considerably more lives than their own. If the citizen has chosen to enlist in a just cause then it might be good if they have enlisted in a bad cause than it isn’t.
I do mention armies, but I also talk about bureacracies, and an obvious way to counter this is by saying “No patriotism isn’t about that, it does all these other cool things”
I have seen very little practical evidence of this. Most people I know, and know about, become involved because they care about issues like homelessness, racism, fair taxation, etc… They don’t help the homeless because it “makes America great” or whatever they do it because they care about human beings. Care to fill me in on some concrete examples of patriotic do-gooding that don’t involve killing people somehow?
You’re welcome to elaborate on this too.
What about the soldiers? Wasn’t this when the draft was first introduced?
This is an odd example anyway, since it seems like patriotism wound up accomplishing something good that was largely irrelevant to it’s motivations. If the south hadn’t seceded to maintain slavery, I don’t think I could say over half a million deaths was worth maintaining the Union. But from what you’re saying it would have been fought anyway.