Well no - all the qualities you list above like freedom, charity, egalitarianism, and justice have strong positive effects, and no negative ones (at least not ones i can think of). Therefore we should be encouraging these traits.
Contrast this to patriotism - some positive effects, but also some fairly strong negative ones. Moreover, the positive effects of patriotism can be done by other qualities as i have argued previously. If there were no negative effects to patriotism then i would say hey why not, go ahead and encourage it if you want. But there are significant societal costs to patriotism, and thus we should not be encouraging it, as we can get the same benefits patriotism can supply from other traits, without the drawbacks of patriotism.
In other words, you say that patriotism is invalid, because its proponents don’t have any good evidence to justify it. And you say so, even though you don’t have any good evidence to justify it.
You stated rather explicitly that you didn’t know much about the 18th century United States. And you gave ample evidence that you know very little indeed about the development of North American political structures as a whole. And yet you casually dismiss the American Revolution as unjustified. This is an argument from ignorance, and a rather blatant one at that.
This makes no sense whatever.
Your first paragraph states that no blame attaches to bystanders who do not interfere with a murderer. Your second paragraph states that blame can attach to his victim, since “self-defense (is) not sufficient for moral justification”. So a nation is acting unjustly if it defends itself.
Take your argument further. No blame attaches to bystanders who do not assist those who are attacked. But somehow or other, society needs to get the attacker into prison. But we cannot act on patriotic motives, that is, we cannot act to preserve our society by imprisoning criminals. And if we do nothing, no blame attaches to us. How then can we expect anyone to act? How does the criminal get arrested?
Or else we think of ourselves as “world citizens”. The North Koreans get wind of this, and attack us. We cannot act in self-defense, and no one else has any duty to act on our behalf. And no one can act in defense of the American principles of freedom, because that would be patriotic, and we have already decided to eradicate that mode of thought.
We are screwed, and had best start learning Korean.
Your postion, to say the least, is rather muddled.
Patriotism, as I see it, has two components. One has been expressed by elucidator, Spiritus Mundi, and others. It consists of a commitment to the principles on which a country is founded. My allegiance to the US, for example, is founded in part on my rationally based examination of the things America stands for, and my conclusion that those things (freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free market capitalism, etc.) are better than any of the alternatives. A constitutional republic like the USA is better than, for instance, a monarchy, or an oligarchy, because it tends to bring about outcomes that meet human needs and desires that are frustrated by other forms of political structures.
By and large, with more than a few mistakes, these are the things that the US stands for. It is therefore rational to support the US when she is acting on behalf of those principles. To dismiss patriotism is to deny any personal responsibility to support those who are acting in defense of human freedom.
Another basis for patriotism is the same as the basis for providing both a prosecution and defense lawyer in a criminal trial. Both sides in a dispute need to have their interests represented, and most would agree that this is in the interests of justice. If we only had a prosecution, the rights of the defendant would have no advocate, and if we had only a defense, the interests of the rest of us would go undefended.
In the same way, there are lots of groups and individuals in the world who represent their own interests rather than those of anyone else. Some of those interests are at the expense of the United States. This does not have solely to do with war, but also questions of trade, sovereignity, jurisdiction, travel and residence - all the questions that bureaucracy has to deal with.
If there were no patriots willing to speak and act on behalf of the US, and of her citizens, the interests of justice would not be served. It would be like having only a prosecution, and no defense attorney, in a civil or criminal trial.
Therefore “my country, right or wrong” is both a commitment to the defense of American principles as they have been rationally endorsed, and a commitment to act on behalf of her interests and thus further justice. It does not imply necessarily that her actions must always be supported. It does imply that patriots will refuse to accept that enemies of the US are always right or that the US is always wrong, or that by acting in our own self-interest (and defending our own interests against the competing interests of others) that we are doing anything that should be condemned.
I have seen blind and unreflective patriotism, and it is a bad and dehumanizing thing. I have also seen blind and unreflective anti-Americanism, and it is in many ways worse. Because it refuses to recognize that, by and large, America has been a force for good in the world.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - It strikes me that booing the American flag is not so much an expression of opposition to patriotism as of anti-Americanism. Unless you boo all flags equally. Is that the case? Or is it only American patriotism that you oppose? Would you, for instance, also boo the French team in your hypothetical?
I was talking about the American Revolution not patriotism in general. However, if you have any good evidence, bring it forward. I’m listening.
I wasn’t making an argument, I was explaining why the knowledge that I do have has yet to inspire me to give a damn. If you care to enlighten me with all the wisdom you seem to possess, go ahead. I have a feeling I won’t be impressed however.
Could you say for instance, that the only way we could have a representative democracy was by killing a bunch of redcoats?
Lot’s of words are being bandied about here justness, evil, etc… Some of which were not explicitly stated by me.
I believe in the concept of necessary evil, which I think happens in self defense. It’s not a wonderful thing to kill someone no matter what. It is however sometimes a rational decision that gives the minimum amount of evil that allows survival.
Self defense is not always sufficient in and of itself for justification, consider Germany defending it’s borders at the end of WWII.
As I said earlier, prisons are a necessary evil. Moral actions are not always possible if one wishes to survive.
World citizens can’t act to protect their freedom?
It is if you try hard enough.
Yes there are some things worse than the US. But it is still defined by a bureaucracy and backed up by a military. It’s fine to love freedom, but freedom is not a government. We shouldn’t get the two confused.
Goverment by it’s nature, controls human actions or restricts freedom. Sometimes this winds up being the best thing we can do, but government is not synonymous with freedom at all. When given to much respect (by confusing it with the principles you hold dear) you actually make it prone to become a bad solution, one that actually takes away your freedom.
Support of human freedom or a government?
Attorneys can do their job without having an irrational attachment to their client. Try some concrete examples to back up your metaphor.
Then why “right or wrong”?
It was neither to me. I don’t think most Canadians are anti-American. I thought of it as anti-war anti-Bush administration statement in the context of current events. It wasn’t a wholesale dismissal of what patriotic americans think of when they look at their flag
We have hit that same anomaly. You claim that you don’t support patriotism, because patriots (you claim) don’t have any clear understanding of what they support. Then you state clearly that you don’t understand the positions of the founders of the US, and therefore “don’t give a damn”.
On the one hand, you have someone who says, “I don’t know anything about the US, but she is the best country on earth and don’t you forget it! You can try to talk me out of it, but I don’t think you can do it!”
On the other, you have someone who says, “I don’t know anything about the foundations of patriotism, but it is a stupid idea and don’t you forget it! You can try to talk me out of it, but I don’t think you can do it!”
How are the motives of either of these different? Why should either be taken seriously?
If you are saying that moral evils are acceptable if they make survival possible, then you are saying that survival is enough to establish morality. But earlier you claimed that self-defense did not suffice to establish an action as moral. Which is it?
Patriotism is, in part, actions designed to allow a nation to survive. Either this is enough to establish an action as moral, which means that patriotism is moral, or it is not, which means that self-defense is not moral either.
Or you are saying that you are willing to abandon morality if survival is at stake. So patriotism which is designed to further the survival of citizens is acceptable.
Or, as I suspect, are you unable to define morality?
Not if self-defense is immoral. And also, not if ignoring the plight of others is moral.
Again, you aren’t making sense. The US is acting on behalf of freedom, which you define as “fine”, AFAICT a synonym for ‘morally acceptable’. Patriotism is, in part, supporting your government while it is acting on behalf of human freedom. So patriotism is moral, or the support of freedom is not. Which is it?
Support of a government which supports human freedom. Which either is, or is not, moral by your definition - I can’t tell which way you are currently arguing.
What is irrational about an attachment to your country? Attorneys represent their clients’ interests in an adversarial situation. They certainly try to get their clients off when they are innocent, and try to minimize the damage when they are not.
Patriots represent their country’s interests in an adversarial situation. They support their country when they are in the right, and are working on behalf of human freedom and well-being, and try to minimize the damage when their country is wrong.
How much more concrete do you need?
If you are going to argue that patriotism in principle is wrong, you need to pick another principle and show that it applies better. But stick to it. Don’t change your definition halfway thru, or it will be clear that you don’t really have any consistent principle at all.
This is a mischaracterization of what I said. You seem consistent with this.
As I said before, I’m listening. The only reason I was skeptical is because you’ve so far failed to produce your own counter-argument, not because I don’t think it can be done.
No, I said survival is rational not moral. Please read my posts a little more carefully.
If you can show that patriotism is necessary for survival instead of just asserting it, perhaps it can be acceptable (NOTE: acceptable<>moral if I’d wanted to say it was moral I would have used that word).
I didn’t say that ignoring the plight of others was moral, I implied that it was amoral.
If you think I don’t make sense, it may be because you need to re-read. You consistently make false assertions about my intent and even the content of my posts.
A bit of a loaded question.
Patriotism is a love of your country which may or may not be acting on the behalf of human freedom. If I loved my country only when I thought it was promoting freedom, I still wouldn’t love it very often.
Sometimes a well run goverment can actually increase freedom by keeping certain elements of humanity in check, but I would argue that governments by and large operate by decreasing freedom and controlling the actions of others. Therefore transposing your love of freedom onto a government is generally a self-defeating process and irrational.
Attorneys are paid to do what they do, they don’t need any other motivation. Same with government workers. Politicians recieve power and fame. If you look at the recruitment material for the military, you will see a large focus on money for college, the skills that can translate into better jobs, or the personal transformation that military discipline is supposed to bring. An appeal to patriotic ideals is seldom used.
So provide some examples that wherein patriotism is necessary for representing our country. Who are these people, what do they do?
Interesting thread so far. If I may offer some comments:
I recently decided that Patriotism was too difficult for me to reconcile with my own beliefs. I support freedom, justice, generally being sensible and not needing too much of a slap, wherever I find them, and oppose their absence wherever it may be.
That I can generally find them in my own country, and in many countries note their conspicuous absence, makes no real difference. A country, after all, is merely a group of people. Like all social constructs, it does, indeed, serve a useful purpose. But, one should never forget that it is merely a social construct, an arbitrary drawing of lines between X and Y. When it stops being useful, it is expedient to discard it.
Thus, when trying to examine “the world,” I have found time and time again that while countries and nationalities are useful for broadly understanding cultures, they can actually be a hinderance when attempting to understand other aspects of a nation’s actions. The more you examine the situation, the more you realise that nations do not fight because one is free and the other not, or one is communist and the other capitalist, or one is arabic and the other jew… they fight because they are both independent nations with a conflict of interests. In other words, the “patriotism”, the devotion to the country, actually causes the wars, although to its credit, as has been noticed, it does its part in stopping them too.
If the Americans in this conflict are fighting for “freedom,” then what are the Iraqis fighting for? Opression? It might be nice to think so, but they’re fighting for Patriotism too. They’re fighting for their country, their land, their families. At the end of the day, to equate Patriotism with Freedom is to make a grave category error.
So should we get rid of it? Well, yes, but only if we all do it at once. In this sense, it is like the One Ring. If we eradicate patriotism, not by simply throwing away our own, but by working towards a situation where everybody responds to the sentiment “to fight and die for your country is a noble act” with the words “what the hell are you talking about, crazy dude?” we’ll be getting somewhere. The world won’t automatically become an evil-less utopia, but we’ll at least have somewhere to start off from.
Think about it another way. If you live in California you might think that the rednecks in Alabama are a bunch of backwards neanderthals, and if you’re a good ol’ 'Bama boy you might think that those freaky ass liberal Californians are a bunch of homosexual loonies, but the chances are that, no matter how much you love Mobile or LA, you wouldn’t fight the Californians or the Alabamans simply out of love for that city. The Civil War, most people have now realised, is over.
Oddly, by separating out the national element of patriotism from the appreciation of good stuff or odd foibles in your culture, you can be “patriotic” in the other sense mentioned in this thread much more easily. I can quite happily now argue that a pint of bitter and a plate of fish and chips far, far outweighs any merits offered by biscuits and gravy, safe in the knowledge that I simply don’t care enough about this to kill anyone over it. And, because this form of patriotism doesn’t exlude me liking other countries, I can quite happily like plenty of things about America or Australia or Croatia, sometimes even better than I like things in the UK, without feeling like I’m doing something wrong or bad.
To quote Emery Reves, “If we must have a war, we should at least fight over principles, not nations.” I would rather be, as I say, loyal to a principle of justice and freedom and common sense, than to a country that may or may not have those virtues at any one time. If I fight for England, I’m fighting for many things, like rain and scones and inbred german monarchs, all of which are nice in their own way, but hardly worth killing for. As nice as it is to believe that those who fight in battles are defending twin pillars of justice and freedom for all, it is hardly the case that this is all that they are fighting for. Getting rid of “patriotism” as a motive for fighting, and moving it to a more sensible position as a guide to things that identify you to your home culture, would help to clear out a lot of “my country, right or wrong” baggage that doesn’t actually do much good.
Interesting thread. Some thoughts. Let’s begin with one of the early posts. I quote:
Many people, when asked: will you lay down your life for your country, have answered “yes” without question.
Give me a break. I’ll lay down my life for my family. I might even do so for a coterie of close friends in certain situations, but I certainly would not lay down my life out of blind patriotism if that word is defined or linked in any way with this administration’s current foreign policy vis a vis the Iraqi War.
What is patriotism? What does it mean? It is an elusive and subjective term as hard to pin down as a cloud of smoke. Patriotism, as is beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. This man’s definition of patriotism is to another nothing but traitorous utterances.
I’m not a good enough writer to put down on paper what I think defines a true patriot, but, here goes. A patriot tries to keep himself well informed on current issues. Read, read, read. He also should have a sense of history and of the constructs of our Constitution. In a word he should be sentimental and caring of the Constitution and not the flag.
I have a problem with most KJP’s (Knee Jerk Patriots) that came out of the woodwork after September llth and reemerged for Gulf War Redux. Their emotional histrionics of wrapping themselves in the flag and branding all others, who do not blindly and “lemming like” follow the dictates of Washington, as unpatriotic would be laughable if it were not so serious and tragic.
I don’t have time for a substantive reply, but I promise to get back to this thread. for now:
It does not require blind patriotism to lay down one’s life for one’s nation. Nor do I think it contributes to understanding to cast all discussions of patriotism solely in terms of the Iraqi invasion.
Much like the emotional histrionics of painting all those who express a love for and devotion to their country as flag waving bigots and mindless followers.
You are changing your definitions and contradicting yourself.
You say that you are willing to accept what is immoral (or amoral) in order to survive. Patriotism is (partially) about survival - for instance, my example of putting murderers in prison because they threaten the group, even if it is amoral (and therefore acceptable) to do nothing in the presence of a threat to others. But you are not willing to accept patriotism.
I think you are swapping definitions in mid-argument. What is amoral is acceptable, except for patriotism, which is unacceptable. Acting in self-defense is amoral, except if it is done for patriotic motives, which is unacceptable.
You need to be a little more consistent, and a great deal more clear. Is it always the case that considerations of survival must trump moral considerations? Is it acceptable to do anything in furtherance of personal survival?
Suppose we drop out considerations of patriotism altogether. Suppose we are acting on behalf of some principle like human freedom that you and I would agree is moral - not amoral, not a necessary evil, not only acceptable - a positive moral good. Is it morally acceptable to kill on behalf of such a principle? If my country is acting on behalf of such a principle, is it morally acceptable to kill?
Or look at it from the other end. Suppose my life is threatened while I am acting in support of human freedom. You seem to argue that considerations of survival are amoral, and acceptable. Is it then morally acceptable to betray the principle of human freedom in order to survive? If it is acceptable for an individual to do this, why is it not also acceptable for a country to do it?
You need to make clear whatever distinction you want to draw between what is “acceptable” and what is “moral”.
Shodan,
I’ve made a fair effort to explain my views on morality, but that’s not what this thread is about. I think at this point it’s only clouding the issue. I’m going to try to restate things so that we can focus more clearly on patriotism.
I only mentioned evil as a way of designating that governments by and large operate through coercion and the use of force. Democracies provide an important check on government power, yet the principle of coercion remains the same.
You bring up the idea of the government acting on the behalf of freedom. I think this is possible though rare in the real world. Even in these rare instances, the government is only a means to an end and should not be glorified or confused with freedom itself.
Well, Costa Rica decided to abolish its army. It is surrounded by historically unstable governments, but it has faced no threats and lives in a state of tranquility. Switzerland does not have a traditional army, understanding that if a threat comes about, the people will take care of it, but no standing army is necessary.
Standing armies began in Europe with expansionist regimes. It’s a shame they caught on.
As far as patriotism goes, I dislike it. I favour the view of Erasmus “Heel de aarde is je vaterland” (the whole world is your homeland).
I see a similarity here with the problem a lot of Americans have with calling the US an empire.
It’s a term with negative connotations, empires are baaad, we can’t be bad so we can’t be an empire. So let’s find a term that sounds a little better. Hmm, ‘hegemony’, yes, that’s better.
Same with nationalism, reminds you of them nasty Germans. Nationalism is baaaad, we can’t be bad so we can’t be nationalistic. Hmm, ‘patriotic’, yes, that’s better.
For us, damned furriners, there is no nice distinctive difference between the two terms. We see you display your national flag everywhere you can and sing your national anthems at any old occasion. We call that nationalistic.
To me, my patriotism is about a love of American ideals.
The US is unusual in history by virtue of its binding force being concepts rather than common heritage.
This in and of itself is worth loving, IMHO. The ideals of justice and freedom seem inarguably great, IMHO.
So, I guess that my definition of patriotism and / or the object of the patriotism are different from what you’re addressing.
Maybe my definition is different than most people’s?
Fine, love justice and freedom that’s great, but justice and freedom are not a state.
For a good portion of US history, that justice and freedom was meant for only those of European heritage. It is only fairly recently, from a historical perspective, that we’ve become a pluralistic nation. People are still alive today that were once denied the right to vote because of their skin color. The US government has committed an incredible amount of injustices on those within it’s borders.
Pluralism is great too, but it’s not a government, and for the most part our government hasn’t been too good at it.
I have a problem with calling the US an empire because we’re not an empire, we’re a presidential republic. We’re not ruled by an emperor, but by a president.
