In class on Wednesday, we discussed the way in which people often think in terms of circles; that is, they place, in limited ways, a higher priority on those closer to them, such as friends and family, than on those to whom they have few or no links. We spoke about the typical configuration of these circles - the smallest one being oneself and one's friends and/or family, the next one being one's acquaintances, the next being, perhaps, one's country, and so on. We further determined that this type of partiality, provided that it does not interfere with overarching ethical concerns, is not immoral.
In this post I wanted to mention that, while I think most people have a fairly uniform idea of how and where these circles are drawn (probably in a way similar to that described above), I think that alternative ways of drawing circles are equally ethical. For example, if a person wishes to give priority to another nation instead of their own, or to strangers over their family, I think that they have the right to do that. Others may think that they are rather strange, and possibly berate them for their priorities, but not justly. How and where to draw one's circles is a matter of individual choice.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Q&A 4, Second Answer
My question is: Is one a patriot by virtue of being proud of the progress of a nation as a distinct body separate from other nations, and is this pride ethical?
This question is a bit complex, and probably requires at least some initial explanation. What I mean by being proud of the progress of a nation as a distinct body is being proud of a nation, or the people of a nation, for the progress they have made in comparison to earlier states they were in as a nation - for example, one could be proud of America not in comparison to other countries (which often results in ethnocentrism, and is besides not necessarily merited, particularly in America's case) but in comparison to America thirty years previously. A person with such a viewpoint might think something along the lines of 'America, while not as advanced socially as other countries (such as some Scandinavian countries) has come a long way from the rampant sexism and racism of the early twentieth century. It still has a long way to go before it reaches anything close to a utopia, but it has certainly improved.'
I think that such a viewpoint would be, at least in some senses, patriotic. Furthermore, I do not think it is unethical, although I do think it is unnecessary. I would personally rather be proud of humanity in general, or of individual people, than a near-arbitrarily selected group of people. If I had to be proud of a group, I would rather be proud of a group which unanimously worked towards a goal, rather than a group containing many apathetic or outright opposing viewpoints. Nevertheless, if someone wished to be proud of their country for its progress, I would not find them immoral.
This question is a bit complex, and probably requires at least some initial explanation. What I mean by being proud of the progress of a nation as a distinct body is being proud of a nation, or the people of a nation, for the progress they have made in comparison to earlier states they were in as a nation - for example, one could be proud of America not in comparison to other countries (which often results in ethnocentrism, and is besides not necessarily merited, particularly in America's case) but in comparison to America thirty years previously. A person with such a viewpoint might think something along the lines of 'America, while not as advanced socially as other countries (such as some Scandinavian countries) has come a long way from the rampant sexism and racism of the early twentieth century. It still has a long way to go before it reaches anything close to a utopia, but it has certainly improved.'
I think that such a viewpoint would be, at least in some senses, patriotic. Furthermore, I do not think it is unethical, although I do think it is unnecessary. I would personally rather be proud of humanity in general, or of individual people, than a near-arbitrarily selected group of people. If I had to be proud of a group, I would rather be proud of a group which unanimously worked towards a goal, rather than a group containing many apathetic or outright opposing viewpoints. Nevertheless, if someone wished to be proud of their country for its progress, I would not find them immoral.
Q&A 4, First Answer
My question is: Is one ever morally obligated to favour one's own country, or entities hailing from it?
I think so. If one's country has engaged in a conflict with another country, and the primary viewpoint of the other country is clearly in the wrong (as in the case of Germany in WWII, for example - although in that case more than one nation was on each side of the conflict), then one is morally obligated to support one's country. I do not think that this is really patriotism, as it relies not on the identities of the countries in question but rather on their moral standings; if one's own country was at war with another and was itself primarily in the wrong, one would be obligated to support the other country, although not necessarily openly depending on the risk involved and the potential benefits for the morally correct side.
Furthermore, there may be instances in which patriotism, or at least the appearance of patriotism, may be beneficial in the long run as well. An example of this might be if one's country was under very strong outside pressure to change its governmental structure to, say, an oligarchy. In the case of America, which is a democracy (at least in theory; the sad bit here is that America already resembles an oligarchy in many, if not most, respects), public demonstrations of patriotism might inspire people to, through a sense of cultural pride, resist that pressure. Of course, this would doubtless carry negative consequences later, as one would have to undo the sense of superiority that such patriotism tends to instill, but during the actual event of government reformation/nonreformation the appearance of patriotism would be beneficial.
I think so. If one's country has engaged in a conflict with another country, and the primary viewpoint of the other country is clearly in the wrong (as in the case of Germany in WWII, for example - although in that case more than one nation was on each side of the conflict), then one is morally obligated to support one's country. I do not think that this is really patriotism, as it relies not on the identities of the countries in question but rather on their moral standings; if one's own country was at war with another and was itself primarily in the wrong, one would be obligated to support the other country, although not necessarily openly depending on the risk involved and the potential benefits for the morally correct side.
Furthermore, there may be instances in which patriotism, or at least the appearance of patriotism, may be beneficial in the long run as well. An example of this might be if one's country was under very strong outside pressure to change its governmental structure to, say, an oligarchy. In the case of America, which is a democracy (at least in theory; the sad bit here is that America already resembles an oligarchy in many, if not most, respects), public demonstrations of patriotism might inspire people to, through a sense of cultural pride, resist that pressure. Of course, this would doubtless carry negative consequences later, as one would have to undo the sense of superiority that such patriotism tends to instill, but during the actual event of government reformation/nonreformation the appearance of patriotism would be beneficial.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)