Jill quotes George Bernard Shaw: “Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it.” One difficulty with patriotism, like any kind of particularism, is that it seems arbitrary. By patriotism here, I refer to the ethical obligations that stem from loyalty to one’s country. I’m leaving aside, for the moment, what exactly these ethical obligations are and how far they extend. My concern is the more fundamental question: How can patriotism be justified at all? I take for granted the assumption that all human beings have the same intrinsic moral worth. I suppose you may deny this and build your patriotism around a Nazi-style racism but I’m going to let the moral bankruptcy of such a position speak for itself and proceed as though it doesn’t exist. (In a later post, I may take up the question of what exactly is wrong with Nazi “ethics” because I enjoy asking philosophical questions about patently absurd positions and trying to tease out the precise flaw.)
To answer our question, let’s examine patriotism’s close relative: familial loyalty.
What’s the nature of the special obligation that family members have to each other? Of course, one may deny that any special obligations exist but I think such a position engenders more problems than it solves. The family plays an indispensable role in society. Denying familial obligations would entail the incredibly counter-intuitive position that the family is intrinsically unethical, as it requires unjustifiably treating individuals unequally.
Can’t we say the same thing about patriotism? After all, nation-states play similarly crucial roles. States, like families, require a certain degree of special loyalty in order to function. I think there’s at least one key difference, though. Familial loyalty is loyalty among individual family members. Patriotism, on the other hand, is loyalty to the distinct entity, “the state”, not (necessarily) loyalty among individual compatriots. In order to make the analogy work, we need to locate what exactly generates loyalty among family members and then see if it is also present between individuals and the state.
I said earlier that “[t]he family plays an indispensable role in society.” But why? One reason is the benefits that it offers each individual. Young children depend on their parents for basic necessities like food, clothing, and shelter. More generally, the family provides a setting conducive to education (both formal and informal), psychological and moral development, financial support beyond necessities, and ongoing emotional support. The recipient of such great benefits is morally obligated to show gratitude. Familial loyalty is what we call that gratitude.
Like the family, the state provides many benefits to its citizens. How to precisely identify these benefits depends on your political bent but I think we can all agree that such benefits exist and that they are substantial. In return, citizens owe gratitude. We call that gratitude patriotism.
You make a good point in that any individual owes some allegiance to the nation of his/her citizenship. But is that really true? What about the Jew in Nazi Germany? Obviously he didn’t owe his nation that same allegiance. What about a more contemporary example, a Muslam in the US or Europe who does not believe that his nation of citizenship deserves his good deeds, his gratuity? Hm…what say you then!
jbp
Comment by JBP — July 21, 2006 @ 3:14 am
Germany murdered six million Jews in Europe and only stopped at six million because it lost the war. Why in the world would Jews owe it gratitude? I did not say “that any individual owes some allegiance to the nation of his/her citizenship”. I argued that patriotism is a special kind of gratitude. It follows that in cases where an individual benefits from his state, he’s obligated in gratitude. Obviously, if no such benefit exists, no gratitude is warranted.
As for “a Musl[i]m in the US or Europe who does not believe that his nation of citizenship deserves his good deeds”, I suppose it depends on whether that belief if justified.
Comment by sagoboulevard — July 21, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
Certainly some states are better than others. But if one thinks, as I do, that all states are criminal enterprises by their nature, and that society would be better off — freer and more prosperous — without any state at all, how much gratitude should one really feel for the fact that one’s state is one of the better ones? It’s like feeling grateful to one’s prison because the meals there are pretty good.
Comment by Roderick T. Long — July 25, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
This is a fairly straightforward line of reasoning, but I’ve got to say, I think one of your premises is false - I don’t think the benefits of a government are worthwhile.
I also think you need to adress the distinction between a Nation and a Nation-State. German Nationalism was, until the German State was create, a belief that because the people in the Holy Roman Empire shared a culture and a language, they constituted a Nation. This belief, combined with the liberal belief that distinct Nations should have political autonomy as States combined to make the drive to create the German State.
The fact that these two ideas are usually combined doesn’t mean that they’re inseperable. I think loyalty to your cultural and political community is a good thing, but not to your government. If Governments are to exist at all, they should be loyal to us, not the other way around..
Comment by labyrus — July 25, 2006 @ 3:44 pm
I’m not sure exactly what you’re arguing for. Maybe it is that citizens have more and stronger moral obligations to others in their country. I think this is true, but just because we owe stronger obligations to those nearest us since we can make a bigger difference. You mentioned you conceived of patriotism as loyalty to the abstract state - is this something different from loyalty to its members?
Comment by Marco — July 27, 2006 @ 5:34 pm
labyrus,
Is it your “political community” or your “government” that pays for your public schooling, and repairs the sidewalks where you live, subsidizes transportation? I’m not sure I understand the distinction you have in mind.
Marco,
I think loyalty to an abstract state is different from loyalty to its members, even if both are positive traits. Individual American citizens don’t benefit me in the way the state does. By comparing it to familial loyalty, I was trying to show how the same obligation, namely gratitude, manifests itself in two different circumstances.
Comment by sagoboulevard — July 27, 2006 @ 6:49 pm