At the beginning of Plato’s “Republic,” Socrates asks what justice (doing the morally right thing) is, and Polemarchus replies that it’s helping your friends and harming your enemies. That was the answer among the ancient Greeks as well as many other traditional societies. Moral behavior was the way you treated those in your “in-group,” as opposed to outsiders.The argument follows two questions:
Socrates questioned this ethical exclusivism, thus beginning a centuries-long argument that, by modern times, led most major moral philosophers (for example, Mill and Kant) to conclude that morality required an impartial, universal viewpoint that treated all human beings as equals. In other words, the “in-group” for morality is not any particular social group (family, city, nation) but humankind as a whole. This universal moral viewpoint seems to reject patriotism for “cosmopolitanism[.]”
1) How can it be a virtue, if it causes us to value some people's interests more highly than others?
2) Is it possible to treat people as equals while favoring your own group's interest?
I'll leave you to consider his approach to American patriotism. I'm going to propose another set of answers to the problem, which to me seem better.
Dr. Gutting should pause and reflect on how Aristotle, as well as Plato, would approach the question. First of all, what is a virtue? It is a strength, an excellence; it is also a capacity, which allows you to pursue new actualities. Courage is a strength, but having courage means being able to do things that the cowardly cannot do.
But to determine what capacities are really conveyed by the virtue, we also have to know the nature of the thing. Human nature is different from horse nature. The expression of the virtue of courage in a man will therefore be very different from the expression of what is courage in a horse.
Patriotism is a subset of the virtue of loyalty. Loyalty is certainly a virtue, because it gives us strength: those who possess mutual loyalty have a capacity to do things that those without it cannot do.
But what is the proper expression of loyalty? To know that we have to look to the nature of the thing that is being loyal, in this case, human nature.
Aristotle determines (in Politics I) that man is a social animal, and that political behavior is part of human nature. Every man will thus be born into a polity as he is born into a family; for every woman, it is the same.
It turns out that patriotism is a virtue that arises from our nature. It's like your relationship with your mother: you're going to have a relationship of one kind or another, but if you can find a way to love her and forgive her, it's a healthier relationship than if you get trapped in despising and resenting her. Thus, patriotism is a kind of human flourishing; everyone should be patriotic.
But what about the concern that we need to treat everyone as equals? Dr. Gutting is thinking about the American mission to free all mankind, which I also think is an admirable mission. There is, though, another answer: we often seek justice adversarially.
Our court system works this way. The idea isn't that it's wrong for the defense attorney to be totally committed, by hook or crook, to getting his client as free of charges as possible. It's that, in the opposition of such interests, justice will emerge. So there's no reason not to fight for your country; in fact, insofar as you are interested in that higher justice, everyone should fight for his country, and justice will emerge from the contest. The better ideas and systems will rise; the worse ones will fall, or reform.
Thus, if your interest is justice for all humankind, this may be the best way to achieve it.
I take a somewhat different tack in approaching this question of the morality of patriotism.
ReplyDeleteThe whole point of forming a social compact is to maximize our ability to protect our (natural) rights from the depredations of others (and not from our own failings, but that's another subject)--these others explicitly include those outside our compact, outside our nation that was formed by that compact. Thus, patriotism--placing our nation above others in our preferences and actions--is wholly moral. Our country should flourish at the expense of others--catastrophically so--if those others set themselves as our enemies, and not simply competitors. Of course that American free market competition is the best means of addressing other nations who are competitors rather than enemies.
The idea of moral equivalence, which underlies much of the rejection of patriotism, I reject out of hand as, at best amoral, and most likely immoral. A morality that finds it appropriate to conduct human sacrifice and that holds that the purpose of war is to harvest live captives to feed the sacrificial mill wheels is the equivalent of the morality outlined in our Declaration of Independence? A morality that says it's entirely correct to subjugate an entire gender, no matter the gilding on the bars of their cage is...? A morality that says it's fine to mutilate the genitalia of women because...why--because men can get away with it? Women are hormone-driven animals who cannot control themselves? Men are hormone-driven animals...? These are equivalent to American morality, no matter how clumsily we might live up to our own standards?
Pff-f-f-f-f-t
"My country, right or wrong." As a campaign slogan, this was misused. In another sense, though, this means that when my country screws up, it's on me to stay and help it correct itself, not to abandon it, either physically or by cowering on the sidelines sniping at its mistakes.
Notice, too, that patriotism is at an entirely national--compact--level. It's entirely possible, and appropriate, to treat individuals as equals--as individuals, they are, in the sense that they enjoy the same natural rights we do. This universal individual equality has nothing to do with patriotism.
Eric Hines
A morality that finds it appropriate to conduct human sacrifice and that holds that the purpose of war is to harvest live captives to feed the sacrificial mill wheels is the equivalent of the morality outlined in our Declaration of Independence?
ReplyDeleteI don't think Dr. Gutting is in danger here; either of those earlier examples fall afoul of his principle that any successful morality involves treating people as equals. These involve treating foreign people as literally disposable.
By the way, since you're praising the Declaration here, how do you line it up with this?
In another sense, though, this means that when my country screws up, it's on me to stay and help it correct itself, not to abandon it, either physically...
Was the revolution immoral on these terms?
In another sense, though, this means that when my country screws up, it's on me to stay and help it correct itself, not to abandon it, either physically...
ReplyDeleteWas the revolution immoral on these terms?
Not a bit. The colonials tried for years to make the corrections. There comes a time when you have to cut bait and move on. The Revolutionary War was thrust upon the Americans. Ultimate failure had not occurred at the time of Goldwater's campaign (and has not occurred today); hence the ability to misuse the slogan--which, in the nature of slogans, also oversimplified the situation.
Moreover, the American colonials lacked one tool available to us today, which those men invented to the benefit of generations: we get to toss our government--if we will--in part or nearly in whole in two year steps. Thus, courtesy of their efforts, we have two means with which to satisfy our duty vis-a-vis a misbehaving government; they had only the one. Despite their best efforts with the tools then available.
Eric Hines
I like Gutting's thinking, though I'll have to think about it some.
ReplyDeleteIf we are to treat all people the same, then what about marriage? Is a husband obligated to treat his wife like any other woman or be considered immoral? Denying that specific human relationships carry their own responsibilities and freedoms seems immoral, or at least a violation of human nature, to me.
I think Gutting is wrong right here:
ReplyDelete" In other words, the “in-group” for morality is not any particular social group (family, city, nation) but humankind as a whole."
It's not that our in-group is all inclusive, it's that it isn't exclusive. I can never be French, not having the proper bloodlines, but anyone has the possibility of being American, as they need only accept our values as theirs (well, that and all the bureaucracy for immigration). That is what was unique and new about the American experiment.
As for 'My country, right or wrong', I hadn't really given it much thought before, but it's not a denial laden declaration of blind patriotism, but a recognition of the importance of preserving America and the responsibility to keep it true and right. The problem is that it's pithy-ness tends to have it heard as blind patriotism.
There's a scale, isn't there? The point of patriotism is not to put my foot on the neck of everyone who isn't an American, but to put my nation's interests above my own. I have enough to do carrying out the duties I've clearly been given in my relatively constricted day-to-day life in contact with real people. If I'm fulfilling those perfectly, maybe then I should worry about expanding the circle to whom I owe duties. I'm highly unlikely to reach the point of needing to sacrifice my nation for the sake of my world, unless someone hands me the nuclear football by accident.
ReplyDeleteIt rings pretty hollow to me, though, to justify actual wrongs to the people nearest me in service of abstract good to people far away about whom I know next to nothing. That kind of thinking would almost always tend to lead me astray.
"the American colonials lacked one tool available to us today, which those men invented to the benefit of generations: we get to toss our government--if we will--in part or nearly in whole in two year steps. Thus, courtesy of their efforts, we have two means with which to satisfy our duty vis-a-vis a misbehaving government; they had only the one."
ReplyDeleteAmen. Fortunately we are not in the cut bait position. At least for another election cycle or a few.
"to justify actual wrongs to the people nearest me in service of abstract good to people far away about whom I know next to nothing. That kind of thinking would almost always tend to lead me astray."
Nicely put.
Having visited and rubbed up against far away peoples, I've no doubts about where my allegiance rests.
Being a simple, natural kind of fellow, I use concentric circles to describe my priorities and loyalties. The inner most circle being wife and children/family and the outer most being Vogon bureaucrats. I figure I owe the most to the inner most circle, family, and the least to the outer most group.
I will always default to a position of alignment with the inner most circle in any conflict. The type and amount of support I provide will be determined by the nature of the conflict and my sense of who's right.
So sue my immoral, patriotic, or nationalist carcass, or join me for a beer or two, after beer-thirty of course, and we'll talk trash about the Vogon bureaucrats.
The idea that we have to treat everyone the same is not only stupid, but suicidal (both from an individual and a societal standpoint).
ReplyDeleteI cannot trust a stranger as much as I trust my husband. There are no bonds of love between us, nor do we share a paycheck, a home, or a life. We have no family ties.
If this stranger is from a foreign country, we cannot even assume that a universal value system drives our day to day decisions.
Reciprocity is the foundation upon which all societies are based. There can be no valid expectation of reciprocity between people who don't know each other, don't share the same values, etc.
This is why trust declines as the diversity of neighborhoods and countries increases: it's a rational response to the realization that we have no common belief system that unites us.
If we assume that people will generally defend their own interests, then those of their family, then those of their immediate community, then those of their country, we can pretty well predict what they will do (at least in the aggregate). But if people insist on substituting an abstract theoretical model of how people *should* behave for the way they actually *do* behave in practice - or worse and more likely - loudly proclaim that's what they're doing, when in fact their actual motivations and deeds conflict with their words, misunderstandings and conflict become far more likely because at least one half of the equation will have great trouble predicting the likely reaction of the other.
I worry about these folks sometimes.
"The idea that we have to treat everyone the same is not only stupid, but suicidal (both from an individual and a societal standpoint)."
ReplyDeleteThanks for making the old knuckledragger smile M'lady.
..."when in fact their actual motivations and deeds conflict with their words...
<snip>
I worry about these folks sometimes."
Ah, Vogons... and their human counterparts. But worry about them? I only worry when such individuals are elected to high public office or appointed to positions of power over the public. And then my worry is mostly for those who reside within a few of my inner concentric circles, diminishing rapidly as it crosses beyond the Republic's circle.
As much as possible, I try to keep a watchful eye on the rest. The maintenance of vigilance being a good character attribute, or so I've been told.
Romney just spoke to the VFW. Pretty good and //looks left, then right// patriotic speech, IMHO.
104 days and a wake up.