What are your colours?

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:29 pm

Is patriotism moral?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:39 pm

[French patriote, from Old French, compatriot, from Late Latin patrita, from Greek patriots, from patrios, of one's fathers, from patr, patr-, father. See pter- in Indo-European Roots.]

Yes, absolutely.

What do you think, Koan?

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:41 pm

Every type of political system is open to corruption. Patriotism is based on the principle of trust, love, and fealty for one's 'ruler' who gives all to lead the country through thick and thin. These qualities are always open to abuse, but people soon wised up.

This is unlike the present situation where people are wise to politicians but simply accept them as one of life's evils.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:43 pm

Hey Koan, could you be sure to copy your sig into your post? Without it, future readers will lose the context. I was quite confused by the question until I saw your sig.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:47 pm

SnoozeControl wrote: Its still a meaningless question.
You mean it has nothing to do with morality, that patriotism is apples to morality's oranges, or something like that?

Blackjack · Post by **Blackjack** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 7:28 pm

I think it depends if you mean real patriotism or false patriotism.

false patriotism: My country is always right, even if it is wrong. Or, if it is wrong, I don't want to hear about it.

real patriotism: I owe my country my support in all that is consistent with morality, common sense, and the principles on which it was founded - but if my country is doing something wrong then I must object.

The latter is moral. Most patriotic people tend naturally towards the former, however.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 7:32 pm

Most patriotic people tend naturally towards the former, however.

It is instinctive for a person to automatically stand up for their beliefs without thought. Like a parent will automatically stand up for their children if they are accused. A person who has to think and consider all the options is not a true patriot.

Blackjack · Post by **Blackjack** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:17 pm

It seems we have different ideas about patriotism, then. I distinguish between responsible patriotism and when it crosses the line into chauvinism.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:41 pm

Blackjack wrote: It seems we have different ideas about patriotism, then. I distinguish between responsible patriotism and when it crosses the line into chauvinism.

Consider this. Would you confront your errant child in front of its accuser. Or, would you stand up for the child and then confront it in private. If the child proved to be in the wrong, an apology would be expected. In our past an errant child would have received a severe thrashing. This is no longer legal in the UK however.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:00 pm

My current sig, as requested,

Patriotism ... for rulers is nothing else than a tool for achieving their power-hungry and money-hungry goals, and for the ruled it means renouncing their human dignity, reason, conscience, and slavish submission to those in power. ... Patriotism is slavery." - Leo Tolstoy

I was going to paste it when I change it tomorrow but now is as good a time as any.

A failure to see meaning in the question does not conclude that it is meaningless. The morality question applies in the regards to exclusion or reduction in value of others based on geography. Wikipedia is a good source for the basics of the discussion. Patriotism opposes the vision that all should be seen as equals and that we should try to see the world as a global family. I've always thought of my country as incidental. I could have been born anywhere and it would not change my worth as a human. Many believe that patriotism is a tool used to coerce the masses into behaviour they would otherwise not approve of.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 5:34 am

koan wrote: My current sig, as requested,

Patriotism ... for rulers is nothing else than a tool for achieving their power-hungry and money-hungry goals, and for the ruled it means renouncing their human dignity, reason, conscience, and slavish submission to those in power. ... Patriotism is slavery." - Leo Tolstoy

I was going to paste it when I change it tomorrow but now is as good a time as any.Thanks.

koan wrote: A failure to see meaning in the question does not conclude that it is meaningless. I disagree, and am stealing this sentence to start another thread. :sneaky:

koan wrote: The morality question applies in the regards to exclusion or reduction in value of others based on geography. Wikipedia is a good source for the basics of the discussion. Patriotism opposes the vision that all should be seen as equals and that we should try to see the world as a global family. I've always thought of my country as incidental. I could have been born anywhere and it would not change my worth as a human. Many believe that patriotism is a tool used to coerce the masses into behaviour they would otherwise not approve of.
I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the US we not only have a national identity, but a state identity (patriotism), as well.

I originally come from Louisiana, consistently in the bottom 3 of the 50 states in affluence and education. Good hunting & fishing, though

. We have great pride in our dank, hot, swampy land. We often pride ourselves in being able to get by with less than others think they need.

I have lived in New York and California as well, which are at the top of the affluence charts. Federal taxes communistically take from these two states and deliver disproportionate amounts to less affluent states.

I have felt the pride of being in the richest state in the union and the frustration that part of those riches were siphoned off for less productive states. I have felt the pride of being in a struggling-yet-surviving state and the frustration that nobody's been able to figure out how to be more successful.

Patriotism is vital in both cases.

If Californians (or citizens of more affluent nations) don't take pride in their accomplishments and productivity, they will stop striving to succeed. Production, and thus revenue, will decrease. They will become less than they could be, make less of an impact on the world than they otherwise might, and fade into obscurity. If that's not important to you, fine.

If Louisianians (or citizens of less affluent nations) don't take pride in their struggle, they will stop struggling. Those that can move away, will. Those that are left will have less intellectual capital to work with. They face a downward spiral beyond obscurity into oblivion. Money will come from other sources, such as California (or more affluent nations) but without that spark of patriotism it will do no good. Resentment will build. They will cease to exist culturally, and will only exist on a map. If that's not important to you, fine.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:01 am

The question being meaningless struck me as a rather absurd statement as books have been written and all my research over the last year has been littered with different voices of the same concern. To ask "what is morality" would have been a more interesting way of challenging the question.

Now, what? do I copy and paste that comment to the other thread? I suppose I shall.

Of course it is all subjective on one level but there are aspects that can be analysed. Patriotism demands groupthink. Is raises the value of certain people based on their geography and blankets all members of the group with special status.

Here's a scenario. In the battlefield two men are fallen. One man was known for his generosity and, since the death of his wife in childbirth, raises homeless children as his own. He joined the army because he wanted to ensure a good world for his children. The other man is an alcoholic, beats his children and visits prositutes on a regular basis leaving the family almost penniless. He joined the army because he wanted to leave his home anyway.

Let's not assign countries to either of these men lest the choice become a matter of debate. This is all hypothetical. Now. Patriotism requires that, if you could only save one of the two, you save the one from your country even if it is the man who beats his kids. It prescribes that a person should overlook their own moral values and uphold those handed down by 'the group'.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:57 am

It's not a 'what would you do' scenario it is a scenario to consider whether or not a person's geography determines their worth. If you agree that the scenario is possible then patriotism can be called to question. If you deem that the child abuser would always belong to a different country than your own then patriotism is natural.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:19 am

koan wrote: The question being meaningless struck me as a rather absurd statement as books have been written and all my research over the last year has been littered with different voices of the same concern. To ask "what is morality" would have been a more interesting way of challenging the question.

Now, what? do I copy and paste that comment to the other thread? I suppose I shall.
Getting snooty (or is it snippy) doesn't help the conversation progress.

koan wrote: Of course it is all subjective on one level but there are aspects that can be analysed. Patriotism demands groupthink. Is raises the value of certain people based on their geography and blankets all members of the group with special status.
Common civility demands groupthink. It raises the value of certain people based on their manner and knowledge of etiquette and blankets all members of the group with special status. Not a thing wrong with it.

koan wrote: Here's a scenario. In the battlefield two men are fallen. One man was known for his generosity and, since the death of his wife in childbirth, raises homeless children as his own. He joined the army because he wanted to ensure a good world for his children. The other man is an alcoholic, beats his children and visits prositutes on a regular basis leaving the family almost penniless. He joined the army because he wanted to leave his home anyway.

Let's not assign countries to either of these men lest the choice become a matter of debate. This is all hypothetical. Now. Patriotism requires that, if you could only save one of the two, you save the one from your country even if it is the man who beats his kids. It prescribes that a person should overlook their own moral values and uphold those handed down by 'the group'.
Too many unknown variables. If one is an enemy, he dies. If both are allies, there are buttloads of variables that will help determine. One option may be to call for help and stay to defend both until death.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:21 am

So you're just going to ignore my post that patriotism is vital? You won't either validate or dispute it?

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:54 am

I am not ignoring anything, Accountable. Time is a very limited commodity for me at the moment. I leave a window open on my computer but can only sit at it for a few minutes at a time. I'm making a real effort to be here at all so please pardon me if I take greater exception to seemingly flippant comments then I would normally. For my part, sorry it took so long to respond to this post, it has some very interesting ideas in it and does speak to the question.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the US we not only have a national identity, but a state identity (patriotism), as well.

I originally come from Louisiana, consistently in the bottom 3 of the 50 states in affluence and education. Good hunting & fishing, though

. We have great pride in our dank, hot, swampy land. We often pride ourselves in being able to get by with less than others think they need.

I have lived in New York and California as well, which are at the top of the affluence charts. Federal taxes communistically take from these two states and deliver disproportionate amounts to less affluent states.

I have felt the pride of being in the richest state in the union and the frustration that part of those riches were siphoned off for less productive states. I have felt the pride of being in a struggling-yet-surviving state and the frustration that nobody's been able to figure out how to be more successful.

You mention pride. I believe everyone has a right to feel pride in their accomplishments but when it becomes comparitive (our state vs your state) then it becomes degrading to the accomplishments of the other group. Where one group may succeed in one aspect beyond another the other groups will have their strengths as well.

Patriotism is vital in both cases.

Vital to what?

If Californians (or citizens of more affluent nations) don't take pride in their accomplishments and productivity, they will stop striving to succeed. Production, and thus revenue, will decrease. They will become less than they could be, make less of an impact on the world than they otherwise might, and fade into obscurity. If that's not important to you, fine.

If Louisianians (or citizens of less affluent nations) don't take pride in their struggle, they will stop struggling. Those that can move away, will. Those that are left will have less intellectual capital to work with. They face a downward spiral beyond obscurity into oblivion. Money will come from other sources, such as California (or more affluent nations) but without that spark of patriotism it will do no good. Resentment will build. They will cease to exist culturally, and will only exist on a map. If that's not important to you, fine.

It seems you are saying patriotism is vital for success. It seems you are saying success is measured by wealth. Make an impact how? You are talking about fear of meaninglessness. Fading into obscurity. This is classically called fear of death and you give it as a reason for patriotism.

Then we go beyond obscurity and into oblivion. Fear of the unknown and dying without meaning? Before I make comment on that am I understanding you properly?

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:57 am

koan wrote: I'm making a real effort to be here at all
Really? Why?

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:12 pm

Accountable wrote:

Common civility demands groupthink. It raises the value of certain people based on their manner and knowledge of etiquette and blankets all members of the group with special status. Not a thing wrong with it.

perhaps we should define common civility? common would imply universal or shared equally while civility by my dictionary means 1. courtesy; politeness 2. a polite action or expression , neither of which is described by your following statement.

Accountable wrote: Too many unknown variables. If one is an enemy, he dies. If both are allies, there are buttloads of variables that will help determine. One option may be to call for help and stay to defend both until death.

snoozecontrol wrote: Picture a battlefield. Two men. Different uniforms.

In most likelihood, that's all you'd know

I agree with you both. My agreement is the reason for the choice of scenario. The scenario is not ridiculous, war is. When the people fighting and dying can't have more information about each other then all they are fighting for is an idea, not a reality.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:20 pm

BabyRider wrote: Really? Why?
I mean that as a real, genuine, actual question.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:21 pm

Anyone else noticed that Koan is sounding more & more like Spot?

BTW, my colours are pinks & pastels although i do like black because its quite slimming. :yh_bigsmi

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:24 pm

abbey wrote: Anyone else noticed that Koan is sounding more & more like Spot?
You mean they are 2 different people?

:yh_ooooo

abbey wrote: BTW, my colours are pinks & pastels although i do like black because its quite slimming.
Eww...no pastels for me, I'm more of a deep purples, blues and LOTS of black myself.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:26 pm

BabyRider wrote: You mean they are 2 different people?

:yh_ooooo

Joined at the lip... i mean hip me dear

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:27 pm

abbey wrote: Joined at the lip... i mean hip me dear

Nah, you were right the first time. :yh_rotfl

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:30 pm

ArnoldLayne wrote: Real Scenario;

A medic discovers two injured soldiers and using a combination of his nature as a human being, his upbringing and medical training, he comes to a correct and satisfactory conclusion and hopefully both soldiers survive, regardless of uniform. At what point during this scenario, has this professional soldier entered into a decision about patriotism ? Moral or otherwise.

Patriotism prescribes that the two soldiers should be seen differently. Your scenario removes patriotism from the question and results in an ideal. IMO you just proved my point.

Suppose we accept that patriotism reduces us to some sort of pack mentality, in what ever form. I still cant see the immoral angle. Its completely natural and healthy, providing of course, you love your pack and not hate someon elses

Here's where the lack of a consistent description of morality becomes an issue. It is the perceived attachment of right or wrong to actions or conduct. The code changes from time to time and varies by culture. I believe that preference for one person over another based on geography is immoral. Even if you don't outright hate them. A man is judged by his acts not his address in my world.

The tendancy towards packs may be natural (the ongoing innate vs learned debate) but why do you say it's healthy? Healthy for whom? Just the patriot and his tribe or healthy for everyone?

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:34 pm

BR are you here to contribute to the conversation?

The best answer to your question is that I am not here to harass you, as you supposed, though you seem to be valiantly attempting to engage me in such activity.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:48 pm

koan wrote: BR are you here to contribute to the conversation?

The best answer to your question is that I am not here to harass you, as you supposed, though you seem to be valiantly attempting to engage me in such activity.
Well, as I said in another thread (perhaps I should have kept my inquiry there, I'll grant you that) you seem to think that FG somewhat unworthy of your attention and that it's an inconvenience to be here.

And as I have told you before, really try not to assume things about me. It's been made perfectly clear to both of us that we simply do not "get" each other, and most likely never will. As for my "valiance", quit flattering yourself.

As for the rest of my comments in this thread, I was talking to Abbey, not you.

Did I cover everything there? I'll go back and double-check.

Edited to add: My colors are RED WHITE AND BLUE.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:49 pm

koan wrote: I am not ignoring anything, Accountable. Time is a very limited commodity for me at the moment. I leave a window open on my computer but can only sit at it for a few minutes at a time. I'm making a real effort to be here at all so please pardon me if I take greater exception to seemingly flippant comments then I would normally. For my part, sorry it took so long to respond to this post, it has some very interesting ideas in it and does speak to the question.
I'm flippant and exceptional. You'll just have to love me as I am. [smilie=4,33,28]

koan wrote: You mention pride. I believe everyone has a right to feel pride in their accomplishments but when it becomes comparitive (our state vs your state) then it becomes degrading to the accomplishments of the other group. Where one group may succeed in one aspect beyond another the other groups will have their strengths as well. I see nothing wrong with comparisons, especially when the fruits of one's efforts are distributed to all, regardless of effort. The one who put forth the greater effort should feel frustration; the one who put forth mediocre effort should feel shame. That is a vital element sadly lacking in our society today.

koan wrote: It seems you are saying patriotism is vital for success. It seems you are saying success is measured by wealth. Make an impact how? You are talking about fear of meaninglessness. Fading into obscurity. This is classically called fear of death and you give it as a reason for patriotism.

Then we go beyond obscurity and into oblivion. Fear of the unknown and dying without meaning? Before I make comment on that am I understanding you properly?
I could have used a team metaphor, but this one is closer to the point I wanted to make. None of us can make it alone. Teamwork and cooperation works better when we have an identity to rally round, be it team, nation, or king. Patriotism is vital to the cooperation of citizens to push toward national goals, fight national enemies, or to choose worthy national leaders. Individuals who suckle at the teat of their nation without identifying with that nation - without patriotism - are parasites and should be treated as such.

Success is however you define it. Today's world is economic. But don't get my definition of success in your way. Define it how you wish. the sentiment is the same.

The wish of most men is to be remembered well, to leave his mark on society. It is no less so for a nation, imo. Of course, if one has no pride, one naturally wouldn't care about leaving a legacy. I'm not sure I can explain better than that. Anyone else is welcome to give it a shot, please.

Astra · Post by **Astra** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:57 pm

OpenMind wrote: Consider this. Would you confront your errant child in front of its accuser. Or, would you stand up for the child and then confront it in private. If the child proved to be in the wrong, an apology would be expected. In our past an errant child would have received a severe thrashing. This is no longer legal in the UK however.

Sorry..I have to take issue with this statement. I think it would be quite wrong to stand up for your child if you knew them to be in the wrong. It would also be quite wrong to stand up for your child if you were unsure of the rectitude of the situation. IMO it would be better to take a neutral stance at the time, find out the truth and deal with it when in possession of the facts. I think the same should apply to ones country as well...every situation should be judged on it's own merits, when in possession of as many facts as possible.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:59 pm

koan wrote: Patriotism prescribes that the two soldiers should be seen differently. Your scenario removes patriotism from the question and results in an ideal. IMO you just proved my point.

Here's where the lack of a consistent description of morality becomes an issue. It is the perceived attachment of right or wrong to actions or conduct. The code changes from time to time and varies by culture. I believe that preference for one person over another based on geography is immoral. Even if you don't outright hate them. A man is judged by his acts not his address in my world.

The tendancy towards packs may be natural (the ongoing innate vs learned debate) but why do you say it's healthy? Healthy for whom? Just the patriot and his tribe or healthy for everyone?
I don't see the immorality at all. I value my family over all others. I value my friends over those who are not. I value my team over the opposing team(s). I value my nation over all other nations. I value our allies over our enemies.

I stratefy. I value some people more than others. Absolutely. I will save friend before foe and family before friend. Does that make me immoral?

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:17 pm

Astra wrote: Sorry..I have to take issue with this statement. I think it would be quite wrong to stand up for your child if you knew them to be in the wrong. It would also be quite wrong to stand up for your child if you were unsure of the rectitude of the situation. IMO it would be better to take a neutral stance at the time, find out the truth and deal with it when in possession of the facts. I think the same should apply to ones country as well...every situation should be judged on it's own merits, when in possession of as many facts as possible.

Well said!

Accountable wrote: Does that make me immoral?

It may. Again it depends on the defined morals of the times. It may just make you a survivor.

Voting for a football team may be healthy and pure fun but football teams don't kill each other. When lives are lost there is a need to look at the justifications more carefully. Like you said, Arnold, you don't take team loyalty into consideration for important decisions. Perhaps patriotism is healthy as long as it is not being used to make important decisions or to the detriment of another's well being.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:43 pm

koan wrote: Well said!

It may. Again it depends on the defined morals of the times. It may just make you a survivor.

[...]

Then call me immoral. :yh_flag

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:59 pm

SnoozeControl wrote: Thank Christ we have you to to define our moral values, Koan.

i don't see how words like "it may" and "depends" show me taking any responsiblity for defining moral behaviour. If I knew would I ask the question?

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:28 pm

koan wrote: i don't see how words like "it may" and "depends" show me taking any responsiblity for defining moral behaviour. If I knew would I ask the question?Sheesh lighten up a little eh Koan. :rolleyes: