I love philosophers. They ask what appear to be mundane questions and avoid the common sense answer because they know that it will always be arguable. So they contort to find an answer which will be air tight. Nice work if you can get it. Having said that, the first part of the diavlog seemed a bit more psychological than philosophical. But then they went on to the racism/patriotism part. They gave the following definition of racism, 'arbitray favoritism'. But then went on to say that patriotism may be positive although not readily distinguishable from racism. Has anyone noticed that every time a disaster in another country occurs, we hear on the news that there were X number of Americans involved in the calamity. Why would this be? Does this smack of countryism?? We don’t need to be taught to be patriotic, it’s natural and hardwired to be loyal to our group. Certainly it’s an illusion of sorts and even an epistemic error, but it satisfies our need to belong. Simon concludes "We'll have to face the fact that there may be different kinds of love." Wow, deep! Philosophers, you gotta love them.

We don’t need to be taught to be patriotic, it’s natural and hardwired to be loyal to our group. Certainly it’s an illusion of sorts and even an epistemic error, but it satisfies our need to belong.

Well, that's the point of comparing it to racism. Racism can also be thought of as "hardwired," yet more advanced societies and ethical systems have renounced race as a virtue and denounced racism as a societal plague. Why doesn't it follow that patriotism is, like racism, toxic and bigoted?

Philosophers certainly ask unusual questions. And their thought experiments make their topics even more bizarre at times. Overall I found this diavlog interesting, although it was sometimes strange and sometimes superficial. Talking about loving, I'd love to see what the BhTV crowd has to say about this one, although I'm pretty sure they will stay within the safe bounds of the patriotism/racism topic. Love is too dangerous...

Quoting Wonderment: Well, that's the point of comparing it to racism. Racism can also be thought of as "hardwired," yet more advanced societies and ethical systems have renounced race as a virtue and denounced racism as a societal plague.

Why doesn't it follow that patriotism is, like racism, toxic and bigoted?

It may follow if you accept the premise. I am still unsure about an appropriate definition for racism. These two seemed to agree that the definition is arbitrary favoritism. If it's a thought or a feeling and goes no further than that, I would consider it pretty benign. If it gets enacted into laws which harm others or result in violence against a targeted group, it needs to be dealt with. It may very well be hardwired as you say. However, I think our race has evolved to a point where we can over-ride our natural propensities.

Wow, badhatharry. I am surprised both at the attacks on philosophy and the fact that someone so superficial is even a fan of bloggingheads. I am sure you are very intelligent, but perhaps you should read a bit more philosophy. I will just quote from a blogging heads contributor. Philosophy is about possibilities: logical, metaphysical, human, social, and political possibilities. That's why philosophy is so abstract: it keeps its distance from the world. That's also why philosophy is a tool of criticism: it focuses our attention on ways the world might be. Philosophy's focus on the possible is the source of its distinctive beauty, and also its special dangers.
- Joshua Cohen

Quoting bheadsfan123: Wow, badhatharry. I am surprised both at the attacks on philosophy and the fact that someone so superficial is even a fan of bloggingheads. I am sure you are very intelligent, but perhaps you should read a bit more philosophy. I will just quote from a blogging heads contributor.

Philosophy is about possibilities: logical, metaphysical, human, social, and political possibilities. That's why philosophy is so abstract: it keeps its distance from the world. That's also why philosophy is a tool of criticism: it focuses our attention on ways the world might be. Philosophy's focus on the possible is the source of its distinctive beauty, and also its special dangers.
- Joshua Cohen

Well, I see that you are just the sort that frequents blogginheads. Sorry I don't fit in as you do. I just happen to have my very own opinions about things instead of posing as an expert and psychoanalyst. BTW, I made no attack on philosophy. I said I love philosophers and in fact, do. I love them so much that when I quote them I attribute the quote as you should have done for Steve Pyke. Superficial, my ass!

So now I am wondering if you are the Joshua Cohen who has been featured in diavlogs from time to time. I haven't been watching the site for long so I don't think I have actually heard any of what you have had to say. You said I am surprised both at the attacks on philosophy and the fact that someone so superficial is even a fan of bloggingheads. Here you call me superficial. You don't give any basis for this evaluation except that you think it. Then you say that I have attacked philosophy. This is incorrect. Later, you tell me I should read some philosophy. Thanks. Not that it means anything, but if you look at my profile you will see philosophy as one of my chief interests. I know how important it is. I read it. I love it and I don't feel compelled to kiss the feet of it. It's OK, in my book to use a little humor when approaching philosophy. It is a tortured affair to try to explain the things we experience. There are just a very few who are able to do it so that all can understand. The rest are mostly

Harry, I think if you re-read the message you responded to, you'd see that your correspondent was quoting Josh Cohen, not claiming to be him.

Talking about loving, I'd love to see what the BhTV crowd has to say about this one, although I'm pretty sure they will stay within the safe bounds of the patriotism/racism topic. Love is too dangerous...

Well, beyond the racism/patriotism stuff, there wasn't much that was controversial. The thoughts about love did remind me of the story of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner (which is probably similar for thousands of other people dealing with Alzheimer's.) O'Conner resigned from the Court to care for her husband as his health declined with Alzheimer's. Then when he was institutionalized, he took up with a fellow patient -- his new "girlfriend." O'Conner, who obviously loved him deeply, responded to this (obscene and invasive?) news reporting with the observation that her husband was no longer himself. In other words, although she had quit her job because she loved him, he was not him anymore. (Was he anyone? Could he have fallen in love with another woman in any humanly comprehensible way? ) Sandra D-O's love story makes sense to us and speaks highly of her, I think. No one who understands dementia could have thought that the husband "cheated" on her. But

Quoting Wonderment: Loving relationships are mysterious and ineffable. Psychologists, neurologists and philosophers can shed some light, but love's core is impenetrable.

Well said. No amount of cognitive science, philosophy, or physchology will ever explain the most sublime - and painful - experience of all. Maybe the poets.

Quoting bheadsfan123: Wow, badhatharry. I am surprised both at the attacks on philosophy and the fact that someone so superficial is even a fan of bloggingheads. I am sure you are very intelligent, but perhaps you should read a bit more philosophy. I will just quote from a blogging heads contributor.

Philosophy is about possibilities: logical, metaphysical, human, social, and political possibilities. That's why philosophy is so abstract: it keeps its distance from the world. That's also why philosophy is a tool of criticism: it focuses our attention on ways the world might be. Philosophy's focus on the possible is the source of its distinctive beauty, and also its special dangers.
- Joshua Cohen

I don't mind philosophy but one has to get used to the fact that they're constantly reworking their definitions and often they don't tell you that that's all they're doing. I think that to do philosophy you have to start within a logic model or structure of some sort and with a series of deductions end up outside of it. If you're still inside then you're not really doing philosophy.

Language is sometimes a poor vehicle for thought. The word "love" for example. Although "love of country" is as old as Latin (amor patriae), has any philosopher ever thought that it was akin to sexual love (eros), or conjugal love, or friendship (philia), or romantic love, or Christian love (agape, caritas)? I doubt it. Do these different kinds of love have anything in common? Do they have anything in common with love of country? Even if you accept the distinction between "explanatory" and "justificatory" reasons for loving someone/something, it is difficult to see how love of country could grow out of love between individuals (with or without a noble Platonic lie.) Keller and Kolodny come closer to the truth, I think, when they compare patriotism with nationalism and racism, for all three have been historically related in the past two hundred years. Why? The answer has little to do with love, and much to do with hatred and fear. Is that an explanation? Or a justification? In any case, a mystery.

Quoting Francoamerican: Language is sometimes a poor vehicle for thought. The word "love" for example. Although "love of country" is as old as Latin (amor patriae), has any philosopher ever thought that it was akin to sexual love (eros), or conjugal love, or friendship (philia), or romantic love, or Christian love (agape, caritas)? I doubt it. Do these different kinds of love have anything in common? Do they have anything in common with love of country? Even if you accept the distinction between "explanatory" and "justificatory" reasons for loving someone/something, it is difficult to see how love of country could grow out of love between individuals (with or without a noble Platonic lie.)

Keller and Kolodny come closer to the truth, I think, when they compare patriotism with nationalism and racism, for all three have been historically related in the past two hundred years. Why? The answer has little to do with love, and much to do with hatred and fear.

Is that an explanation? Or a justification? In any case, a mystery.

Great comment. It captures the reason why I mentioned the diavlog was superficial. It didn't make the distinctions that are necessary, including getting beyond the limitations of language. At the core of group identification and

Quoting Wonderment: Well, beyond the racism/patriotism stuff, there wasn't much that was controversial.

The thoughts about love did remind me of the story of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner (which is probably similar for thousands of other people dealing with Alzheimer's.)

O'Conner resigned from the Court to care for her husband as his health declined with Alzheimer's. Then when he was institutionalized, he took up with a fellow patient -- his new "girlfriend." O'Conner, who obviously loved him deeply, responded to this (obscene and invasive?) news reporting with the observation that her husband was no longer himself. In other words, although she had quit her job because she loved him, he was not him anymore. (Was he anyone? Could he have fallen in love with another woman in any humanly comprehensible way? )

Sandra D-O's love story makes sense to us and speaks highly of her, I think. No one who understands dementia could have thought that the husband "cheated" on her. But the story does raise interesting questions in terms of what we mean by love, commitment, loyalty.

Good story. It certainly leads to more questions.

I am definitely with Buddy Holly on the love question.

Sweet!

Loving relationships are mysterious

Excellent diavlog. No time for a more extensive comment right now, but it seems to me it might be helpful to distinguish patriotism and jingoism.
Someone who readily sells his country's military secrets for money (and without even considering any other reasons) seems like someone who lacks a good form of patriotism. Couldn't we reserve "patriotism" for the good form of patriotism and reserve "jingoism" for the kind of excessive or unreasonable (or excessively proud) love of country that Simon wants to criticize.
When it comes to pride, it strikes me that, sure you can love someone you aren't proud of, but that's not the standard case. The lover is someone who looks for and usually finds reasons to be proud of the one he loves, though there is certainly something wrong if his love is purely based on his pride.
If a parent tells us they aren't proud of their child, we're going to very seriously wonder whether he loves the child at all. Sure, he's not good at playing the piano, but wouldn't a loving parent have found something ELSE to be proud of? (This isn't obviously a matter

I haven't heard the diavlog yet, but I myself am a fan of patriotism. I prefer Dayton, OH to any other city I've been to, I think because it's familiar. It has made me who I am, and I like who I am. My preference for Dayton is a mixture of both "objectivistic" and "subjectivistic" criteria (I just made those terms up). By objectivistic criteria I mean that to some degree I think it really is better than a lot of other places; by subjectivistic criteria I mean that my preference for Dayton doesn't have the same feel as my objectivistic preference for evolutionary theory over creationism (where "preference" seems like too weak a word), but is more like an aesthetic judgment of the superiority of Vermeer over Picasso--there are certain things I want from art, or places, that I get from Vermeer, or Dayton, and that I don't get from Picasso, or Los Angeles; but I recognize that other people might legitimately want other things from their art or their places. I think the comparison to racism is an interesting one. I think the most objectionable kinds of racism are fully objectivistic--ones that say, first, races are natural kinds, and second, certain races have significantly different natural traits from other races, and third, some

Quoting Ocean: Great comment. It captures the reason why I mentioned the diavlog was superficial. It didn't make the distinctions that are necessary, including getting beyond the limitations of language.

At the core of group identification and its consequences (patriotism) lies survival and self defense mechanisms. Love for one's country is the other side of the coin for hatred for, disregard of, and competition with others'.

As I said before, love is dangerous...

Agreed. Les liaisons sont toujours dangereuses.

I haven't heard the diavlog yet, but I myself am a fan of patriotism. I prefer Dayton, OH to any other city I've been to, I think because it's familiar. It has made me who I am, and I like who I am.

Patriotism is a political view. You have reduced it to something considerably more benign in your comments. Affection for one's home town and its values is not what we generally understand by patriotism. Millions of immigrants switch political loyalties all the time, while maintaining plenty of affection (often overdoing it with unrealistic nostalgia), while often becoming "patriots" of their new country. Eg., all the immigrants who rave about "America" and go off to die in its wars. Historically, most people have been lovers of their base territory or home-land without being patriots in any modern sense of the word. Even today, we find millions of people on the move with strong ties to their land and ZERO sense that it is a nation state.

Someone who readily sells his country's military secrets for money (and without even considering any other reasons) seems like someone who lacks a good form of patriotism.

Seems like we could simply view that as an ordinary crime -- a betrayal of our laws -- and we wouldn't have to view it as "treason," a betrayal of the Fatherland.

Couldn't we reserve "patriotism" for the good form of patriotism and reserve "jingoism" for the kind of excessive or unreasonable (or excessively proud) love of country that Simon wants to criticize.

We could, but when you deconstruct the concept it usually comes down to exceptionalism. Given the horrors of nationalism, I would suggest the burden of proof is on the patriot. Why good is patriotism? What does it accomplish that we couldn't accomplish without it? I haven't read the article that critiques patriotism yet, but I'm sure in comparing P to R one feature that comes out is that everything you can say about Fatherland you can also say about being White (or Black): "I love my race because I grew up in it; I'm devoted to its well-being; I'll defend it against its enemies," etc. So my sense

Quoting Francoamerican: Language is sometimes a poor vehicle for thought. The word "love" for example. Although "love of country" is as old as Latin (amor patriae), has any philosopher ever thought that it was akin to sexual love (eros), or conjugal love, or friendship (philia), or romantic love, or Christian love (agape, caritas)? I doubt it. Do these different kinds of love have anything in common? Do they have anything in common with love of country? Even if you accept the distinction between "explanatory" and "justificatory" reasons for loving someone/something, it is difficult to see how love of country could grow out of love between individuals (with or without a noble Platonic lie.)

Keller and Kolodny come closer to the truth, I think, when they compare patriotism with nationalism and racism, for all three have been historically related in the past two hundred years. Why? The answer has little to do with love, and much to do with hatred and fear.

Is that an explanation? Or a justification? In any case, a mystery.

Very well said, FA.

Quoting bjkeefe: Very well said, FA.

Indeed. And as a former Latin scholar, I'll admit this made me sentimental. Perhaps I'll go home after work and reread my Horace.

Quoting Wonderment: ... Given the horrors of nationalism, I would suggest the burden of proof is on the patriot. Why good is patriotism? What does it accomplish that we couldn't accomplish without it?...

Given the state of development of the human race, that has organized around some form of unit, whether it be hunter gather tribes, city states, or the current Westphalian view of Nation States, all units to which patriotism can be ascribed, has occurred within the bounds benefits and protections provided by these units. Given the success of the model isn't it up to those that wish to abandon it to show the viability of what ever it is they are proposing. Does it have it's drawbacks yes but it has seemed to get us to the point where even pacifists can abound in numbers, in relative peace, in some of those units.

Quoting piscivorous: Given the state of development of the human race, that has organized around some form of unit, whether it be hunter gather tribes, city states, or the current Westphalian view of Nation States, all units to which patriotism can be ascribed, has occurred within the bounds benefits and protections provided by these units. Given the success of the model isn't it up to those that wish to abandon it to show the viability of what ever it is they are proposing. Does it have it's drawbacks yes but it has seemed to get us to the point where even pacifists can abound in numbers, in relative peace, in some of those units.

Good points, although I suspect what Wonderment is really after here is the next step in societal evolution. Just as we moved away from tribes to fiefdoms to city-states to nations, it's not unreasonable to think our current mode of organization's weaknesses are becoming ever more problematic.

I have no problem with his conception of a united planet, it is his timing that that I think puts him in a fantasy world. However if we manage to establish representative governance in both Iraq and Afghanistan we well be one minor step forward.

However if we manage to establish representative governance in both Iraq and Afghanistan we well be one minor step forward.

Who's we?

Using a current event as an example, those who wished to prohibit the exhibiting of American flags at The Oaks Apartments in Albany OR have more in common with the bigots who were the reason for the Fair Housing Act than those (some may call them patriots) flying the flags. It was intolerance pure and simple. Just as with the ludicrous decision in Berkeley CA to prohibit the local fire station from placing American flags on fire engines after 9/11, they cave to a few local nuts who are offended by the stars and stripes and are willing to show their hate by causing trouble and creating a 'safety issue'. So I guess on a more level-headed board the question would have been "What's the difference between political correctness and racism?".

Some of Plato's "noble lies" seem like genuinely manipulative lies (if the lie about his mating lottery (that it is genuinely a matter of luck rather than of eugenics by the Philosopher Kings) counts as a noble lie, then that's certainly an honest-to-god lie).
But some of Plato's "noble lies" are not so much lies as helpful metaphors -- they are approximations to the truth for people who do not possess the arcane philosophical understanding of the philosopher kings.
The metaphor of country as parent seems to me to express an important truth -- or anyway something that could plausibly be argued is a truth. It's easiest to justify duties and loyalties that are voluntarily undertaken, like marriage and friendship. You can understand such duties as analogous to promises. What gives the promisee a right to demand something of you?
You yourself gave him that right when you promised. Duties to parents can't be understood as voluntarily undertaken, yet it seems hard-hearted and rather implausible to say that for that reason alone, a child whose parents have loved him not only well but wisely, owes them nothing

If we can have unchosen duties of gratitude to the parents who raised us for raising us well, then it doesn't seem like there's any obvious bar to our owing some duty of gratitude to the community that raised us -- and even more abstractly to the laws of that community.

There is no need, however, to equate the "community" to which one is loyal with the state. Nor does acknowledgment of and commitment to the law necessarily reflect loyalty. For example, when I travel to other countries --- say Russia or Chile -- I obey their laws because I understand them to be basically rational. In no way does that make me a patriotic Russian or Chilean.

If it's admitted that we need this kind of loyalty and that in good and just societies, some degree of this loyalty is a fair expectation of the individual, then what should we call it (if not "patriotism")?

Call it civic responsibility, reciprocal altruism or obedience to the law. The problem with calling it "patriotism" is that it connotes an emotional attachment to the (fictitious) Fatherland. You can fulfill civic responsibilities without a) a fatherland concept or

Quoting Bobby G: I haven't heard the diavlog yet, but I myself am a fan of patriotism. I prefer Dayton, OH to any other city I've been to, I think because it's familiar. It has made me who I am, and I like who I am.

Hi Bobby,
I kind of agree with Wonderment that you are making 'patriotism' rather too broad. I could prefer Paris to any other place on earth and yet still feel myself to be an American and feel that my loyalties are to America. However, I think that last sentence of yours above, is central to the notion of patriotism and to the analogy with parents.

My preference for Dayton is a mixture of both "objectivistic" and "subjectivistic" criteria (I just made those terms up). By objectivistic criteria I mean that to some degree I think it really is better than a lot of other places; by subjectivistic criteria I mean that my preference for Dayton doesn't have the same feel as my objectivistic preference for evolutionary theory over creationism (where "preference" seems like too weak a word), but is more like an aesthetic judgment of the superiority of Vermeer over Picasso--there are certain things I want from art, or places, that I get from Vermeer, or Dayton, and

Quoting piscivorous: I have no problem with his conception of a united planet, it is his timing that that I think puts him in a fantasy world.

I strongly disagree. Many people already have a well-developed "one world" sense, whether for environmental, political, social, technological, or some combination of these reasons. It is in any case inarguable that economic ties between regions of the planet are close to essential for the continued smooth running of those respective regions, and on a related note, there are plenty of powerful people who see national boundaries as largely artificial and something to be gotten around, or past, by any means necessary.* This is not to say that there won't always be value to localities, and plenty of people who value where they live and how they do things there, but we are oozing our way, inevitably it often seems, along a variety of tracks to a place where the concept of nationhood will someday matter as little as, say, one's birth state currently does in a place like Los Angeles or New York. Plus, even if a truly "united planet" remains a long way off, I think it is less a fantasy than an

Quoting Wonderment: There is no need, however, to equate the "community" to which one is loyal with the state. Nor does acknowledgment of and commitment to the law necessarily reflect loyalty. For example, when I travel to other countries --- say Russia or Chile -- I obey their laws because I understand them to be basically rational. In no way does that make me a patriotic Russian or Chilean.

I didn't mean to equate them. However, I don't see how any community larger than a small town could make communal decisions by pure consensus. The state enters in when some people need to be coerced either not to hurt others or to positively contribute rather than free-ride on the others.
You're certainly right that obedience to the law need not reflect loyalty -- it might reflect mere fear of being punished, for example -- or it might reflect the attitude of a guest in another person's house.
When you visit another country, obeying the laws and paying tax on your hotel bill might be regarded as the price of visiting. But if you were born in the US, your taxes can't quite be regarded as the price of

This argument (BN's) seems to rest on a view of the state as some idealized embodiment of some set of values and principles. Judgement of the state is reduced to a binary evaluation by which the state is considered legitimate or illegitimate, with at least the former due "unchosen loyalty". I would offer in contrast a view of the real state as at best a hodgepodge of good and ill whose legitimacy rests in each and every instance and action upon the informed consent of its citizens. I would further argue that rather than having a duty to offer unchosen loyalty to the state, one has a duty to work to bring the at best imperfect state into better adherence with such principles that one considers good, and toward the performance of such actions as one finds beneficial, and to oppose all such actions as one finds opposed to those ends. The state is an artifice constructed upon the common consent as a tool to achieve common ends. As with any other tool, it is reasonable to value any particular instance of the

It also doesn't seem that a democracy could function very well, if we all just regard ourselves as guests, just living here.

I'm not so sure. I mean, we wouldn't regard ourselves as transients at Motel Six, but we could -- as good world citizens -- agree to the rational rules of the society in which we live without identifying with the State.

If you expect the society to take care of those who get sick and can't pay their medical bills etc., mustn't the positive obligation of society to the individual be balanced by an obligation of the individual to contribute?

Yes, of course that's true if you're a citizen, if you're a member of the Girl Scouts, or if you sign a Visa credit card agreement. I'm sure the Visa Corporation would love it if you viewed yourself as an eternally-bound loyal adherent of Visa-ism, if you put a Visa flag on your lawn, and if you solemnly celebrated Visa Founders Day with a barbecue and fireworks; however, none of that seems really necessary to get you to pay your bill each month in return for a $5,000 line

Quoting cragger: This argument (BN's) seems to rest on a view of the state as some idealized embodiment of some set of values and principles. Judgement of the state is reduced to a binary evaluation by which the state is considered legitimate or illegitimate, with at least the former due "unchosen loyalty".

Not really sure what you mean by "binary." I certainly recognize a range of more and less legitimate regimes (e.g., segregationist America of the 40s vs the Soviet Union under Stalin). I'm simply granting that there is a range of parents and a range of regimes to which we would owe absolutely nothing, and then asking you to look for a regime (or a parent) that you yourself would think was good ENOUGH to be due some loyalty -- even though you didn't choose to live there. ("Unchosen loyalty" can sound like I'm saying you have no choice but to do what the state says, which is not what I'm saying. The loyalty need not be absolute obedience. But if you oppose a law, your loyalty might commit you to changing it through the agreed upon process and

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: Are you saying that if you don't agree with a certain tax law (you think it stifles innovation), you should conscientiously be able to evade the tax?

BN and Cragger, in case you missed it, Unit and I had a fairly lengthy exchange on exactly this topic in the thread for the Bob-Mickey DV called 'Atonement.' And we concluded that our different responses to tax evasion (I'd call it crime; Unit seemed to think it was permissable as a response to bad laws) had to do with different notions of what authority states are supposed to command and how 'law' should be defined. Anyway you two might find interesting, and I'd be curious for your take.

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: ... The duty to improve the state that you talk about seems itself to be the result of the kind of loyalty I'm talking about. If someone rejects the duty you are talking about by saying, "I was just born here and I continue to live here because I don't really have a lot of choice -- it's very hard to become a naturalized citizen anywhere -- why should I be obligated to improve the laws of my state?", it sounds like you would reject that. Please note again that I am not saying that we have no choice but to obey the state, I'm saying that we have much less than a totally free choice about what country to belong to and yet we do regard ourselves as owing something (not blind obedience, but a general respect for the law when our only problem with it is that it doesn't serve our own interests and duty to make the law better where we feel it is unjust).

The duty to improve the state comes not from loyalty to the state, but rather to principles with

Many cultures have a long way to go before submitting and adhering to a world hegemony; Witches Punished.

Quoting piscivorous: Many cultures have a long way to go before submitting and adhering to a world hegemony; Witches Punished.

At least Althouse's commenters are living up to the high standard she maintains over there. Good grief.

Having quickly skimmed that fairly long thread I'll reply as quickly with apologies - not up to a major treatise at this hour. You at one point make a concession similiar to one of BN's in this thread. That is, laws passing some test of objection that raises to the level BN referred to as being unconscionable may be disobeyed. Others must be slavishly obeyed. Yes, a loaded term but deliberately chosen. There is of course a basic problem with this in that one person's unconscionable is another's merely objectionable. Beyond that point, your view as I read the thread strikes me as quite authoritarian. Having started with a debate regarding tax policy the "atonement" thread seemed to take you to a position that I would read as considering the American Revolution for example to be unjustifiable. I would not advocate an anarchy in which everyone does whatever they want regardless of the law, but I think there is some validity in what Unit talked about as a "bottom up" dynamic regarding social and legal change. And I again apologize for quickly expressing this in a manner that will undoubtedly sound condescending, but

Thanks Cragger. This is useful. It's been a long day and I'm tired so I'll fire you a quickie too--I'll take the American Revolution as a case and try to explain what I believe generally from there. Revolutions are morally justified, though not legally justified (that's what makes them revolutions), in that the people who revolt do so openly and universally. As in, you proclaim--in the case of the American colonists, via a letter--that you oppose the law as it exists and then you defy it openly. If caught/suppressed, you resist openly. If you do so in sufficient numbers, you may succeed in changing the law--in the case of the colonists, replacing the writ of the Crown with that of an independent Congress--for everyone to whom that law applied. In other words, when the colonists won the Revolutionary War, the writ of the Crown was replaced for EVERYONE who lived in those colonies, not simply for those who happened to have been active in Philadelphia and Boston politics in the mid-1770s. However, had those collections of people in the 1770s political elite simply decided to stop paying unfair taxes themselves/for their

Quoting cragger: The duty to improve the state comes not from loyalty to the state, but rather to principles with which the state is not in adherence. It also encompasses pragmatic considerations. If state actions are simply non-beneficial, and it is likely that in most cases separating the pragmatic from the principled objections is a non-trivial question, perhaps duty is a poor term in those cases, relating only toward those aspects involving violations of principles. It is certainly foolish to fail to work to change the state such that it acts in beneficial ways instead.

Let's dispense with the abstractions. Suppose I have had a good education at state expense. i make a lot of money as a result. My wealth is protected by the police force. My goods are transported over roads paid for by taxes from everyone. Now the tax man comes to me to collect the taxes that would buy these advantages for the rising generation. Can I escape any moral responsibility to pay my fair share by simply pointing out that I never consented to the implicit deal (education now, pay for others' education later)? In fact there's

Let me back up for a second here since I wonder if we are (or I am) getting lost in the weeds a bit as these various tangents spread out. The starting point was a discussion regarding patriotism as an expression of group identification generally encompassing projection of a paternal concept onto the nation state. It seems our basic positions vary regarding whether one owes loyalty to that state, and what that loyalty means if so. You appear to think we do owe loyalty to the nation state, and that this requires complete obedience unless the state as a whole has failed some subjective test of legitimacy, with that test seeming to be sufficient transgression of your moral code. We may protest, we may try within means defined by the state to affect change, but we must obey. This position also seems to be independant of the nature and form of the state. Is this a fair if brief representation? I tend to find this position too absolute. And while I agree that we can and do find advantage and value in cooperative endeavor, and can and do incur

Quoting cragger: You appear to think we do owe loyalty to the nation state, and that this requires complete obedience unless the state as a whole has failed some subjective test of legitimacy, with that test seeming to be sufficient transgression of your moral code. We may protest, we may try within means defined by the state to affect change, but we must obey. This position also seems to be independant of the nature and form of the state. Is this a fair if brief representation?

Hi cragger,
I won't comment on whether your characterization is fair -- as a representation of what I've actually said so far, it may be quite fair. I make no claims about my own clarity of expression in these comments -- though I don't recall saying anything about either "nation states" or about obedience. As a representation of what I think, it seems to go too far. My concern has been with loyalty or duties of gratitude and respect for law rather than with obedience (especially mindless obedience like that of the poor guy waiting all night at the stop light). You can be loyal to your parents

As commonly understood and used, loyalty to friends, teammates, or whoever entails your unwillingness to betray them regardless of degree or absence of weepy sentimental feeling. One may feel sentiment toward another and yet betray them, but that isn't loyalty.

But that's just my point -- loyalty is a disposition to act in certain ways rather than an emotion (if we understand this as merely a 'feeling'.)

And while the following is a reasonable outflow from other Korean mentions, I'm not seeing what it gets at. Perhaps it's a tangent better dropped but I'm not clear whether you think these hypothetical brainwashed and irrevocably subservient Korean women would or wouldn't owe a debt of loyalty to their state and society.

The women and the Koreans were supposed to be different examples. My point was that the society you are born into forms your desires about how you want to live. Even if we were genuinely asked for our consent, it seems that the society gets (to a degree) to set the standards by which we would determine whether to consent or not. It's like the students

I'll start by trying to address at least some of what you just said. I tend not to be too crazy about the quote/reply dynamic since each Q/R pair tends to spawn more Q/R responses that can easily lose the context of how they link back to the main topic, and become an ever expanding set of sub-threads. I will do some of it here as I want to try to respond to some specifics, and will try not to distort context as I shorten things a bit. My references to the nation state and questions of obedience spring from the original context. Patriotism normally refers to the former, and we have dealt with the question of obligations toward the law a fair bit. In particular, to what degree we must obey laws, and for what sort of reasons we are justified in not doing so. It seems to me that we are in some agreement that one may have no obligation to obey laws for several reasons. These include questions of the legitimacy of the state, the legitimacy of the particular law, and matters of reasoned and pratical objection