Be patriotic! ? ——Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism (Part 2)

( Original article published in Good Young Man’s Poison Room-Philosophy Department )

Text｜Pig Text　　

Difficulty: ★★★★★

Preface

Last time I talked about how patriotism, an attitude generally regarded as a virtue, has become a moral evil in the eyes of some philosophers. This idea that national identity has no value is a position of cosmopolitanism, which is based on liberal ethics. However, many philosophers are quite dissatisfied with this moral view. Different from cosmopolitans and liberals, they do not believe that the basis of morality lies only in the rational thinking ability contained in world citizenship. Instead, they advocate that morality must be based on our local identities, such as family and country. ethnic identity. Such thinking may be called communitarianism.

What’s most interesting about the debate between cosmopolitanism and communitarianism is that while cosmopolitans accuse patriotic attitudes of stifling people’s moral thinking, communitarians also accuse cosmopolitans of destroying people’s morality by requiring us to give up our national identity. Life. Why, after all, is national identity important to our moral lives? [1]

Patriots, what do you love?

Before presenting the argument for communitarianism head on, it is necessary to briefly respond to the cosmopolitan criticism of patriotism. First, one of the criticisms is that patriotic attitudes are basically irrational and immoral. Because patriotism is not like cosmopolitanism. It can separate all limiting identities and then objectively examine whether the judgment is reasonable or not. National identity is an indispensable characteristic of a patriot: if he loses this identity, he ceases to be a patriot.

This characteristic is precisely irrational in the eyes of cosmopolitans. Because the good and bad of a nation should be reflected in the sun like all other things, rather than unconditionally embracing one's national identity. A patriot can even be said to be illiberal, because his thinking must be bound by his national identity.

Faced with this criticism, patriots will also admit that they cannot criticize their national identity as freely as cosmopolitans. Having said that, we must first understand patriotism fairly. The key here is not whether there is something that patriots cannot freely criticize (nor can patriotism deny the existence of such a thing), but what exactly is it that patriots cannot criticize. Having clarified this point, we can formally assess the critique of cosmopolitanism.

So what is immune to criticism from patriots? This is definitely not any government in power or specific political action. Any government in power or specific political actions are actually within the scope of rational criticism by patriots. Patriots will not slap themselves in the face for criticizing the government.

The philosopher MacIntyre once used the example of Adam von Trott, the Nazi German diplomat during World War II, to illustrate this point. Adam von Trott had been working for Nazi Germany during World War II, hiding his deep opposition to Hitler and even Nazi Germany. By 1944, Adam von Trott finally carried out his plan to assassinate Hitler. In the end, of course, the assassination attempt on Adam von Trott failed. Hitler narrowly escaped death, and Adam von Trott was immediately shot by the Nazis.

The point of Adam von Trott's story is that his goal was to replace Hitler from within, rather than to overthrow Nazi Germany outright. Because he believed that the total overthrow of Nazi Germany would lead to the demise of this country that was only established in 1871 after many painstaking efforts - Germany. In other words, it is not the identity of a global citizen that has always driven Adam von Trott's actions. He wanted to assassinate Hitler not for the so-called well-being of the citizens of the world as a whole. His motivation comes from being German, and he does this for Germany. [2]

What this example illustrates is that patriots never have to unconditionally accept all decisions of those in power. Those in power are also within the scope of patriot criticism. Adam von Trott As a patriot, he can also assassinate Hitler. More importantly, the story of Adam von Trott also illustrates what patriots really cannot give up: the continuation of the nation as a political group that shares life, culture, and history. Continuing plans and ideals are things that patriots cannot criticize. Adam von Trott could criticize Nazi aggression and criticize Hitler, but what he never gave up was the continuation of Germany's ideals. It was precisely this ideal that led him to assassinate Hitler.

For patriots, all individual leaders, governments, political actions, and regimes are open to criticism, depending on whether they advance or undermine the project of sustaining the nation. Having clarified this point, is patriotism still irrational? It may count (cosmopolitanism may even think it must count), but at least patriotism is no longer blind as it seemed at first, because there are actually many things that patriots can freely criticize. The only thing that cannot be criticized is the continuation of the nation itself (this is very reasonable, because if he does not want the continuation of the nation, he cannot be regarded as a patriot. And the continuation of the nation must often rely on the happiness of his compatriots. . Therefore, the happiness of compatriots has become something that patriots cannot criticize).

So, our next question is, why is the continuation of this political group that shares life, culture, and history so important? The answer of patriotism (or communitarianism) is: without this group, we have no moral life.

To love others, love yourself first?

Why is community an integral part of morality? We can think of a very common saying: If you don’t even love yourself, how can you love others? The idea is that we are not the Almighty God, and we cannot stand from the perspective of an Almighty and love all the citizens of the world from the beginning. Even if cosmopolitanism is right, we should not only love our family, friends and compatriots, but also all citizens of the world. We can do this because we know how to love the people around us in the first place. This kind of "expanded" image of closeness and distance can be said to be our most common understanding of moral learning. If I don’t even love people who belong to the same nation, how can I love those so-called citizens of the world who I have never met and have completely different lifestyles?

However, this argument is weak for cosmopolitans. First of all, is this "expansion" image that seems to be common sense really correct? Nussbaum has argued that this image is not the only possible understanding. She believes that children do not learn to love all human beings by expanding from loving their parents, loving their neighbors, and loving their compatriots: Looking back on the experience of getting along with children, in fact, they are very sensitive to the pain of other people from the beginning, such as When we take children to travel to poor countries, they will always be more sympathetic to the poor people they see than adults. Their concern is so simple and powerful, but we, the so-called mature adults, are contaminated by the national ideology and become indifferent. Nussbaum believes that children have a primitive understanding of human value ("they know something of humanity") long before they learn the distinction between nations. They just realize this idea by loving the people around them. [3]

In addition, even if this understanding of moral learning is correct, for cosmopolitans, it only explains the process of moral life, not the essence of morality. The explanation is like saying: "Because we must learn mathematics from a specific teacher at a specific time, in a specific classroom, with a specific class of classmates. Therefore, there is no mathematics without community." This idea obviously makes no sense, because the process of how we learn mathematics has nothing to do with the content and justification of mathematical truths, why I should be regulated by mathematical truths, and other issues. We will not say that "1+1=2" is based on my experience with those classmates and teachers, even though we learn "1+1=2" through these experiences. In other words, even if we usually or even have to learn morality in special group lives, it does not mean that the content and justification of moral rules, and the answers to questions such as why I should live a moral life, are based on those special group lives.

No universal rationality?

Therefore, communitarians cannot explain the relationship between national identity and morality at the level of moral learning. If the discussion continues, it will inevitably be related to another extremely troublesome question: How are moral rules justified? The general idea of ​​communitarianism is that the common life experience of the community is the main (or even the only) source of justification for these moral rules. [4]

When we ask what role concrete life experiences play in justifying moral rules, we are also asking what pure reason can guide us. Some communitarians with more extreme positions will believe that universal reason is simply powerless or even non-existent; reason alone cannot tell us what we should and should not do. Communitarians are deeply suspicious of the universal rationality that cosmopolitanism exalts.

Communitarianism believes that our moral thinking is never from an impersonal perspective, thinking about what is necessarily right. On the contrary, moral thinking is more like a process of crossing the river by feeling for stones: we have been standing on a moral boat with the people around us. This boat is the object of our reflection, reconciliation, improvement, and expansion, but it also provides provides the only tools and resources that allow us to reflect on, reconcile, improve, and expand it.

Returning to the above example of Adam von Trott, German culture itself was his only resource, allowing him to judge that it was a wrong judgment to embrace Germany. When Nazi Germany sent those Jewish Germans to concentration camps, it violated German culture. For example, many of these Jewish Germans may have sacrificed their lives for Germany in World War I and served their country bravely. According to German culture, they are all outstanding people and should be respected by other Germans and even the government. Nazi Germany's anti-Semitic ideology is not tolerated by Germany's national identity. It can be seen that Adam von Trott's judgment does not need to and should not appeal to the so-called global citizens as a whole. Statements such as "This is for the benefit of the citizens of the entire world" are either nonsense with only rhetorical effect, or they are difficult to prove simply by reason and are agreed by all rational beings.

Is there any universal rationality? Liberals following Kant would certainly think that there are some moral rules that all citizens of the world would agree to if they used reason, such as that one should not lie for the sake of gain. However, can this response successfully refute the communitarians?

What can reason tell you?

Of course, the great debate between cosmopolitanism and communitarianism cannot be explained in a few words here, but even if you feel that communitarianism’s skepticism towards universal rationality is too extreme, you still have to think carefully about the idea of ​​communitarianism. Because even if communitarians take a step back and agree that reason can independently tell us some general moral judgments, they will still say that there are very few things that reason can guide people, so little that it only occupies a very narrow area of ​​our moral life. part.

Perhaps reason can indeed tell us what behavior is wrong and not allowed, such as lying for profit is wrong. Then what? Recognizing what behavior is/is not allowed is only a small part of our moral life. We also want to know what is good, what is brave, what is kind, what is meaningful. Responding appropriately to these questions and choosing wisely can make our moral life so rich, exciting and complex, but it does not seem that simply using reason is enough.

For example, we think it is good to be filial to our parents. However, can it really be justified by reason itself? Imagine that an alien creature with no family life comes to Earth. Can you really prove to it the value of filial piety to your parents based on reason alone? If he is not convinced by you, is he therefore irrational? We find that the justification for these ethical rules relies on the shared life experience of the community. Why is it good to be filial to your parents? Because a beautiful parent-child relationship can make your life happy. Why is such a happy life? Because I, the people around me and even our community have all enjoyed or are currently enjoying this kind of lifestyle. What can prove that it is good to be filial to your parents is precisely those living, concrete life experiences shared by the entire community - that meal with your parents, the laughter at the family reunion during the New Year, the care of your parents Your speaking. For aliens who have not shared these experiences with us, the above ethical rules are incomprehensible, and it is difficult for us to prove these rules to them based on reason alone. Inviting them into this life is the best we can do.

In this regard, the philosopher Putnam once criticized cosmopolitanism for assuming that rationality or world citizenship is the only legitimate basis for moral life, which is absurd. He said: "To understand this error [of cosmopolitanism], imagine someone who thinks that good music should be based on universal reason and should not presuppose any connection with musical tradition - what would we say to him? ? (To see the error, imagine what we would say to someone who argued that good music should not presuppose any prior acquaintance with a musical tradition, but only universal reason)". [5]

To plan our own lives and think about how to get along with others, we not only need to know what is right and wrong, but also what is good and bad, valuable and worthless, kind and cruel, appropriate and inappropriate. These questions cannot be told by reason itself. Without the common life experience of the community, we have no way to find answers and no way to live a moral life. MacIntyre said: "It follows that I find my justification for allegiance to these moral rules. Apart from living in these communities, I have no reason to be moral. rules of morality in my particular community; deprived of the life of that community, I would have no reason to be moral)” [6]

Moral motivation?

Finally, community also provides us with the motivation to act morally. None of us is the Almighty God, and it is very difficult for humans to act according to moral rules. Community is an extremely important motivator that helps us follow our ethics. The reason why I want to be a moral person is because we are all moral people. The reason why I am willing to live by moral rules is because we all do it together. A common moral community is the background that we must presuppose when we act morally.

Only by being placed in a community that shares a moral life can people be motivated to practice morality. Without the respect and criticism of those around us, we cannot become moral agents. Of course, this does not mean that a lonely "moral hero" who "will die despite the millions of others" is impossible - even if it were possible, it would not be a typical example of how we are driven to behave morally. For most ordinary people, community is indispensable.

Value vacuum modern society

Without communities such as nation, we cannot learn morality; without communities such as nation, we cannot prove morality; without communities such as nation, we have no motivation to practice morality. It is therefore the cosmopolitan negative attitude towards national identity that threatens morality.

The experience of living together with members of the nation allows us to learn morality, become moral, and be motivated to practice morality. Therefore, continuing the positive attitude of the nation is the foundation of the entire ethical world.

Looking back on today's world, everyone is an independent atom, or an independent citizen of the world, and communities such as nations seem to no longer exist. Society is no longer a group sharing an ethical life, but a place where individuals cooperate with each other. Is being a citizen of the world really enough to unite us? Is the world without communities really a better place than before?

注腳： [1] 本文主要參考了社群主義哲學家Alasdair MacIntyre 一篇名為”Is Patriotism a Virtue” 的文章。 [2] 這裡關於Adam von Trott 的描述源出MacIntyre。我並沒有查證過是否準確，或許有熟悉納綷德國史的室友會有所質疑，十分歡迎各種指正。不過即使Adam von Trott 事實上並非如此也好，這並不影響MacIntyre 的論點，因為只要這個版本的Adam von Trott 是我們能夠想像且不太罕見的話，MacIntyre 的論點便能成立。 [3] Martha C. Nussbaum For Love of a Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism. [4] 由於問題實在太過複雜，牽連太多道德哲學問題，在此只能盡量從略而務求不失準確。 [5] Hillary Putnam, “Must We Choose between Patriotism and Universal Reason”. [6] Alasdair MacIntyre, ”Is Patriotism a Virtue”.

Good Youth Abuse Room official website
Good young man abuse room Youtube
Good Youth Poison Room Instagram
Good Youth Abuse Room Patreon