Patriotism-A single word with many implications

A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle and patriotism is loyalty to that principle.-George William Curtis

The dictionary defines patriotism as "love and loyal or zealous support of one's own country." The problem with this simple definition, according to Robert Jenson is if we feel superior simply because of where we live, "Are we truly internationalist? Can we go beyond patriotism? Or, in the end, are we just Americans?" Are we truly for peace and justice? Or just our own interests? Consider the idea of political realism in which the interests of other nations are largely irrelevant, except instrumentally. I agree with Jenson that the term “patriotism” has become a word without much value in America today. However, to throw away concepts such as loyalty and pride which were initially entailed within the word ‘patriotism’, I believe is unrealistic. The problem is not patriotism in its prime, it is human tendency to confuse loyalty and pride with superiority and supposed obligation to a single region, culture, ideal, etc., rather than the ever-expanding circle of humanity.

But how can an individual, a patriot, fulfill his or her obligation to humanity without sectoring beliefs or acts based on culture or region and therefore resources, government, and opportunity which stem from natural societal differences? Location, location, location. Loyalty to a landmass is quite different than loyalty to that particular regions ideals and values which are rooted in a specific place coincidentally and therefore uncontrollably. We can only be loyal to ideas due to the uncertainty of the state of a nation at any given time. Pride in and loyalty to such ideas as democracy and freedom can be taken as respect for a particular region simply because this region is the only one of which a person knows and experiences that possess such qualities. However, there is no specific evidence that these ideals hold true to America and only America. As Jenson suggested, all human beings are capable of comprehending if not practicing such morals.

There is a fine line between selfishness and non-arrogant pride. (As long as pride for one’s country or any other form of matter or idea realizes that it is not superior, I believe it can be useful and justified.) When crossed, the chaos of war and ignorance emerges. People begin to place their reasoning for patriotism on George Bernard Shaw’s idea that “Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it.” This is simply ignorance. It is t he assumption of superiority because of location and therefore opportunity and (for the individual) luck. When this ignorance is applied internationally, a stubbornness forms and humanity as a whole may suffer in the end.

At the beginning of class, a question was posed about arguing with “is” claims. From the question, I have derived my own: Should our moral arguments be to persuade people or to find the truth? We have the right to believe what we want to believe (although we can’t always act upon these beliefs) but we don’t have the right to be correct. If everyone was correct, the world would be chaos. Every valid belief or worldview is supported by morals although not all of- actually, most of-these morals can be proven true. We must admit that our observations shape our “is” claims; our accepted knowledge; current scientific facts which are debatable when new evidence is acquired. Observation, research, and history are the most reliable sources to build facts, but is fact always morally right? No. There would not be an “ought” or “should” if what is was correct.

To encompass several of the topics we have considered throughout the semester, morality, although generally accepted based on culture, religion, and experience, is still consistently wavering in that the more answers we find, the more inquiries we find. If A is morally incorrect, contrary to what we believed in an earlier time, then is B, which is closely related to the previous state of A, now immoral as well? And furthermore, can we assume that C, a new proposition, must now be questioned?

For a tangible example, consider our current topic of meat-eating (one of which I am still researching and wavering in, unashamed). If man was to find, based on a series of convincing and true “is” claims, that meat-eating (A) is morally incorrect, then perhaps the question of other generally accepted customs would be questioned. Maybe…deforestation, no matter how minute. Taking this into consideration, several more moral questions would be posed and the search (as the search for any ultimate truth, whether it is for “is” or “ought) would continue and not end until the world did.

Hume's Take On Morals-The Is/Ought Gap and the Impossible Bridge

If they put in a bridge, it would save a of lot of driving miles, but they'll never put that in out here in the middle of nowhere.-Dale Jones

Given our knowledge of how the world is, how can we know how the world ought to be? Hume believed that knowledge is based on experience. The is-ought gap is completely valid and extremely difficult to bridge (although I will attempt and post any possible connection if I am able to create an argument that derives an ought from solely is claims). "Hume's is/ought gap by itself does not entail that subjectivism is true. It is just an observation about what valid arguments for ethical claims require" (wikipedia). He is suggesting that because our individual or cultural experiences, our sense of moral right and wrong are tainted. Empirically, it is therefore difficult for us to possess any idea of moral truths (if they even exist). There are definitely universally accepted moral boundaries but again, they are based on what has been and what is, according to our observations. Much like von Glasersfeld's theory of unconceptualized apples, it is virtually impossible to confidently and conceive a true and right moral act without first basing it upon another moral assumption or generally accepted pre-existing idea.

Indifference

Genetically modified food and animals are becoming more and more popular very rapidly in the United States specifically. Chemicals, preservatives, and growth hormones are being added to improve flavor, size, and look as well as to preserve foods (especially mass produced meat) for longer periods of time in larger amounts. Benefits include improved health of the organisms, resistance to allergies (on both the parts of the foods and consumers), more efficient processing, and increased food security for growing populations. GM foods are cost effective and, some argue, healthier.

Despite these advantages, as with almost every technological advance today, there is ethical opposition to GM foods. Unintended modification could take place and unknown effects could result on the animals and/or humans that consume them. The eco-balance will be disturbed as will natural genetic structure of the animals. In the U.S., the labeling of GM foods is not required so consumers are often ignorant when it comes to what they toss into their shopping carts.

Some believe that “ignorance is bliss”. Even if one chooses not to acknowledge the negatives in meat processing, the production of GM foods, and mass production of unhealthy and sometimes unknown foods, he should at least consider that his ignorance makes him a contributor to animal cruelty, withholding of information, and the “wrong” side of the ethical debate of meat-eating, whichever side that may be, simply because he is indifferent and therefore inactive.

Enjoy and give pleasure, without doing harm to yourself or to anyone else-that, I think, is the whole of morality. –Chamfort

It would be hypocritical for me to say that one shouldn’t eat meat. I’ve eaten it for eighteen years, acknowledging but brushing past the way it is obtained in the United States. I believe that individual ignorance, selfishness, laziness, and indifference are the moral problems rather than meat consumption or even the processes used to obtain such meat in the U.S. Until I was “forced” to deeply research the topic, I did not have a personal active opinion. And now after reading, considering my own habits and morals (which are in the process of being formed each time I learn something new), I have decided to stop eating meat. Why? Because I can.

Should one base his or her actions based solely upon ability? No. If the entire population of the United States stopped consuming meat from animals, there would of course be problems. The animals that were bread for the sole purpose of consumption would most likely not have the traits needed to survive in the wild. If they did, or if humans found a way to keep them alive, overpopulation could occur, although it is unlikely since forced breeding wouldn’t be taking place to produce meat products. According to Joy Williams, (“The Inhumanity of the Animal People,” Harper’s, August 1997P) “On an average day in America, 130000 cattle, 7000 calves, 360000 pigs, and 24 million chickens are killed” to feed Americans. The ways slaughter houses and other industries kill these animals are inhumane and should be looked upon as immoral in a country that frowns upon the killing of innocents. Although there are many people who can survive on a diet without meat, there are those who cannot. The scale upon which the meat industry influences the average citizen of the United States is too grand and too easily accessible. With convenient supply, many Americans don’t think twice about what has happened to the animals they turn into Christmas dinners, and if they do, the thought is fleeting. As an individual, I feel it is my moral responsibility to not support the meat industry and therefore cruelty to animals by not eating meat. If one chooses to consume it, I do not deny them that right if they are conscious about where it comes from and how it is obtained. It would be virtually impossible to turn an entire planet vegetarian, so as long as individuals are informed, I believe that the choice is theirs. Moral wrongness in meat consumption lies not in the consumption itself but rather in an individual’s choice to regard animals lives as equal to or subpar from human’s.

I understand if you believe that there is no ultimate purpose in life...

But how can you have a conversation and feel so connected to someone that it's as if they are your home, and not believe in some purpose for yourself? I still can't comprehend that. The moments that you give someone else a purpose should do the same for you. I'm lucky to have many of those moments on both ends...just thought I'd share.

Awareness and Self-Identity

http://www.loveoftruth.org/selfdiscovery.htm

Greater awareness does not come in a single blinding flash of enlightenment. It comes slowly, piece by piece, and each piece must be worked for by the patient effort of study and observation of everything, including ourselves.- M. Scott Peck

I found (as Professor DJ did) that many students (myself included) are having trouble supporting their beliefs with concrete evidence or labeling themselves as strictly theist, atheist, or even agnostic. I wonder, is this due to our young age? I think that is partially the case. One of my sociology professors once told us that when most of us our young we are “like big chalk boards and then, ’they’ write all over” us. As we grow older and the pressure to fit in or have an identity increases, “Your idea of who you are is your idea of what you think they think of you.” When do “they” stop influencing our beliefs? When we decide not to let them anymore.
Religion plays an astronomic part in the formation of one’s identity, character, beliefs, values, and morals. So what plays the biggest roles in the formation of religion, and therefore self-identity?

The above image is Ian Wholstenholme’s theory of how we form our identities. Quite often, we base our beliefs on what we experience through our bodies, thoughts, and emotions. When we enter into the spiritual realm, says Wholestenholme, we open ourselves up to an awareness beyond ourselves. We are aware of what we see and know. What we know affects how we think and feel. How we think and feel determine how we act. How we act portrays who we are. But do others always interpret who we are the way we do?

Wholstenholme believes that “at different times you are experiencing life through different domains” (the viewpoint of a “seer).This viewpoint offers one possible answer as to why we are having trouble fully expressing our religious beliefs. I think that once we as individuals are secure in our beliefs, whether they are theist, atheist, or agnostic, it will become easier for us to express and support them for others. But at such a young age, in the college stage which is about discovery and the building of ourselves through observation, experience, and the consideration of outside ideas, it is difficult (though not impossible) to express and justify our beliefs.

For those who are confident in their beliefs, good for you. That takes strength. For those that aren’t, however, keep searching. You are not hypocritical simply because you are changing.