Based on our discussions in class, I have concluded that most people who fully support the aggressive nature of nationalism are just ignorant to the fact that what they are supporting is immoral. They blindly support nationalism without questioning it because they feel that they are just being loyal to their country. They probably feel that questioning nationalism would be questioning the morals of their country, which would be unpatriotic. Feeling like true patriots, they don't feel like what they are doing is wrong, because they are just supporting their country. Maybe if these people were more informed, they would think about it before blindly supporting nationalism. Although, I am sure there are people who would still support nationalism even if they were fully informed.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Why Does Anyone Support Nationalism?
Question: I
feel as though there are far too many people in America who not only blindly
support patriotism, but also fully support nationalism. Why do so many people
think that the aggressiveness of nationalism is not only perfectly justifiable,
but also completely moral?
Based on our discussions in class, I have concluded that most people who fully support the aggressive nature of nationalism are just ignorant to the fact that what they are supporting is immoral. They blindly support nationalism without questioning it because they feel that they are just being loyal to their country. They probably feel that questioning nationalism would be questioning the morals of their country, which would be unpatriotic. Feeling like true patriots, they don't feel like what they are doing is wrong, because they are just supporting their country. Maybe if these people were more informed, they would think about it before blindly supporting nationalism. Although, I am sure there are people who would still support nationalism even if they were fully informed.
Based on our discussions in class, I have concluded that most people who fully support the aggressive nature of nationalism are just ignorant to the fact that what they are supporting is immoral. They blindly support nationalism without questioning it because they feel that they are just being loyal to their country. They probably feel that questioning nationalism would be questioning the morals of their country, which would be unpatriotic. Feeling like true patriots, they don't feel like what they are doing is wrong, because they are just supporting their country. Maybe if these people were more informed, they would think about it before blindly supporting nationalism. Although, I am sure there are people who would still support nationalism even if they were fully informed.
Response to "Proximity Partiality" by Corbin Brassard
In this post, I will be responding to Corbin Brassard's post, entitled "Proximity Partiality."
http://corbinbrassard.blogspot.com/2013/03/proximity-partiality.html?showComment=1362967293378#c9166677569819653079
In Corbin's post, he argues that everyone should be partial to the people close to them, and if everyone does this, then everyone will be cared for. For me personally, I like the idea of cosmopolitanism. However, I also am aware that it is not really possible to be a true cosmopolitan. I really like Corbin's argument and I agree with him that partiality by proximity is probably the best way to care for everyone, if everyone follows it. Although true cosmopolitanism does not allow for any partiality whatsoever, I feel like in a way, the end result of partiality by proximity is cosmopolitanism because if everyone is partial to the people around them, then the end result is that everyone is cared for. If people know that this is the result of being partial to their neighbors, then aren't they choosing to be partial for the benefit of everyone? In this way, I now believe that people who are partial to the people close to them for the benefit of everyone, are actually cosmopolitans.
http://corbinbrassard.blogspot.com/2013/03/proximity-partiality.html?showComment=1362967293378#c9166677569819653079
In Corbin's post, he argues that everyone should be partial to the people close to them, and if everyone does this, then everyone will be cared for. For me personally, I like the idea of cosmopolitanism. However, I also am aware that it is not really possible to be a true cosmopolitan. I really like Corbin's argument and I agree with him that partiality by proximity is probably the best way to care for everyone, if everyone follows it. Although true cosmopolitanism does not allow for any partiality whatsoever, I feel like in a way, the end result of partiality by proximity is cosmopolitanism because if everyone is partial to the people around them, then the end result is that everyone is cared for. If people know that this is the result of being partial to their neighbors, then aren't they choosing to be partial for the benefit of everyone? In this way, I now believe that people who are partial to the people close to them for the benefit of everyone, are actually cosmopolitans.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)