Independence Day and the pragmatics of patriotism

[melvin_udall]

After the cut is a somewhat long read. I feel it's worth it. A side note before the post:

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin was queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation as to what form of government the people of America would have. He responded to the crowd:

"A republic, if

Comments

[montanaisaleg]

I've only read this once, so this is just my first reaction to it, but as I read it I couldn't help thinking that something was missing. As I got closer to the end I realized what it was: Heinlein seems to be saying that duty and loyalty are, in and of themselves, moral traits. I agree that duty and loyalty are praiseworthy traits, but to say that the simple fact of duty and loyalty makes one a more moral person ignores the motivations that the person may have for his duty and loyalty. My loyalty to the CEO of my company could just be my way of advancing my own career. The CEO tells me "that guy is a threat to my job. Plant evidence of theft from the company in his desk so I can fire him. Do this and I'll promote you." I do so. That's showing loyalty (and to an extent a sense of duty), but it's not a moral act.

The same can be said of acts of blind patriotism. I may think it's in the best interest of the nation I love to get rid of all opposition to my chosen political party. Toward this end, I imprison, kill, or threaten people until there is no effective opposition. I did it because I honestly thought it was for the greater good of my country, but it's still an immoral act.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, or maybe not enough. I'm not a fan of America-haters, the Americans who are convinced that the US is almost always wrong. I think patriotism, duty, and loyalty are all ideas worth striving for, but I don't consider them to be moral ends by themselves.

Still, this is a good read, and I like Heinlein, so thanks for posting it.

[meus_ovatio]

It's called Confucious Say.