an argumentative essay on patriotism reduces
the state of a nation
Answers
Patriotism refers to the passionate love one has for their country. This virtue pushes to citizens of a country to work for their country selflessly and make it better. A truly developed country is made up of true patriots. In other words, patriotism means keeping the country’s interest first and then thinking about oneself. Patriotism can be specifically seen during times of war. Moreover, it helps in building the nation stronger. There are other significances of patriotism as well.
MARK AS BRAINLIEST
.......
Answer:
Patriotism is a concept that has intrigued philosophers and political theorists for centuries. It is defined by Stephen Nathanson (1993) as four criteria: special affection for the country, personal identification with the country, special concern for the well-being of the country, and lastly, the willingness to sacrifice to promote the country’s good.
In this essay, patriotism will be examined through two lenses - morality, whether patriotism is morally legitimate or even a moral obligation; and consequences, whether patriotism creates more good or harm.
Patriotism indicates a special addition to a particular political community, although not essential to its existing form of society. Nationalism, with which patriotism is often confused, stands for a very different aspect; the fusion, actual or aspirational, between shared ethnicity and state supremacy. The nation-state, then, is a community in which an ethnic group is politically powerful and sets the terms of communal life. Nationalism, with which patriotism is often confused, stands for a very different phenomenon—the fusion, actual or aspirational, between shared ethnicity and state sovereignty.
Leo Tolstoy (1987) claims that patriotism is not morally received under two arguments - first, that patriotism promotes one’s country’s interests at the debt of other nations, through whatever means significant. This is against any moral precept, as it violates the Golden Rule of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” His second argument stipulates that patriotism is morally questionable due to its irrationality. Those who are patriotic believe their country to be the best, even though only one country can objectively hold that position. George Kateb (2000) strengthens this claim of irrationality. He argues that “citizens” are not discernable individuals, and social ties are impersonal and invisible. As this position is against reason, it is hence an immoral belief. This position is further strengthened by Simon Keller (2005), who believes patriotism to be in bad faith. He argues that the patriot does not judge his country objectively and is surrounded by biases; and as rationality requires objective recognition of a country’s strength, this position is in bad faith.
On the exterior, these arguments appear quite plausible. It seems morally unacceptable and illogical to prioritize your own country above all else. However, a few strong acknowledgments have been levied against this claim. To Tolstoy’s first argument, Marcia Baron (1989) argues that patriotism can be compatible with morality, as love for our country need not override all other moral concerns - for example, there could be universal laws that disregard concern for your own country. Her argument is more convincing than Tolstoy’s, as Tolstoy assumes a strong form of patriotism, whilst Baron’s is more reasonable and realistic. This takes down Tolstoy’s declaration that patriotism necessarily causes maximizing your country’s interest at the expense of all else. Furthermore, patriotism need not show itself into the belief that one’s country is the best. One can feel patriotic about their own country while accepting its flaws and the objective superiority of other countries.
PLESE MARK ME AS BRAINLIEST :))