The Consequences Of Patriotism In A Civilized Society

One of the things the United States is known for best is its rampant patriotism. Whether its 1930 or the present day, one thing remains the same Americans love their country. During special periods of time however, events happen that make Americas already fiery patriotism burn brighter. Many years ago during the period of time known as the “Red Scare” the United States mistrust of all things communist and anarchist led to very nationalistic feelings among the populace. After the 2001 9/11 terrorist attacks the country the country was left shaken. The fear of terrorist made the American rally behind their military and country even more than before.

But what does patriotism means to me? It means of course to have love for our homeland we should always respect our homeland because that’s where we come from, our country, if we living in a country we should respect it because they give you the privilege to live there, to support, to be inspired by, and to change our lives from the way we live them. What many has got confused is they believe they showed their love for this country by donating, or doing things for example, clothes, shoes, in line to donate blood, joining the army. But what people don’t know it’s that Patriots support the countries in every way possible. But that does not mean Americans has to agree with anything that the president says, we all have our rights to speak what

Patriotism is not blindly following ones country as some think. Patriotism is working to ensure you’re your country lives up to your moral and ethical values both at home and abroad. As well as being critical of your country when it does not live up to those standards. Patriotism as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary is “The quality of being patriotic; love of or devotion to one's country” (Oxford 2014). That’s it. It doesn’t say you have to take any specific action like flying the flag, serve in any function such as the armed forces or support any particular party for election. However; devotion is usually manifested in some type of behavior. In fact the definition is open to interpretation and subjective at best. True American

"There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all... One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly...I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law."

American Patriotism can be defined in different ways. When people think of the word patriotism, most often say "to love one 's country". That is true in some aspect, but being patriotic means much more than that. In the words of Mark Twain, he states, “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” True patriotism is to support what 's best for this country and contribute in ways to help that can be beneficial for everyone. However, to a socialist, patriotism can be viewed within three main perspectives: the functionalist, conflict, and symbolic interactionist perspective.

All Americans should find their opinion on patriotism and voice that opinion. There are many different views of patriotism and many will clash, but if we continue to talk and use our minds instead of our fists or guns, we can eventually come to a compromise of both ideas, which will best represent everyone’s opinions on patriotism. Through more clearly and fairly defined ideas of patriotism we can better understand the actions of our fellow Americans and avoid more unnecessary conflicts caused by extremist ideas being the only ideas heard.

Breaking the law is morally justifiable and acceptable when the law in itself is iniquitous and if that law violates human rights and conscience; Certainly, rules are established for us to follow but we as human beings should be able to differentiate the right and the wrong and incase laws need to be violated for the right cause even with hard consequences, breaking the law can be justified; considering the situations and the purposes.

In Plato’s Crito, Socrates talks about his obligations to follow the law. Although Socrates understands that the Athenian democracy has committed an unjust action by sentencing him to death, he is unwilling to escape with Crito. He understands that an injustice should not be answered with injustice, but there are times when one should question the law. In Socrates’ Defense and the Crito, Plato discusses when one ought to follow the law and when ought to not follow the law. One not only has the obligations to follow the law, but they are also obliged to break the law if it is unjust because it will then improve The Law.

Breaking the law might or might not be morally permissible in special situations. It is not clear whether it is morally correct to always follow laws. Two points of view were examined: Martin Luther King in the “Letter from Birmingham City Jail” and Socrates in “Crito”. King, (1991) says that breaking the law can be excused for good reasons. However, Socrates says that breaking the law is never permissible (Gallop, 1997). Breaking the law is not moral because it breaks the conditions to be a citizen.

America is great, strong, beautiful, and proud but I believe some things could be announced more often. In the America I Believe in we have patriotic respect to our country, equality, and freedom of speech without being judged.

Although the American people have always been patriotic, younger generations are becoming less patriotic, specifically in that they are less likely to say that America is the greatest country in the world. There are many factors behind this decline in patriotism, but they are primarily rooted in global politics and contemporary American society. Younger generations have not experienced the world as the older generations have, causing them to have a different view of the world around them.

The source states that nationalistic ideals can very easily cause harm to the citizens of a nation, and can also alter their thoughts and actions. This clearly suggests that it opposes nationalism; in fact, the source condemns nationalism by saying that it is to blame for most of the genocides that have occurred in the twentieth century. This indicates that any feeling of pride toward one’s own country can, given time, become devastating. This patriotic emotion, according to the source, has the full potential to inflate and to become an ultranationalistic feeling strong enough to spark conflict with other nations. In addition, the source mentions that flags are “bits of colored cloth that governments use first

The Americans were Patriots because, they were people who wanted American colonies to gain independence from Britain. They wanted to do their own thing, and have their own laws. They wanted to break free from British government who they thought was unfair.

Before a discourse of the specified topic can be laid out, definitions of a few terms must be distinguished. Firstly, nationalism and patriotism are two distinctly different concepts that are often used interchangeably to represent a similar school of thought. By no means, are they mutually exclusive or unrelated ideologies, but nationalism and patriotism differ in their approaches to expressing love for one’s country, respectively. These definitions can be best understood on the shoulders of essayist and drama critic, Sydney J. Harris, “The Difference Between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility while the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to a war (Harris, 1953).” While the latter definition may be a bit extreme, the general impression is still applicable. An understanding of the dichotomy between nationalism and patriotism, and how

Societal obedience is one of the foundational aspects required to ensure the functionality of ruling institutions, regardless of political ideologies or governing practices. Without collective deference, governmental growth would stagnate, and individual freedoms and liberties would be truncated as a response to civil disorder. The following paper will attempt to provide an adequate response to a phenomena which has consistently been debated and analyzed since the original sin of Adam and Eve. Utilizing textual evidence stemming from the works of Plato and Aristotle, mainly Crito and Politics, this work will focus on the Platonic and Aristotelian aspects which entice individuals to oblige and conform to the rule of law, even in situations when these laws are detrimental to themselves, or their societies. Firstly, this composition will partake in an analysis of Platonic theory regarding the roles and obligations expected of individuals within a society, referencing specific examples from Crito and other scholarly works. In succession, this paper will then dedicate a portion to Aristotle’s view of civilian expectations, and the factors which contribute to an individual’s willingness to accept and comply to governmental guidelines in his philosophical opinion. The concluding remarks of this paper will strive to provide a thoroughly scrutinized comparative analysis of the two theories in an attempt to reach an appropriate solution to the abovementioned question.