Killing for the Homeland: Patriotism, Nationalism and Violence Author(s): Richard W.

Miller Source: The Journal of Ethics, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1997), pp. 165-185 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25115543 . Accessed: 05/10/2011 12:04
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Ethics.

http://www.jstor.org

RICHARD W.MILLER

KILLING FOR THE HOMELAND: PATRIOTISM, NATIONALISM AND VIOLENCE

(Received and accepted 1 June 1996)
ABSTRACT. Political choices favoring one's country or one's nationality are wrong if

they conflict with a principle of universal free acceptability, prohibiting choices that violate every set of rules towhich any willing cooperator would want all to conform. Despite its universalism, this principle requires patriotic favoritism in political choices and permits
individuals to assert nationalist interests in claims for state aid. But it deprives and patriotism nationalism free

and nationalism of any distinctive role in establishing the legitimacy of wars and uprisings.
These restrictions are appropriate even for if stronger achieving forms social of patriotism required are psychologically acceptability. KEY WORDS: nationalism, violence, war indispensable goals for universal

patriotism,

Advocates

to patriotism and uprisings and commonly appeal a first step is the moral force of these rationales? As nationalism. What I will argue that a certain princi toward assessing their moral credentials, is an adequate moral basis for assessing of universal free acceptability ple favoritism toward one's country or one's nationality in normal political

of wars

as opposed to state-enforced choices, i.e., choices institutions, among decisions violence. This principle bases moral concerning large-scale duties on rules that all willing cooperators would want to share. Although it does not mention any special duty of group loyalty, it turns out to entail and a limited right to compatriots of cultivating one's nationality. are attempts to protect, Since patriotic wars and nationalist uprisings or create state-enforced institutions of distinctive kinds, this initial expand but claim state resources limited duty as means regu inquiry gives reason to suppose that the same universaUst principle of patriotism and nationalism lates the moral credentials in justifying wars as well. In the second stage of my argument, and uprisings, Iwill describe the strict limits political ability: nation's itwould decision to patriotism and nationalism in a morality of large-scale which is based on the principle of universal free accept a morally as to whether to support one's in decision responsible never makes warmaking all right when going to war, patriotism violence have been wrong apart from considerations of national to support an uprising in the interest of one's nationality interest; a iswrong a substantial to favor

The Journal of Ethics 1: 165-185,1997. 1997Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in theNetherlands. ?

166 unless the uprising responds merits violent

RICHARDW. MILLER to entrenched for and profound disrespect those who have no interest in by of universal which free

persons which the cultivation

If my a general moral is moderate position between callous

opposition of that nationality. are right, the principle arguments doctrine of broad

acceptability a plausible, grounds appeal on patriotism, and violence, in coercion nationalism, and the worldwide diffusion of concern. exclusivity

found in the work there is a type of counterargument, of However, and others, which David Miller threatens all of my Alasdair Maclntyre, and nationalism. This sort of efforts to limit the authority of patriotism sets by arguing that limits that a moral universalist challenges objection of strongly patriotic social goals on which she insists require the prevalence or nationalist informed expression violates those limits. whose attitudes, To defend my limits to I will end by struggling with this challenge. Iwill reject the widely held assumption that one patriotism and nationalism, ought not to condemn conduct that is a rational, fully informed expression of that attitude to the prevalence the way to a radical form goals. rejection opens one accepts in which of prevalent the desirability of moral ambivalence that accurately express them. policies political attitudes while condemning turn out to make free acceptability will such of universal The principle at once a cause of specially painful moral and an loneliness ambivalence advance political one's moral attitude takes This indispensable moral resource. of a certain if one

SOME HELPFUL CONSTRUALS

To assess we need specific the proper roles of patriotism and nationalism, of those attitudes. The following will mark off the crucial dis construals tinctions for our purposes. I. Patriotism

in deciding favoritism toward one's compatriots is significant to support serious uses of political coercion. Imean those whose home is in the territory of one's By "compatriots," most comprehensive who support its continued effectiveness government, most of the time) or who would play this obedience (at least by willing whether civic role if they were capable political conception of patriotism does not capture all familiar political conception our discussion, uses of the term, but the stipulation will help to organize turn out to have a distinctive since bias based on purely civic ties will other rationales sometimes for attitudes labelled moral rationale, while this purely This purely of doing so. One with favoritism could toward identify roughly fellow-citizens.

KILLINGFOR THE HOMELAND 167 under "patriotic" will be considered need for efficient discussion Another favoritism institutions toward compatriots, continue to govern instead. the heading of "nationalism," motivates exclusive my emphasis on as opposed to a desire that one's country's

yet unborn. Such desires for the generations in investigating future usually reflect, in part, a desire, which Iwill discuss to flourish. Usually, that shared cultural practices continue nationalism, they also reflect, in part, a desire that others live under morally justifiable I will discuss as an underpinning of patriotic institutions, which political choices explicitly my in my purely civic construal. For hybrid investigate will of its purer components this complex, of space, I will not toward the future, but indicate how to assess its moral attitude reasons

appraisals

authority. that will advance our inquiry, regardless of whether it A final stipulation that patriotism serious usage, is the requirement captures ordinary regulate uses of political coercion. Beyond some people the scope of this stipulation, ill at ease with foreigners, feel at home with compatriots, giving rise to to about whom that can affect important personal decisions preferences to live. But the same can be said of to marry, or where befriend, whom toward those who share a love of Verdi's operas. It is obvious partiality are morally in both cases that the choices motivated by the preferences But the moral of these (i.e., not morally legitimacy legitimate wrong). sorts of partiality obviously does not entail any resolution of our questions, of what goals others may be forced to serve and of what goals questions may be promoted Analogously, II. Nationalism by killing. it is useful to adopt the following construal:

or toward toward one's nationality is significant favoritism of it, a favoritism governing one's support of serious uses of political coercion. are the ties of nationality? What The following, definition complex seems to capture the commonalities are addressed. to which nationalisms fellow-members are people who share common of a nationality cultural some of them find it vitally to cultivate and practices, important wish that others would, practices in the course of early typically acquired taken to descend, in this familial way, from cultural ancestors upbringing, who once lived together, and much more easily cultivated if the culture Fellow-members which sharers live together. Such cultivation the consist of celebrating might shared distinctive ways, embodying them in public activities and artifacts or promoting their survival. In speaking of this activity as vitally important to someone, person's that this is a centrally important project in a rational life, part of the way she gauges the success of her life as a whole. I mean

168 Thus, nationalism inherited cultural the cultivation

RICHARDW. MILLER

toward those whose is, very roughly, political favoritism makes one feel at home with them or toward background background.

of that cultural

FAVORITISM AND UNIVERSAL RESPECT

Patriotism harsh and nationalism can motivate of weaker support for state-enforced to celebrate patriotic holidays to concentration nationalities institu and as

tions as mild

as the use of tax money

My

camps. or nationalism would motivate argument will be that when patriotism this arrangement ismorally enforced arrangement, support for a coercively can be established in an argument whose sole wrong unless its legitimacy for persons is a principle normative premise requiring respect regardless or nationality. of citizenship This fundamental premise version of Kant's is reminiscent of the "kingdom of ends" formu Scanlon's of universal free

as the confinement

categorical imperative Iwill call lation of contractualist morality.

and resembles

it the principle

acceptability:
A choice is morally constrain wrong if it conflicts with commitment to every total set of rules which

any willing cooperator would rationally willingly

cooperators their pursuit of self-interest.

accept as rules by which all willing

I mean the sort of By "a willing cooperator," lack avoid reliance on others' coercive inferiority, as a basis for acceptance of shared abnegation have the same preference for informed, unforced Imean an inclination to give

to seeks person who or self of information rules when the others

By "self cooperation. to one's own interests less weight abnegation," than to the same interests in others. Often, it will do no harm to simplify of every set of into the claim that wrongness is violation this principle if she sought rules that anyone would want all to impose on themselves that does not depend on coercive acceptance to this principle the desire Commitment expresses trust of all those who respect one's own autonomy while informed for their own inferiority. to be worthy of the insisting on respect is required for the height someone a

of virtue.

But

autonomy. No doubt, much more an overriding desire of this kind at least makes

if her acts person, a person who avoids wrongdoing morally responsible am a morally are faithful to her goals. After all, I i.e., a person, responsible if and only if I have an overriding person who seeks to avoid wrongdoing, desire that my that I chose not depend otherwise. to others even when they would prefer be justifiable must The justification I seek (if morally responsible) on others' seems a or self-abnegation. Yet it fear ignorance, choices

KILLINGFOR THE HOMELAND 169 fatal excess would make inmaximizing moral theories, such as utilitarianism, on a claim to have done what that they

the most sorts of justification to one side, choice to others is to show that it is compatible with rules by which they, as well as I, would want all to live if we did not want to rely on others' or coercive inferiority. ignorance, self-abnegation

justifiability depend or the most good happiness

produces for the world at large. Putting these in justifying my the remaining option

PUTTING COMPATRIOTS FIRST

A serious use of coercion wrong. Sometimes, one has a specially provide or else it ismorally requires a moral justification, is justified because for biased political coercion support to support the use of state power to duty demanding

one's own group. The principle of universal free such duty-based often produces for patriotism, justifications acceptability it never does so for nationalism. though for those within A co identifying moral duty with rules that each willing want all to uphold might not seem to entail much in the way or foreigner. duties to help anyone, compatriot enforceable it rational for vulnerabilities that we all share would make all to coerce

principle operator would of coercively Admittedly, each to want from his

a dire burden.

to relieve in trivial ways when this is needed One may save the drowning child by tearing a life saver to ornament the hands of the horrid person who wants it to continue

out to sea. Indeed, if it that itmay instead be washed is obvious that taking the life saver from its selfish owner will be easy and that the cost to him of humane use (perhaps with some compensation) lawn and fears be small, in some it is wrong not this minimal countries, to take

will

the life saver from him. At least of nonindifference would duty justify a minimal for aiding victims of since facilities patriotism, correspondingly at small cost are apt to aid those close at hand. But it is dire emergencies not clear that even this much patriotic favoritism would be justified in a

occur abroad rich country at present, since so many desperate emergencies and international is very good. transport In any case, most of us do support governmental of help to provision seem far in excess of this minimal demand. It might needy compatriots requirement of this much support must rest on an independent, fundamental if the universaUst alternative is the duty of patriotic solidarity, But in fact, this principle creates of universal free acceptability. principle a powerful supporting of provision for needy compatriots, requirement to one's government. their subordination as a basis for that a moral

170

RICHARDW. MILLER

For familiar Hobbes-and-Lockean prefer virtually that conformity inferiority her desire

reasons, every rational person would to none at all. But it is hard to insure any government can be based on mutual respect rather than the coercive the dominant of those outside coalition. To reconcile political

to the laws she supports with her desire to avoid coercive inferiority, a respecter of autonomy will want relying all who are subject to the political she supports to have an arrangements to conform. incentive noncoercive adequate in current state This incentive exists just in case there is no change that all conform on others' arrangements ing the typical deprivation by improv of some without life-prospects creating at least as much of others. For otherwise, by lowering the typical life-prospects more to gain from change than others have to lose from it that would relieve serious

enforced

deprivation those with would

if they were adequately if informed, change current arrangements were not self-abnegating, resources if they had equal coercive and they if they participated in equally powerful for example, coalitions. political

When

political resources are evenly dispersed, political arrangements move to use their in the preferred direction of those with the greatest motivation resources. Thus, a person who wants to be worthy of the trust of those who insist on their own autonomy will only seek to subject others to coer are affected if no one's typical life-prospects cively backed arrangements a serious motivation to change in a way that produces them significantly to preserve than anyone's serious motivation them (By "life greater Imean in the course of one's life given likelihoods of success prospects," degrees

inferiority). unequal in the life-prospects To a very large extent, improvement of those whose are least because their parents are relatively poor will remove prospects more deprivation than it will impose on those with better life-prospects. farmworkers enriched education for the children of migrant reduce the life-prospects of the children of investment bankers, but the may for the former. So burden on the latter is not apt to equal the improvement a source of powerful the duty to provide an adequate is incentive to conform Tax-financed to help those worse-off. this duty only extends In scope, however, one to those whom one seeks to subordinate to the political arrangements in supporting To avoid moral institutions that upholds. irresponsibility demands they are forced to obey, one must incentives for conformity. Beyond as aid such measures sustaining United States taxpayers' expense. support providing adequate noncoercive this limit (in effect, the national borders), to Armenian So a US victims earthquake citizen's favoring people at the in the

to make sacrifices of willingness are not effects of coercive effort

for it. Inequalities

wholly

due

to

political duty is only guided by minimal principles of nonindifference,

KILLINGFOR THE HOMELAND 171 South over poorer people in Bangladesh, when she decides what aid to support, could be patriotism justified by duties inherent free acceptability. in the principle of universal to dispense with obligations toward If itwas always morally legitimate to speak of these itmight be misleading elsewhere, by moving compatriots Bronx tax-financed

as patriotic, since it is strained to speak of a freely disposable obligations or state - terms tie as a tie to "one's own" country (nation, government for the dominant that I will use interchangeably unit). But the political more substantial ties. free acceptability sustains principle of universal its hour For example, of need one's country in the principle does not permit deserting in order to avoid small costs and risks. Every willing

communities based of political cooperator must regard the maintenance on trust as an important good. After all, it would be irrational to constrain in order to be worthy of the trust of alliances one's pursuit of political based insist on their own autonomy, on such trust as an important goal. based on political community preserving of staying and helping such a community those who life if one did not regard political reasons, this goal of trust is best served by a practice cope with severe stress. So if the to itwould be wrong for a billionaire For obvious the annoyance of traffic jams due cooperator to

a shambles, becomes US economy move to the Bahamas just to evade the unemployed. demonstrations by under

help in defending a duty could arise to accept her country from attack. In extreme cases, to help compatriots that put one's life in jeopardy, rather than obligations elsewhere. these demands that there is a by moving evading Suppose military in one's of political threat to the very existence based on trust community own country. Or suppose that invasions the world throughout inmany parts the basic elements of such community threaten to eliminate of the world for a long time, through injustices that are apt to succeed unless of their common one's country makes war in response. Because goal of

Considerations of this kind can give every willing a just regime a reason to volunteer if this will

living

based on trust, every willing community cooperator preserving political a rule which dictates obedience to conscription, would accept rationally there is a reasonable, democratic determination that if, in such a situation, is needed for victory. The wrongness of draft-evasion in these conscription creates a special tie to one's own country. However, extreme circumstances the tie is based on universaUst the need to rely considerations, reflecting on governments (not private armies of the just) to guard against certain to let more than of a commitment threats, together with the intolerability one sovereign government control one's life.

172

RICHARDW. MILLER

NATIONALIST INTERESTS
The moral reflects a special moral need to respect legitimacy of patriotism others' autonomy when that they would be forced to supporting policies to favor compatriots If no one were in political obey. initially disposed the principle of universal free acceptability would choices, give each a reason there to be some government. It is to favor fellow initially disposed his or her nationality, the no one a reason to give of

to do so, since all, if rational, want If no one were different with nationalism. members principle

or to cultivate of his or her nationality of universal free acceptability would

change. Many willing their own nationality Still, the principle to display individuals

do not specially care about members cooperators or about the cultivation of their own nationality.1 of universal nationalist

thing to claim that a person his serious interests, quite another matter to allow that he may legitimately assert these interests in discussions of how state power should be deployed. a nationality and the wish that they survive The distinctive practices of can be

free acceptability sometimes permits in political It is one favoritism choices. to provide has a duty to force others for

so important that cultivating in the life of a willing cooperator in living depends. So the is a project on which her success those practices to life-prospects that morally attention demands responsible citizenship to her nationalist interests, as it requires attention may require attention to economic and to nonnationalist cultural interests (for example, interests the no less serious interest in music of a Japanese lover of Verdi's operas). There may be circumstances inwhich a failure to employ political coercion to help in the cultivation create the burdensome of her nationality would status quo that is incompatible with universal free acceptability. could be the inferior One source of this need for state intervention private a person whose of people of her nationality. Perhaps to the flourishing of her thriving depends on her enjoying and contributing need to live in a place where this culture has a consequent nationality's resources that cost money, and elaborated in facilities but there is expressed to support such facilities privately because members is inadequate money of her nationality tend to have relatively low economic On life-prospects. someone with a life-project her Mexican these grounds, of cultivating culture American Chicano 1 support candidates nationality might theater groups. In addition, apart from who any favor special taxfunded inadequacy

For the organizational reasons that I gave before, I neglect the possibility thatwidely shared ties to political institutions might themselves constitute ties of nationality. The discussion of patriotism has already brought out the extent towhich such ties could be ties
of duty.

KILLINGFOR THEHOMELAND 173 on have a legitimate nationalism resources, might bearing of one's nationality will the distinctive choices because practices political and inevitably, by certain governmental be affected, institu-, significantly someone with the concern tions. On these grounds, living in Los Angeles of private for Mexican-American sympathetic schools. treatment culture of Chicano I described and Mexican and support detailed in Los Angeles history the nonpolitical impact of specific would

apart from Finally, the cultivation of a nationality is enormously enhanced public institutions, itself. So someone with a it has a role in the practice of government when special interest in her nationality will have reason to want her nationality's public as to be recognized language want holidays her celebrating three kinds could relevantly creating relevant burdens on an official nationality language of government to be declared. Measures and to of all

the coercive Then, powers service of a special interest in nationality. nationalist interests in politically coercive Still, measures facilitating a severe strain on liberal individualist principles. Because ways seem to put in a territory, such they are apt to neglect all but the largest nationalities policies
apparent.

life prospects without improve someone's anyone on the scale of that improvement. in the of government should be deployed

seem

cooperator

have

to conflict with an adequate

the requirement that every individual willing is only incentive to conform. But the conflict

the principle of universal free acceptability does dictate equal Although can explain why and how the size of a nationality counts. respect for all, it resources to advance his that everyone's claim on state-provided Suppose interest in the cultivation in so many languages, published in the schools, so many holidays individuals' one's of his nationality were satisfied. Laws would be so many groups' histories would be taught that the decline inmost would be declared

lives would be greater than the greatest enhancement of any life. (Even without the diversity of nationalist interests that I assume, as serious and demanding as any there will be many individual life-projects nationalist for ones, so that a political effort to provide adequate facilities all nationalist with all equally central implementing life-projects together nonnationalist Despite still might ones would create these consequences insist on applying someone provision, a burden the unqualified in rule, "Remove as great a burden," to the claims of the first a similar disaster.) of universal impartial

any way that does not impose groups whose claims happen to be considered, stopping when the clutter is too burdensome. about to become But this overly literal understanding of reason why those left the rule would not provide an adequate noncoercive out should bear the costs. Instead, willing cooperators will respond to the

174 destructiveness

RICHARDW. MILLER

of universal, for individually impartial provision legitimate someone that rule: when claims political redress, the by amending claim should only be satisfied if the burden lifted is greater than the greatest if all relevantly similar claims are met. This opens burden the imposed needs are relevant. The question of what similarities is resolved large question is standards of relevant similarity whose consistent operation by seeking as apt as any alternative to benefit each willing When conflict cooperator. different respective goods are claimed, benefitting for one, St. Patrick's Day for another, groups (Cinco de Mayo irrigation for one, harbors for another, concert halls for one, gymnasiums projects count a claim as attractive rule would for another), one such universally similar if it affects a group at least as large and concerns a good relevantly arises because different of the group to about of members that typically affects the life-prospects of a small nationality will lose out more easily the same degree. A member on this basis, since the satisfaction of every relevantly similar demand would create an intolerable drain. But what she loses through commitment to this rule of relevant similarity in any is what she could not preserve, a demand a community that her own of willing For case, in cooperators. destructive be satisfied could only be saved from a generally micro-interest if those with micro-interests to facilitate all micro-interests different or coercively inferior. On the from her own are self-abnegating, ignorant and she is also a member of other hand, she shares needs with everyone are all members of many interest groups of interest groups (We larger the assertion of micro-interests that could not many sizes). Abandoning effort to gain from in a politically be pursued way, she can expect responsible resources the consequent in politically and from the disposable saving as willing economies of scale, gaining as much consequent cooperation permits. In addition universal nationalist to unequal tax-supported for nationalities, provision use of coercion to further direct

free acceptability might permit of commercial such as Quebec's signs in goals, prohibition to extremely But this must be a counterweight serious inequalities English. such as burden the politically favored nationality, that would otherwise posed special risks of marginality sea of English. Without American inequalities, immersion in a North by Quebecois severe need to counterbalance this

it could hardly be the case that the intrusion relieves a burden the typical life-prospects of some without imposing as serious a affecting of the way one was restriction of expressions burden on others. Coercive to live is never a small burden. brought up

KILLINGFORTHE HOMELAND 175

UNIVERSALISM VERSUS GROUP LOYALTY

a morally to the morality that I have defended, responsible According must bias state support toward compatriots and may base claims person interest in her nationality. for state support on a personal Still, this is a universaUst morality; no special role in its i.e., group-affiliation plays normative for political choice. A genuine fundamental break premises with moral would posit an independent fundamental duty to or one's nationality. This break should be resisted, since favor compatriots costs in moral arbitrariness. it has excessive universalism

or nationalist If a morality that gives a fundamental role to patriotic in the interest is to avoid requiring vicious brutality toward outsiders loyalty of one's own group, itmust set limits to those loyalties. Yet such amorality basis for striking any particular balance lacks a principled between its diverse be shown Suppose ethnic cleansing to help preserve a distinctively in this violation assimilation. Participation demands. by the Bosnian Serb army could Serbian culture from threats of

be condemned

of human rights could certainly someone who takes membership in a nation or nationality by source of a duty to support coercive to be a fundamental, independent of one's group or its distinctive advancement lack a ways. But he will the balance he strikes

to serve as a basis for justifying deeper principle and nationalist between universaUst duties. The burdened

of fundamental duties is also hypothesis patriotic or nationalist a second kind of arbitrariness, the absence of an adequate by the favored, duty-generating basis for distinguishing affiliations from other not generate duties to use coercive means to important affiliations which do I share distinctive goal. As a lover of classical music, with millions of others, inways that generate fellow practices to support the use feeling. But I surely do not have a duty of group-loyalty interests. If more use of public of state power to advance our distinctive to advance an interest in funds to support classical broadcasts is needed advance and concerns all willing culture which cooperators must pursue, that would be a basis even for a duty to support expanded for political choice, funding. But on universal this rationale would ground political coercion interests, not I have the same exclusive this appeal to the universal, loyalties. Beyond interests. support for personal rights as others with respect to government But such individual rights a duty to seek government I belong. group to which is membership Why love of classical music? to assert my personal interest are very far from of the music-loving support for the practices or nationality so different has reason the principle from shared to be in a collective

in a nation

everyone Admittedly, the territory of some stable government. But once

to want

of universal

176

RICHARDW. MILLER no further are much duties more

has connected this fact with duties, free acceptability seem to arise from it. Granted, nations and nationalities apt to compete for one's own for territorial interest dominance is more

coercive powers of one's But this sustains a connection of other groups of which one is a member. not a duty to rise above personal coercion and personal between interest, a group cause as one's own. interest in embracing This would much otherwise arbitrariness obviously has the rich implications acceptability tant moral truths are obviously neglected the moral of political basing legitimacy foundations. should only be neglected. be

than other groups. So looking out to require substantial increases of the apt nation or nationality than the coercive powers

if important tolerated truths If the principle of universal free I have claimed, then no impor when we avoid arbitrariness by coercion solely on universalist

PATRIOTICWAR
sets appropriate of universal limits to If the principle free acceptability and nationalism in choices among stable political arrangements, patriotism reason to suppose that it sets appropriate limits to this is a substantial to in the use of widespread violence and nationalism deadly patriotism tell us arrangements. What does the principle wars and nationalist of patriotic about the moral legitimacy uprisings? The verdict on patriotism and war is a limited, duty-based endorsement coercion. like the verdict on patriotism and normal political of favoritism, As one should hope, the limits on this favoritism make it hard to justify establish or defend political to war. If warmaking is not independently going justifiable or as a means a universally of deterrence desirable practice as part of of ending

of the national interest injuries, the advancement specially grave personal cannot justify going to war. Indeed, a central role of patriotic favoritism is to reduce the extent to which warmaking is permissible. free acceptability The principle of universal by no means imposes a are rules that every willing to be a pacifist. Duties cooperator would want all willing to uphold. The world contains cooperators rationally are glad to take cooperators, people who people who are not willing and some of them control national of others' coercive inferiority, advantage duty governments. large-scale even when on a basis absence cooperators Willing use of deadly violence willing will want to have some recourse to the to cope with their intrusions. Moreover, themselves among try to resolve conflicts may result. So, in the disagreements international cooperators umpire, willing

cooperators to all, sincere justifiable effective

of a generally

KILLINGFOR THE HOMELAND 177 will want some recourse to deadly force based on righteous to cope with error. serious intrusions

and counter-intrusions

Still, each willing cooperator will want all to reject certain familiar bases for going towar. Since a willing cooperator does not favor rules because she can rely on the coercive cooperators, war that is inferiority of other willing purely a means nationality on these grounds on the coercive violated would of advancing will be excluded. unless its citizens, or a the interests of a government, that others chose war No one would be willing a citizen of others. of a dominant power, relying has Indeed, even if a government action that every willing cooperator to accept, this will not, as such, be to to

she were

inferiority a prohibition against military want all willing cooperators

reason to support counter-attack. For universal willingness resort to military force is apt to give rise force to counter unjust military violence worse than the harms averted. destructive a sufficient

to In sum, each willing cooperators cooperator will want all willing on the rationales as adequate grounds they accept impose severe limits as permissible She will seek grounds whose for warmaking. currency, for supporting war, would be less harmful from her point of view of adding the dangers for absence, any rationale despite to the repertoire of all willing Because these cooperators. warmaking are so great, only two sorts of rationales would seem to over dangers bases than their come that the them. First, there are rationales of deterrence, arguments if potential increased risk of unjust violence would be excessive aggres sors could rely on willing not to support a military response cooperators to unjust violence of the sort at hand. Second, there are rationales appeal not to the extra risks created by nondeterrence but to the gravity of ing ongoing harm

that can only be ended by violent means. Every burdens as so grave that cooperator will regard some wrongful willing lethal force may be used to remove them. These burdens are by no means to imminent death. Enslavement, the prohibition confined of expression or the ending of democratic in deepest convictions, participation could all be regarded as injuries for which warmaking lawmaking might be a permissible remedy. of one's Far from justifying war, the national interest frequently plays a role in setting limits to it. For obvious reasons, every willing cooperator will want warmaking to be tax-financed not left to and government-controlled, costs will private armies. Support for war is support for a project whose a sort of project that is not apt to succeed be imposed on fellow-citizens, unless it is well-financed. So reliance on war must be compatible with the concern must be Additional special concern one owes needy compatriots. shown to compatriots in the armed forces: conscription requires specially

an actual

178 stringent

W. RICHARD MILLER all-volunteer who force will hardly be military have adequate assurance that their join as often as needed to respond to oppression

yet an justifications, staffed unless those adequately lives will not be put in jeopardy worldwide. Finally, a need to

avoid meddling restrains military normally to wrongs that do not injure the nation's citizens. Among nations responses as among individuals, violent righteous in others* quarrels intervention is a dangerous If people had no moral inhibition against thing. supporting in other nations' intervention conflicts when this would right a wrong, traditional then the cognitive of moral difficulty ties and balance-of-power sides, and a destructive has an interest judgment would considerations often combine with to yield of violence. intervention

on both willing

cooperator to wrongs done ought to give less weight done to her compatriots. comes Where into its own as a positive rationale is in the patriotism creation of a duty to support going to war when of patrio (independently to do so. The duties to relieve dire burdens, provide tism) it is not wrong are 'imperfect,' and sustain just community for deterrence i.e., limited and should bear some costs to sustain these goals abroad, generic. US citizens but (short of global, catastrophic threats like those posed by Axis advances) costs are limited, and need not be sustained the morally in aiding required one group of victims rather than another. On the other hand, if an attack on

proliferation in preventing

Since every such proliferation, each to foreigners than to wrongs

or rescue, there is a duty has created the need for deterrence compatriots to support a military to favor it as a last, feasible resort, i.e., response the cost in killing is not excessive. Each of us, worldwide, has provided reason to want to be defended with deadly force against certain viola make intervention previously surveyed be disposed that all governments to respond to all such injustices everywhere. The alternative, which every want all to accept, is a rule dictating cooperator would support for willing or the military defense of compatriots when considerations of deterrence rescue from grave injury legitimate their defense. Such defense will, no the national interest. But there is no implication that mere doubt, advance even the relief of nationwide advancement of compatriots' life-prospects, all poverty, would make large-scale deadly violence against foreigners right. tions. But the dangers it as undesirable of promiscuous as it is unlikely

NATIONALIST UPRISINGS
For reasons violence of space, Iwill confine my discussion of large-scale nationalist to a quick assessment of grounds for nationalist uprisings against

KILLINGFORTHE HOMELAND 179 established governments. war by a state dominated that someone Suppose of unjust political neglect support an uprising? Not for nationalist The implications rationales for by a nationality will, I hope, be clear. suffers from an extremely grave burden because concerns. of her nationalist Is it all right for her to unless the failure to help cultivate in a way her nationality that amounts to

combines with state support for other nationalities a state-supported project of reducing the vitality of her culture or the power nationalists' of those who are part of it. Thus, Quebec circa complaints, could not legitimate political violence. But Palestinian nationalists', 1970, circa 1990, could. The basis for this distinction choices determine

whose

is the outloqk of willing those cooperators, of moral obligation. If such a person has an interest in state support for the cultivation she will of her nationality, to the fact that this interest competes with others', also be sensitive i.e., with interests in state support for other nationalities and with the interests of the principles those who lack concern for nationality-based projects. She will be willing, to an indefinite extent, to cut back on her nationalist in response to demands the weight of numbers on the other side. (Thus, a French-Canadian willing in Nova Scotia would cooperator regard it as wrong, not just unrealistic, to forbid commercial in English.) Someone for whom the desire for signs state support is so highly conditional will not regard the mere absence of state support as an adequate basis for killing others who resist the effort to institute it. described then the only nationality-based grounds an interest in cultivating one's whether to support of political violence for large-scale is nationality an uprising. So far as the only is concerned, to profound entrenched If I have political quite one's

violence, to deciding irrelevant or disapproval approval

consideration nationality-based for people on grounds contempt

is opposition to of nationality. One ought to be opposed such contempt whoever's is involved and regardless of whether nationality one cares about the cultivation of one's own nationality.

ATTITUDES AS INSTRUMENTS
function, by struggling with an appeal to psychological in Alasdair Maclntyre's and David Miller's implicit praise of patriotism of nationalism, to set limits to defense that threatens all of my attempts and nationalism. For all I have shown, any of these restrictions patriotism I will conclude that expresses might be transgressed by a choice patriotic or nationalist resource for promoting attitudes whose prevalence is a psychological social to which every willing is committed. On these grounds, goals cooperator

180 each of those restrictions

RICHARD MILLER W. could be challenged three-part scheme. to the principle by a plausible free argument

the following instantiating 1. Someone committed should, achievement as a matter of moral and protection

of universal

acceptability

duty, support political will require considerable

whose arrangements sacrifice from many

people. to sustain the 2. The Psychological sufficient motivations Hypothesis: to which premise 1 alludes will require the prevalence of patri sacrifices so intense that its rational, fully informed expression otism or nationalism even though the restric in question, will sometimes violate the restriction tion would if questions use "strong of universal free acceptability justified by the principle are put to one side [I will of sufficient political motivation as labels for patriotism and "strong nationalism" patriotism" that would be

be expressed restric accurately by violating two attitudes are very close, since strong tions that I have defended. The with identification normally requires an intense psychological patriotism of distinctive traditions, cultural practices and a history (perhaps mythical) the sort of shared identity that constitutes their creation and transmission, a nationality]. if the prevalence attitude is of a political 3. The Instrumental Principle: to achieve and protect a societal goal that someone supports out of required as wrong choices that rational, fully moral duty, she ought not to condemn attitude.2 people will make as a result of having the political all For example, I have argued that the national interest never makes seem (as Mac a war that would otherwise be wrong. But it might right that the bravery needed for effec suggests) Intyre's treatment of patriotism tive defense of the political based on trust which every willing community so fervent of a patriotism cooperator highly values requires the prevalence informed that it sometimes the national interest, in support for wars promoting is accurately expressed even in the absence of arguments or from deterrence

and nationalism

I.e., when instrumental against claim, free

condemnation the

to support there is a duty, all things considered, is always all things considered. Even inappropriate, role of an attitude might still be a consideration condemning and must, acceptability inevitable its accurate to play (Here, effects

such the societal goal, if this principle is false, all else being counting, a on on

equal, stronger universal

makes The Instrumental Principle expression. its role in overriding noninstrumental reflections as elsewhere, to R. Audi's comments I am indebted of attitudes needed to sustain a social

an earlier Of affect

draft). the course,

its desirability, means on necessary the criticisms

as a societal all things considered, goal. This attention to support a goal makes the duty, all things considered,

will arrangement to the impact of the Instrumental

Principle moderate enough to be initially plausible, but not moderate enough towithstand
that follow.

KILLINGFORTHE HOMELAND 181 grave violations of individuals' some arguments of rights.3 Or (to adapt needed to sustain adequate public support solidarity is accurately might be so strong that it sometimes the national for wars as means of promoting interest.4

Miller's) for poor

the patriotic compatriots

in support expressed 1 and 2, if they create a situation Such functions, premises instantiating on making war, when func might seem to defeat my proposed restrictions are connected to premise 3, the Instrumental tion and legitimacy according Principle. Premise considerable true. Helping 1 is certainly worst-off requires compatriots the defense of just political sacrifice. So, at times, does from military threats.

arrangements It is not so clear

is ever true, Le., that the Psychological Hypothesis or strong patriotism to advance is necessary the that strong nationalism free acceptability. As we have for universal total societal goals required can sustain obligations of universal free acceptability seen, the principle to fight. In wars such as World that defended justice against injustice, n,

War

moral

to these obligations and stirred appealed inspiring propaganda at violations to which all willing of rules and values repugnance are committed. If other wars relied on other attitudes (hatred of cooperators "gooks" instilled inVietnam era basic training, as opposed to the underlying reason

moralism of the "WhyWe Fight" films of World War II), this is all the
more to restrain strong patriotism and strong nationalism. are essential to effective of reflexive attitudes course, solidarity us from them. However, this is a line that distinguish attitudes fighting, those who can be counted on to risk their lives to save one's distinguishing own from those who can be counted on to take one's life, if they can. Once Of

war

is declared, this bright line of solidarity and hostility will certainly But there is no need to prepare the appear. And it will unite compatriots. Far from requiring intense prior ties, way by instilling strong patriotism. is most were ways, the combat outfit, among comrades intense within utter strangers before the outfit was formed. to the alleged need for strongly patriotic solidarity of equality ismore plausible than the alleged need goals

this solidarity who typically In some advance

peacetime for strongly patriotic bravery. The principle of universal free acceptability is just one of several moral attitudes with broad appeal in modern times. an uncertainty are subject to dispute, which Its egalitarian implications
3 See,

for example, 1984),

Kansas

See D. Miller, On Nationality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 93,184f. I doubt that this is an intended use of Miller's appeal to the egalitarian role of patriotic
solidarity, but once noted, the application is hard to refute.

Press,

p.

A. Maclntyre, 17.

Is Patriotism

a Virtue?

(Lawrence,

KS: University

of

182 many will resolve underrate in ways

W. RICHARD MILLER that suit their self-interests. to which their success In any case, people in life reflects initial

routinely that higher taxes would leading to a false judgment advantages, impose inferior life-prospects. burdens on the successful without On the improving for other hand, most people find that family ties motivate large sacrifices vulnerable aims are a crucial others. Since to create a national resource strong patriotism, strong nationalism, sustaining sense of family, itmight seem that those attitudes for promoting the goal of equality.

the extent

The patriotic supplement would be a great help if intense, quasi-familial with an accurate grasp of scale were combined solidarity on a national needs and a tolerant view of personal differences within compatriots' seem just as and nationalism But strong patriotism the national family. in very different directions. The intrinsic tendency apt to develop to enhance the life-prospects the domestic disadvantaged of attitudes no stronger perfection to military of these seems

than their tendency to encourage people to exaggerate the moral to sacrifice social equality that the nation has already achieved, and to attribute economic failure to the choice of a spending,

from a presumed national norm. life-style deviating to justify make any use of the Psychological Such doubts Hypothesis a speculative or nationalism a specific extension of legitimate patriotism to claim that there is no cultural setting endeavor. But it is also speculative inwhich the most would So cooperator nationalism. the goals that every willing basis for promoting or strong some form of strong patriotism pursue requires the defense of the limits I have set would be enormously effective

by the rejection of the Instrumental Principle. This principle strengthened states that if the prevalence of a political attitude is required to achieve and supports out of moral duty, she ought protect a societal goal that someone as wrong choices not to condemn that rational, well-informed people will attitude. inevitably make as a result of having the political far This principle and close variants have very broad appeal, extending limits of patriotism and nationalism. beyond attempts to expand the moral a similar instrumentalism For example, is that the acceptability of a standard gestion would be a feasible its ultimate prevalence choice on a standard that basing political zens who implicit in Rawls' of justice depends means to achieve is the common recent sug on whether

the goal of ground of citi

are tolerant and capable of mutual concessions, yet sepiarated by the diversity of doctrines of modern constitutional characteristic regimes.5 5

See J. Rawls, Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 141, 143, 157, 167f. In A Theory of Justice, the discussions of the social role and psychological feasibility of Rawls' conception of justice are, at least, precursors of the
later view, especially when Rawls appeals to considerations of stability, feasibility of

KILLINGFOR THE HOMELAND 183 itswide appeal, I think that the Instrumental Principle is profoundly Despite One's duty to support a societal goal may dictate that one desire the wrong. to sustain it, and yet is needed of an attitude whose currency prevalence as wrong are rational, well-informed one may still condemn that choices expressions of this attitude. in moral reflection on the attitudes of politically Certainly, important a preference is more common than this combination: individuals, nothing that the political figure have the attitude because of its role in advancing one's moral goals combined with moral condemnation of choices express support the death penalty since ing the attitude. Thus, I prefer that Clinton he would not be re-elected and the poor would be even worse otherwise is morally wrong. off; but I think that support for the death penalty same ambivalence is coherent when the typical attitude of a whole The is the subject. Thus, an atypically humane member of a com community of pastoralist raiders might prefer that captives taken in war be munity kill since other members of her community would otherwise enslaved at the same time, she could condemn them; slavery. The connection between instrumental is support and moral approval too rigid even if we amend the Instrumental it Principle by restricting social arrangements: what one must not condemn (according to the amendment) is the informed that would of attitudes expression in the most morally that can be attained be prevalent desirable society are overcome.6 when mere historical No doubt, one must contingencies not condemn of the attitudes that would be prevalent in the expressions society whose attainment would be one's fondest moral wish for humanity. to ultimate Itmight still be the case for all time, for reasons that no project of reform or can overcome, revolution that the prevalence of some attitudes is desirable as morally as they are capable of because make societies desirable they becoming, choices. Thus, advanced those with we have effective
commitment,

even

though

these attitudes

sometimes

produce

unjust political

there are systematic economic some form industrial society, the worst life-prospects there are also reasons

seen, commitments

reasons to suppose that in any of capitalism will be better for than any noncapitalist alternative. As to suppose that in a capitalist economy

to the principle of universal free acceptability will not be in producing the laws and policies that most enhance the life
and ease of application as favoring his conception over average-utilitarian

and partly utilitarian ("mixed") rivals [See J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), pp. 138, 145, 176f., 248, 320f., 456].
6 This amendment in explaining slavery A Theory (See Rawls, his is suggested restriction use by Rawls' of the priority of of a similar liberty example to favorable of progressive circumstances

of Justice,

p. 248).

184 prospects of those whose will

W. RICHARD MILLER are least. Perhaps some as a partial corrective strong form of to these moral

always patriotism concern for worst-off This weaknesses, producing widespread compatriots. no more shows that other, inevitable of this strong patriotism side-effects are all right than the desirability to enslave captives of a disposition showed that enslavement One

prospects be desirable

was all right. cause of the popularity of the Instrumental Principle must be its role as a pervasive working of political advocates in the democratic hypothesis all modern universaUst moralities in process support, a process political success on advocacy a desired policy with which depends connecting cause is the painfiilness of the prospect attitudes. Another of prevalent moral isolation that is opened by rejection of the Principle. Such isolation to the principle of universal free painful to someone committed His overriding commitment is to regulate his life on terms acceptability. which would permit all others to cooperate with him on a basis of trust and mutual of certain respect. Yet he may have to accept the prevalence is specially political attitudes of most on the basis of capacities to them would expression The ending of such alienation willing cooperator. But the wish those with of arguments involving distrust of the moral whom he cooperates, arguments whose be a form of disrespect. must may be a fervent moral wish be a dream which should of any not affect

After all, a willing political preferences. cooperator's goal is to be worthy insist on respect for their own autonomy while of the trust of those who the autonomy of others. When one departs from the Instrumental respecting is a way of coping with others' the departure less than adequate Principle, respect for others' autonomy. No doubt, the existence of such inadequacies the promotion of attitudes, is relevant to political choices such involving as a choice to support a patriotic curriculum in the public schools. But the attitudes one seeks to satisfy as a means of identifying one's moral duties need not be identical one's ultimate moral Even to those one accepts or encourages duties in light of what is feasible. in implementing

are painful, from the Instrumental though departures Principle to it leads to moral absurdities, in the assessment commitment especially than likely) that patriotism of political violence. of (as is more Suppose would sometimes required by the Psychological Hypothesis be expressed the continued pursuit of victory for by supporting accurately war. According the sake of the national honor in an otherwise pointless to the Instrumental then, Principle, killing for the nation's honor would, a sense of national honor carries overriding be all right because benefits elsewhere. because For example, in Indochina could be morally killing a sense of national honor which it expresses sustains legitimate overriding the strength

KILLINGFOR THE HOMELAND 185 benefits States. in healthcare, education and employment for the poor of the United This strikes me as a form of moral madness that ought to give a good name. ambivalence

Department of Philosophy Cornell University

Ithaca, NY 14853-3201 USA