har University Justice for Michael sandle today I'd like to take I'd like to consider the strongest objections to the idea that there are obligations of solidarity or membership then I want to see if those objections can be met successfully one objection emerged in the discussion last time Patrick said well if obligations flow from Community membership and identity we inhabit multiple communities doesn't that mean that our obligations will sometimes conflict so that's one possible objection and then Reena said these examples meant to bring out the moral force of solidarity and membership examples about parents and children
about the French resistance fighter asked to bomb his own village in drawing back about the airlift by Israel of Ethiopian Jews these examples they may be intuitively evocative Reena said but really they're pointing to matters of emotion matters of sentiment not true moral obligations and then there were a number of objections not necessarily to patriotism as such but to patriotism understood as an obligation of solidarity and membership Beyond consent the this objection allowed that there can be obligations to the communities we inhabit including obligations of patriotism but this objection argued that all of the obligations
of patriotism or of community or membership are actually based on liberal ideas and perfectly compatible with them consent either implicit or explicit or reciprocity Julia Ral for example on the website said that liberalism can endorse patriotism as a voluntary moral obligation patriotism and familial love both fall under this category because after all Julia points out the content framework allows people free reign to choose to express virtues such as these if they want to so you don't need the idea of a non-voluntary particular moral obligation to capture the moral force of Community Values where's Julia okay
so did I summarize that that fairly there is actually Julia actually is in line with what RS says about this very topic you weren't aware of that you came up with it on your own that's pretty good R says when he's discussing political obligation he says it's one thing if someone runs for office or enlist in the military they're making a voluntary choice but R says there is I believe no political obligation strictly speaking for Citizens generally because it's not clear what is the requisite binding action and who has performed it so RS acknowledges that
for ordinary citizens there is no political obligation except in so far as some particular citizen willingly through an act of consent undertakes or chooses such an obligation that's in line with Julia's point it's related to another objection that people have raised which is it's perfectly possible to recognize particular obligations to one's family or to one's country provided honoring those obligations doesn't require you to violate any of the natural duties or requirements of universal respect for persons Quay persons so that's consistent with the idea that we can choose if we want to to express a loyalty
to our country or to our people or to our family provided we don't do any Injustice within the framework acknowledging the priority that is of the universal duties the one objection that I I didn't mention is the view of those who say that obligations of membership really are a kind of collective selfishness why should we honor them isn't it just a kind of prejudice so what I'd like to do perhaps if those of you who have agreed who wrote and who have agreed to defend to press these objections perhaps if you could gather down all
together we'll form a team as we did once before and we'll see if you can respond to those who want to defend patriotism conceived as a communal obligation now there were a number of people who argued in defense of patriotism as the communitarian view conceives it so let me go down now and join the critics the critics of communitarianism if there's a microphone that we could use somewhere okay thanks Kate um who as as the critics of patriotism communal patriotism gather their forces here um Patrick if you want to you can join as well or
Reena others who have spoken or addressed this question are free to join in but I would like to hear now from those of you who defend patriotism and defend it as a moral obligation that can't be translated back into purely consent-based terms can't be translated into liberal terms where's AJ Kumar AJ everybody seems to know you all right let's hear from AJ he said I in the same way I feel I owe more to my family than to the general Community I owe more to my country than to humanity in general because my country holds
a great stake in my identity it is not Prejudice for me to love my country unless it is Prejudice for me to love my parents more than somebody else's so AJ what would you say to this group stand up I think that there's some fundamental moral obligation that comes from a communitarian responsibility to people and groups that form your identity I mean even like I'll give the example that you know there are a lot of things about our government right now that I'm not in favor of but part of my identity is that America values
a free Society where we can object to certain things and I think that's an expression of patriotism as well and I know I I go back to the parent example or even at Harvard I think you know iow more to my roommates because they make up my identity than I do to the Harvard Community as a whole and I think that applies to our country because there are certain things that growing up here yes we can't choose it we can't choose our parents things like that but it makes up part of our identity okay who
would like to take that on hi yeah about the um obligation to others simply by virtue of uh being in their their um being influenced by them I'm a German citizen and if I had been born years earlier than I would have been a citizen of Nazi Germany and for some reason I just don't think that I would have to feel obligated uh towards Germany um because I had benefited from actions of Nazis I mean I guess my response to that would be you have hundreds of thousands of protesters in the United States right now
who hold up signs that say peace is patriotic and I'm sure there are people in this room who don't agree with that I personally do and I would say that they're strongly objecting to basically everything the Bush Administration is doing right now but they still consider themselves loving their country because they're furthering the cause of what they see as best for the country and I tend to agree with that as a patriotic movement well but how's that then how do you still favor your country how's that still patriotic I mean isn't that more a Sentimental
attachment where's the obligation there yeah not to bring this back to John lock but I'd like to bring this back to John lock so I mean in his conception of of um you know when people join Society there's there's still some Outlet like if you if you're not satisfied with your Society you know you do have a means of exit even though we had a lot of concerns about how you're born in and it's not very feasible he still provides that option if we want to say that um your obligation to society is a moral
one that means that prior to knowing exactly what that Society is going to be like or what your position is going to be in that society that means that you have a binding obligation to like a completely unknown body that that could be you know completely foreign to all of your personal beliefs or you know what you would hold to be do you think that that kind of communal obligation or patriotism means writing the community a a blank moral check basically yeah like I think that we can you know I think it's reasonable to say
that um as you grow and as you develop within that community that you acquire some type of obligation based on reciprocity but to say that you have a moral obligation I think requires a a stronger justification good who else anyone else like to address that uh I guess we could say that you you could argue that you're morally obliged to society by the fact that there is this reciprocity I think um it's it's the idea that you know we participate in society we pay our taxes we vote this is why we could say that we
owe something to society but beyond that I don't think there's anything inherent in the fact that we are members of the society itself that we owe at anything I think it's in so far as we as the society gives us something gives us protection safety security then we owe the society something but nothing beyond what we give the society who wants to take that on Rahul I don't think we I don't think we give the community a blank moral check in that sense I think we only give it a blank moral check when we abdicate
our sense of civic responsibility and when we say that the debate doesn't matter because patriotism is a vice I think that patriotism is important because it gives us a sense of community a sense of common civic virtue that we can engage in the issues even if you don't agree with the way the government is acting you can still love your country and hate the way it's acting and I think because out of that love of country um you can debate with other people and have respect for their views but still engage in the debate if
if you just say that you know patriotism is a vice you drop out of that debate and you and you see the ground to people who are more fundamentalist who have a stronger View and who may coerce the community it instead we should Engage The Other members of the community on that same moral ground well now this what what we hear from AJ and Rahul is a very pluralistic argumentative critically minded patriotism whereas what we hear from Ike and the critics of patriotism here is the worry that to take patriotic obligation in a communal way
seriously involves a kind of loyalty that doesn't let us just pick and choose among the beliefs or actions or or practices of our country what more what's left of loyalty If all we're talking about AJ and Rahul If all we're talking about is loyalty to principles of justice that may happen to be embodied in our community or not as the case may be and if not then we can can reject its course I don't know I've sort of given a reply got carried away I'm sorry who would like go ahead Julia yeah I think that
patriotism you need to Define what that is it sounds like you know you would normally think that we were given a more weak definition here of patriotism amongst us but it almost sounds like your definition is merely to have some sort of Civic involvement in debating within your society and I think that that kind of undermines maybe the moral some of the moral worth of patriotism as a virtue as well like I think if you can consent to a stronger form of patriotism if you want that's a stronger I guess more obligation than even what
you're suggesting what we really need to sharpen the issue is an example from The Defenders of communitarianism of a case where loyalty can actually compete with and possibly outweigh Universal principles of Justice isn't that what that's the test they really need to meet isn't it all right so that's the test you need to meet or any any among you who would like to defend obligations of membership or solidarity independent of ones that happen to embody just principles who has an example of a kind of loyalty that can and should compete with Universal moral claims respect
for persons go ahead um yeah if I were working on an e problem set for example and I saw that my roommate was cheating that might be a bad thing for who for him to do but I wouldn't turn him in you would not turn him in I wouldn't turn him in and I think that I would argue that's the right thing to do because of my obligation to you know it may be wrong but that's what I would do and you know I think that's what most people would do as well all right that's
now there's a fair test he's not slipping out by saying he's invoking in the name of community some Universal principles of Justice what's your name stay there what's your name it's Dan Dan Dan so what do people think about Dan's case that's a harder case for the ethic of loyalty isn't it but a truer test how many agree with Dan so loyalty Dan loyalty has its part of answer um how many disagree with Dan Peggy oh well I agree with Dan but I agree that it's a choice that we make but it's not necessarily right
or wrong I mean I'm agreeing that I'm going to make the wrong choice because I'm going to choose my roommate but I also recognize that that choice isn't morally right so you're still translating even Dan's loyalty you're saying well that's a matter of choice but what's the right thing to do the most people put up their hands saying Dan would be right to stand by his roommate and not turn him in yes go ahead also I think as a roommate you have Insider information and that might not be something you want to use that's might
be something unfair uh to hold against you know you're spending that much time with a roommate obviously you're going to learn things about about him and I don't think it's fair to reveal that to a greater Community but it's loyalty voch you agree with Dan that loyalty is the ethic at stake here absolutely you don't have a duty to tell the truth to report someone who cheated not if you're if you've been advantaged into getting that kind of information before our critics of patriotism leave I want to give you another version a more public example
of what we I guess we should call it Dan's dilemma Dan's dilemma of loyalty and I want to get the reaction of people to this this came up a few years ago in Massachusetts does anyone know who this man is Billy Bulger that's right who is Billy Bulger he was president of the Massachusetts state senate for many years one of the most powerful politicians in Massachusetts and then he became president of the University of Massachusetts now Billy Bulger did you hear the story about him that bears on Dan's dilemma Billy Bulger has a brother named
Whitey Bulger and this is Whitey buer his brother Whitey is on the FBI's most wanted list alleged to be a notorious gang leader in Boston responsible for many murders and now a fugitive from justice but when when the uh us attorney they called Billy Bulger then the president of the University of Massachusetts before the grand jury and wanted information on the whereabouts of his brother this fugitive and he refused to give it us attorney said just to be clear Mr buer you feel more loyalty to your brother than to the people of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and here's what Billy Bulger said I never thought of it that way but I do have a loyalty to my brother I care about him I hope that I'm never helpful to anyone against him I don't have an obligation to help anyone catch my brother Dani you would agree how many would agree with the position of Billy buer let me give one other example and then we'll let the critics reply the critics of loyalty as we'll describe it here's an even more fateful example from a figure in America in history Robert E Lee now
Robert E Lee on the eve of the Civil War was an officer of the Union Army he opposed session in fact regarded it as treason when War loomed Lincoln offered Lee to be the Commanding General of the Union Army and Lee refused and he described in a letter to his sons why he he refused with all my devotion to the union he wrote I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives my children my home by which he meant Virginia the union is dissolved I shall return to
my native state and share the miseries of my people save in her defense I will draw my sword no more now here's a real test Dan for your principle of loyalty because here is the cause of the war against not only to save the union but against slavery and Lee is going to fight for Virginia even though he doesn't share the desire of the southern states to seced now the communitarian would say there is something admirable in that whether or not the decision was ultimately right there's something admirable able and the communitarian would say we
can't even make sense Reena we can't make sense of Lee's dilemma as a moral dilemma unless we acknowledge that the claim of loyalty arising from his sense of narrative of who he is is a moral not just sentimental emotional tug all right who would like to respond to Dan's loyalty to Billy bulger's loyalty or to Robert El's loyalty to Virginia what do you say Julia okay well I think that this is these are some classic examples of you know multiple spheres of influence and that you have conflicting communities that your family and your country I
think that's one reason why the idea of choice in your obligation is so important because how else can you resolve this you have if you're morally obligated and there's no way out of this need for loyalty to both communities you're track there's nothing you can do you have to make a choice and and I think that being able to choose based on other characteristics and merely you know the arbitrary fact that you're a member of this community is important otherwise it's left to us Randomness well Julia the issue isn't whether these whether Dan makes a
choice or Billy Bulger or Robert E Lee of course they make a choice the question is on what grounds on what principle should they choose the communitarian doesn't deny that there's a choice to be made the question is Which choice on what grounds and should loyalty as such way Andre now you want to all right go ahead what do you say well one of the things we've noticed in the three examples is that the people have all chosen the most immediate community of which they're a part the more local one and I think there's something
to be said for that it's not just random there I mean there doesn't seem to be a conflict because they know which one is more important and it's their family over the E10 class their state over their country and their family over the Commonwealth of Massachusetts so I think that's the answer to which is more important you think that the local the the the more particular is always the weightier morally Andre well I mean there seems to be a trend in the three cases I I would agree with that I think and I think most
of us would agree that your family takes precedence over the United States perhaps which is why you go with Dan Dan loyalty to the roommate over Act 10 and the truth yeah exactly I I would CU I mean I mean truth telling not the truth of E1 yes all right so we understand yes but on the same example in terms of family you had cases in the Civil War where brother was pitted against brother on both sides of the war where they chose country instead of family so I think the exact same more shows that
different people have different means of making these choices and that there is no one set of values or one set of morality that communitarians can stick to and personally I think that's the biggest problem with communitarians that we don't have one set of standard moral obligations and tell me your name Samantha so Samantha um you agree with Patrick Patrick's Point the other day that there may be if we allow obligations to be defined by community identification or membership they may conflict they may they may overlap they may compete and there is no clear principle Andre
says there's a clear principle the most particular the other day Nicola who was sitting over here where's Nicola said the most universal you're saying Samantha the scale of the community as such can't be the decisive moral Factor so there has to be be some other moral judgment all right let's first let's let our defend our critics of communal patriotism let's express our appreciation and thank them for their having stood up and responded to these arguments to find the issue let's turn to the implications for justice of the positions that we've heard discussed here one of
the worries underlying these multiple objections to the idea of loyalty or membership as having independent moral weight is that it seems to argue that there is no way of finding principles of justice that are detached from conceptions of the good life as they may be lived in any particular Community suppose the communitarian argument is Right suppose the priority of the right over the good can't be sustained suppose instead that Justice and rights unavoidably are bound up with conceptions of the good does that mean that Justice is simply a creature of Convention of the values that
happen to Prevail in any given community at any given time one of the writings we have among the communitarian critics is by Michael waler he draws the implications of Justice this way Justice is relative to social meanings a given Society is just if its substan of life has lived in a c certain way in a way that is faithful to the shared understandings of the members so walzer's account seems to Bear out the worry that if we can't find independent principles of Justice independent that is from conceptions of the good that Prevail in any given
community that we're simply left with Justice being a matter of fidelity or faithfulness to the shared understandings or values or conventions that Prevail in any given Society at any given time but is that an adequate way of thinking about Justice well let's take a look at a short clip from the document M eyes on the prize goes back in the 1950s in the South here are some situated American Southerners who believe in the tradition in the shared understandings of segregation listen to the arguments they make about loyalty and tradition and see if they don't make
you uneasy about tying arguments about Justice to the shared understandings or Traditions that Prevail in any given Society at the moment let's run the clip this land is composed of two different cultures a white culture and a colored culture and I've lived close to them all my life but I'm told now that we've mistreated them and that we must change and these changes are coming faster than I expected and I'm required to make decisions on a basis of a new way of thinking and it's difficult it's difficult for me it's difficult for all s well
there you have it narrative selves situated selves invoking tradition doesn't that show us that Justice can't be tied to the shared understandings of goods that Prevail in any given community at any given time or is there a way of rescuing that claim from this example think about that question and we'll return to it next time
