Its easier to believe in someone or an institution than verifying everything by yourself. Theoretically not as good but people do this because it's practical I guess.
The soldier problem is a nice illustration of how these issues become difficult. A given act will have many descriptions, and under some it will appear to be morally acceptable, but not acceptable under others. One might see one and the same act as: 1) killing a person; 2) killing a soldier who fights for a government which is in the wrong; 3) killing a soldier who serves in good faith under a legitimate government which is nonetheless made up of humans who err even under the best of circumstances; 4) killing a soldier who obeys a government made up of many different people - some bad, some good - which taken as a collective is an entity to which it becomes very hard to attribute goodness or badness; etc.
Interesting. One agrees with much of this. You don't seem to have treated separately - patriotisme as a collective duty/responsibilty/freedom of choice - patriotism as an individual duty/response/responsibility/freedom of choice. You should perhaps also compare patriotism and nationalism. As well as their effects on the reactions of governments and citizens. Isn't truth much more universal in its impact than uniquely in "America"?
This is an overly strong definition. These seem to be the most extreme end. I think one could be extremely loyal to a county's ideals or constitution, and not to the government. So an extremist could still be all "let's go brandon". I dont think soldiers count as extremists. A soldier must respect the chain of command and follow orders regardless of their beliefs. If given immoral orders, a soldier can file a complaint afterwards, but the orders must be followed.
Except that was the exact thought process of the SS commanders. They believed in following orders regardless of their morality and look what happened there. No not all soldiers are extremists, but no a soldier is not obliged to follow immoral (or in the case of the US unconstitutional) orders. One can and should simply refuse and file the complaint. Following orders is no excuse for genocide or other forms of violence against civilians as demonstrated in the Nuremberg trials.
@@InventiveHarvest ok, but the Holocaust technically wasn’t illegal in Nazi Germany, yet they were still prosecuted by the Allies for their role in the atrocities. Some even attempted to use the lack of a law against it in their defense, but the court shut that down by saying and I may not have the right wording for this, “the 1st person to be punished for murder could’ve just as easily used that excuse to avoid that punishment. Your morality should not be determined by what the government says and does”.
@@laprankster3264 German soldiers did however face drastic consequences if refusing legal orders during the war. One and a half million German soldiers were sentenced to imprisonment for refusing to follow an order and 30,000 were sentenced to death, of whom 23,000 were executed. If you disobey legal, but immoral orders - straight to jail. If you follow legal, but immoral orders maybe jail later. Damned of you do, damned of you dont.
This is false unless the soldier is in an absolutely toxic unit or unaware of their rights. If an order is not lawful within the international regulations (Geneva Convention as just one example), then it is a soldier's lawful duty to deny the given order and refuse to perform it. There very much is an active component of "What is a justifiable level of Patriotism" within every action soldiers perform, and if they go beyond that, then they are held accountable regardless of intent or purpose. Regular soldiers are often Specialists and below, and thus not subservient to the US government in the same way Officers are. While they did sign the contract and raise their hand, they actually face equal, if not more punishment for obeying an unlawful order than disobeying a lawful one, and the excuse of "I was told to do it" does not hold an ounce of water at UCMJ Court. All that matters is perception, and you did it, so you were perceived of not caring that you broke an international/national law. Soldiers are definitely not extremists, but they do go through rigorous mental desensitization, face high stress, and are taught to dehumanize opponents through rhetoric, war songs, and associative training (ie- shooting human shaped dummies multiple weeks in a row ever other day). Regardless of how they feel for their country, soldiers build instinctive behaviors that if not monitored can lead to easily inhumane behavior. Thus, it is equally the military's role to reconnect these soldiers to the understanding that their opponents are humans just like themselves, but if they need to pull the trigger then there must be no hesitation. Patriotism is a very touchy topic, but as a prior soldier, every point he made is actually extremely relatable. There are people in the service who absolutely love their country, and would bleed red,white, and blue...but I would still never, ever trust them around opponents that were captured because they lack the ability to humanize those people, and if given unlawful orders, would gladly use their undying love for their country as a scapegoat for ignoring their morals. This is the very definition of extremist, because their actions are in no way beneficial to their country. It is terrifying to consider that these soldiers could be tasked with flipping a switch they may not be able to when an opponent is no longer a threat, yet they personally want them dead because they don't see them as fellow humans. We all have our own perception on what is best for our country, but we still have to be considerate of what our country and it's people want for themselves separately, even if it is different from our own belief or ideal.
Is something good because God, your government, the dictator, your fellow citizens, etc. say it is good, or does God, or the others, say it is good because it is good? If you subscribe to the former principal, you are probably just a closet relativist. Those inclined to existentialism might say these relativists are unable to bear the burden of freedom, and must find some entity, chosen perhaps as a result of nothing more than a casting about for greater ease and comfort, that will lift the load of freedom from not only their souls, but from their intellects.
Its easier to believe in someone or an institution than verifying everything by yourself. Theoretically not as good but people do this because it's practical I guess.
HI5 / Namaste! very nice video buddy!
Thanks!
The soldier problem is a nice illustration of how these issues become difficult. A given act will have many descriptions, and under some it will appear to be morally acceptable, but not acceptable under others. One might see one and the same act as: 1) killing a person; 2) killing a soldier who fights for a government which is in the wrong; 3) killing a soldier who serves in good faith under a legitimate government which is nonetheless made up of humans who err even under the best of circumstances; 4) killing a soldier who obeys a government made up of many different people - some bad, some good - which taken as a collective is an entity to which it becomes very hard to attribute goodness or badness; etc.
"In the wrong" is often an assumption.
Only the Victor in war shall be deemed "in the right" lol.
Does this mean going agents the forfathers that made the laws in which we built this country?
It seems extreme patriotism means looking out for one’s own interest nobody else’s not even government’s.
Interesting. One agrees with much of this.
You don't seem to have treated separately
- patriotisme as a collective duty/responsibilty/freedom of choice
- patriotism as an individual duty/response/responsibility/freedom of choice.
You should perhaps also compare patriotism and nationalism. As well as their effects on the reactions of governments and citizens.
Isn't truth much more universal in its impact than uniquely in "America"?
My remarks were addressed to Carneades, the OP.
The norm in the US
This is an overly strong definition. These seem to be the most extreme end. I think one could be extremely loyal to a county's ideals or constitution, and not to the government. So an extremist could still be all "let's go brandon".
I dont think soldiers count as extremists. A soldier must respect the chain of command and follow orders regardless of their beliefs. If given immoral orders, a soldier can file a complaint afterwards, but the orders must be followed.
Except that was the exact thought process of the SS commanders. They believed in following orders regardless of their morality and look what happened there. No not all soldiers are extremists, but no a soldier is not obliged to follow immoral (or in the case of the US unconstitutional) orders. One can and should simply refuse and file the complaint. Following orders is no excuse for genocide or other forms of violence against civilians as demonstrated in the Nuremberg trials.
@@laprankster3264 while a soldier cannot follow illegal orders, everything else must be followed. Morality is not a consideration.
@@InventiveHarvest ok, but the Holocaust technically wasn’t illegal in Nazi Germany, yet they were still prosecuted by the Allies for their role in the atrocities. Some even attempted to use the lack of a law against it in their defense, but the court shut that down by saying and I may not have the right wording for this, “the 1st person to be punished for murder could’ve just as easily used that excuse to avoid that punishment. Your morality should not be determined by what the government says and does”.
@@laprankster3264 German soldiers did however face drastic consequences if refusing legal orders during the war. One and a half million German soldiers were sentenced to imprisonment for refusing to follow an order and 30,000 were sentenced to death, of whom 23,000 were executed.
If you disobey legal, but immoral orders - straight to jail. If you follow legal, but immoral orders maybe jail later. Damned of you do, damned of you dont.
This is false unless the soldier is in an absolutely toxic unit or unaware of their rights. If an order is not lawful within the international regulations (Geneva Convention as just one example), then it is a soldier's lawful duty to deny the given order and refuse to perform it. There very much is an active component of "What is a justifiable level of Patriotism" within every action soldiers perform, and if they go beyond that, then they are held accountable regardless of intent or purpose. Regular soldiers are often Specialists and below, and thus not subservient to the US government in the same way Officers are. While they did sign the contract and raise their hand, they actually face equal, if not more punishment for obeying an unlawful order than disobeying a lawful one, and the excuse of "I was told to do it" does not hold an ounce of water at UCMJ Court. All that matters is perception, and you did it, so you were perceived of not caring that you broke an international/national law.
Soldiers are definitely not extremists, but they do go through rigorous mental desensitization, face high stress, and are taught to dehumanize opponents through rhetoric, war songs, and associative training (ie- shooting human shaped dummies multiple weeks in a row ever other day). Regardless of how they feel for their country, soldiers build instinctive behaviors that if not monitored can lead to easily inhumane behavior. Thus, it is equally the military's role to reconnect these soldiers to the understanding that their opponents are humans just like themselves, but if they need to pull the trigger then there must be no hesitation.
Patriotism is a very touchy topic, but as a prior soldier, every point he made is actually extremely relatable. There are people in the service who absolutely love their country, and would bleed red,white, and blue...but I would still never, ever trust them around opponents that were captured because they lack the ability to humanize those people, and if given unlawful orders, would gladly use their undying love for their country as a scapegoat for ignoring their morals. This is the very definition of extremist, because their actions are in no way beneficial to their country. It is terrifying to consider that these soldiers could be tasked with flipping a switch they may not be able to when an opponent is no longer a threat, yet they personally want them dead because they don't see them as fellow humans.
We all have our own perception on what is best for our country, but we still have to be considerate of what our country and it's people want for themselves separately, even if it is different from our own belief or ideal.
Is something good because God, your government, the dictator, your fellow citizens, etc. say it is good, or does God, or the others, say it is good because it is good? If you subscribe to the former principal, you are probably just a closet relativist. Those inclined to existentialism might say these relativists are unable to bear the burden of freedom, and must find some entity, chosen perhaps as a result of nothing more than a casting about for greater ease and comfort, that will lift the load of freedom from not only their souls, but from their intellects.
Eeerrrm, it's more than likely going to be a psychopath lol. 😕
🤘 P r o m o s m!