One of the points of nationalist rhetoric is to

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: han the one she could have led if she lived to be 80 and spend CEU eTD Collection all her years eating chips and watching TV. One of the points of nationalist rhetoric is to convince individuals that military service, with all the danger that it entails, is one of these “meaning generating” acts, so that there is no reason to fear it. On the contrary, one should pursue it if she wants her life to be meaningful. “Combat soldiers are thus seen not only as best citizens, but also as finest people”, says Tamir. “The meaning and worthiness of their lives are defined by their readiness to face death.”12 11 12 Ibidem Ibidem, 238. 6 Finally, Tamir notes that in order to alleviate the worries that soldiers have about what might happen to their loved ones after they are gone, the state offers generous material rewards and benefits to those who act courageously in its defense. Moreover, the military service presents a way to acquire a stabile and respected position in society and access to important social networks. On the other hand, refusing military service, even when it is not punishable by law, is still frowned upon and stigmatized by the society. All this taken into account, one may ensure a much better future for his family if he joins the army, than if he refuses to do so. To conclude, Tamir’s opinion is that liberal democracies must depend on some form of nationalism in order to justify the obligation to military service. Like she says in her book “Liberal Nationalism”, “there is a long-standing, though much denied alliance between liberal and national ideas that might explain the incosistencies pervading modern liberal theory.”13 There is an asociative account of political obligations, which goes beyond the purely contractual one in that it explains these obligations not only the on formal fact of belonging to a state, but also on the feeling of belonging to it. And it is this feeling of belonging that the obligation to die for the state may be based upon. One is so obliged if she feels herself so obliged, and this would mean that she accepts, at least to a certain extent, the nationalist view CEU eTD Collection of the state.\ 1.2 ALASDAIR MACINTYRE: IS PATRIOTISM A VIRTUE? MacIntyre’s opinion on this subject is in many ways similar to Tamir’s. He too believes that liberalism is incapable to provide justification for the obligation to die for the state, and he too believes that the modern liberal state relies on nationalism (that is, patriotism), to justify this obligation. However, where MacIntyre would disagree with Tamir is in assessing whether this “alliance” between liberalism and nationalism can be upheld. 13 Yael Tamir, Liberal Nationalism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.), 117 7 According to MacIntyre liberal morality which is based on neutral and universal principles, and patriotism, which is based on loyalty to a particular community are mutually incompatible. What is a vice for one is a virtue for another. A patriot cannot be a liberal, and vice versa, without falling into inconsistency. And since the modern stat...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online