General and Special Duties Towards Compatriots and Non-Compatriots

There are certain general duties that people have towards others simply because the latter are humans. Besides, there are other special duties that individuals possess towards certain groups simply because they posses some special attributes of interest. According to Goodin, (1988), in the contemporary world systems, it is obviously wrong to accord priorities to claims perpetrated by ones compatriots. The modern world has become a more capitalistic society where every individual has self-centered interests. As Goodin claims, the interests of compatriots are often considered significant in a socialist society which is hardly tenable in the modern world. As a result, the concerns of Goodin ascribes to the notion that a capitalist society hardly considers third partys interests prior to their own.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

An instance that involves special duties emanates from the rest of the society and is however a major challenge to abide by. Besides, certain philosophers have been seeking to analyze the essence of patriotic duties with regard to its best consequences in the society. Duties of special concerns for the good of ones country and compatriots like any other duties are often justified by the consequences of their adoptions. In many instances however, the consequences are best felt when the priorities given are targeted to special individuals of special interest such as family members. This is critical in the modern world in particular. Indeed, special duties are deemed to mediate between individuals fundamental duties and make possibilities of their effective discharges. Moreover, special duties are easily controlled by individuals with their particular insights developed from the perspective of special interests (Muller 2009). In this regard, the modern society largely subscribes to their duties of special groups as opposed to compatriots as the latter have been proven to be hardly controlled from the individuals independent potential.

The adoption of a focus on special duties as claimed by Goodin is also one of the main focus points for the modern society since individuals focused to special duties develop divisions of moral labor that are essential for their capacities to do good, and such act is limited by the resources available to them as well as the circumstances of their operations. Every individual can be of great importance to those individuals close to them relative to those considerably far from them as far as social relationships are concerned (Brighouse & Swift 2011). Through attendance of the first person and the notion of our own, individuals promote a sense of goodness for humanity in the best ways possible. In essence, the focus on special duties provides a collective framework of developing a patriotic front which is easily achievable in an alternative phase of compatriots.

In many instances, patriots perceive their accounts of love and loyalties to their country strange to their feeling of patriotism. Indeed, the focus on the relatives and special persons in ones life often presents special concerns for the good of their country while at the same time perpetrating the concerns of all compatriots through the concerns of individual goodness. On the focus on the whole country, the compatriot is often challenging to ascribe to the benefits attributed to the same. This is particularly the case as a result of the immense focus with little if any possible measure of excellence or achievements in the long-run (Brighouse & Swift 2011). Individuals in the modern world have become largely attuned to short-term goals that must be achieved, an aspect that is often associated with increasing the zeal to perform better amidst having goals on importance of compatriotism.

The focus on special duties presents a concern for ones countrys well-being as a mechanism of assigning individuals some kind of universal duties. Special duties are therefore typical universal duties that are often responsible for possible achievement of other general duties of a patriot more effectively. Patriotic duties are charged with possession of a moral force towards achieving universal duties. In the face of focusing on special individuals in ones life, every individual is ascribed to focusing on the benefitting of their own, as opposed to fellow country-men (Brighouse & Swift 2011). Although this perspective creates a notion of intolerance, its long-term benefits on the countrys patriotic chapter is elaborate and beneficial to majority than mere focus on the general principles of patriotism.

There is a special relationship between patriot, patria and compatriots which entails: love and identification. Patriotism is often posited as an associative duty. In this sense, it is anchored on special relationships as an intrinsically important aspect that constitutes duties with special concerns for the good of individuals that are closely related. Some duties however are not means of establishing or maintaining individuals in relationships but can be contemplated in the sense that those in a relationship possess a special duty pertaining to the well-beings of one another. Any individuals that can deny having special duties for the good of their friends demonstrates that they no longer treat and perceive the individual concerned as a friend hence the end of their friendship. Similarly, anyone who denies that all people have a special duty for the good of their fellow friends demonstrates that they do not understand the principles of true friendship or family relations (Veen 2008). By virtue of this understanding, it is important to note that individuals that are closely linked are easily incorporated into a common pool of interests.

On the other hand, Andrew, M. (1997), posits that the duties of special concern of the good of compatriots is anchored on values attached to the relationships existing between compatriots and is more viable relative to the typical citizenship. On the contrary, Andrew does not ascribe to the legal status in reference to citizenship but rather the moral perspective of a citizenship that entails developing equal standings. In particular, citizenship in this case is essentially valuable relationship and locates a pool of special duties that fellow citizens have on each other. However, mere citizenship does not accord the commitments that individuals have to fulfill their duties on their neighbors (Brighouse & Swift 2011). As a result, special duties enhance the attachment to fulfillment of individual duties towards each other.

Citizenship possess an essential value since by its virtue, an individual is a member of a given collective unit that they enjoy similar status with other members hence a special recognition and association. However, this unit is characteristically huge to perceive and materialize its values. The unit also possesses collective exercises of control over the members in it as far as their existence is concerned. Citizenship also creates an opportunity to create a cultural environment in which policies and legislations are determined and manipulated to partake either directly or indirectly to the formation of the policies and laws abiding them (Lazar 2009).

Some of the special duties that citizens have to their country are however not specific to patriotism but appertains to citizenship as a legal framework. However, if individuals have a duty of special concerns to their compatriots that may also be an associate duty, this is the case since their mutual associations are intrinsically valuable and linked with their duties towards each other. The claims regarding the intrinsic values of peoples associations may be however dubious. For instance, one may still resist claims of alleged duties to their compatriots in the sense that there is not specific duty they ascribe to as far as the lives of their peers is concerned. However, if an individual resist having a responsibility of special concern for the good of their country and fellow citizens past the threshold prescribed by the law and the concerns they have for humans, they cannot cease to be citizens. These aspects are implausible. This demonstrates the loophole in the capacity embodied in patriotism of a citizen to their country. Special duties that individuals have on their fellows is however highly unlikely to pose challenges in its manifestation (Tan 2006). The claims that patriotism is a general duty in particular are subject to immense objections. Indeed, patriotism is largely considered far from being a moral duty.

By the sense that patriotism is regarded as neither moral duty nor a supererogatory virtue, the pretensions created from this aspect of social disclosure as far as individual duties to their countrymen and their country in general are unviable since they possess no moral significance. Every individual has special preferences for both people and places which people identify with and demonstrate a significant extent of special concerns for the special members of the group such as a family. Nevertheless, these preferences, identities and concerns may have low or no moral support which denies them a sense of morality or importance. Indeed, these elements of identity and preference however have moral permissibility if they are engaged with specific limits (Tan 2006). Patriotism is also considered in this perspective and is also largely influenced by moderations of individual relationships to the second parties.

There may also be an extent of complicity to those individuals who do not partake in designing and executing immoral practices, policies or legislations as they do not support or benefit them but claim significant benefits by being mere citizens of a country. One may deduce psychological significance from their membership and identity within a polity or a society. When one concedes to such benefits, while understanding the immoral practices, policies or legislations, this scenario may also implicate them into these wrongs. In a patriotic front, an individual may however avoid being directly linked to such wrongdoings or even have control on their course (Cabrera 2006). However, if they accept the benefits for the association with offenders, they may be perceived to underwrite such wrongs and therefore deemed to join a class of the fully-blamed individuals.

Moral philosophers also discuss the positions of patriotism as an example of the reconciliation problem on moral considerations with particular loyalties and attachments. On the other hand, some political theorists are mainly interested in enhancing patriotism as an ethos of orderly polity and a notion of nationalism. In the view of elaborate National Socialism, it is not a surprise that the German philosophers were typically suspicious of patriotism due to its doubtful impact on the social coherence in the modern society. In essence, the values deliberated by the concept patriotism which pose a generalized duty of citizens to their fellows is largely inconsequential as it does not create a sense of unity among individual citizens (Miller 2005). In essence, close relationships between individuals and their fellows is central to enhanced course of duty of a citizen towards their fellows.

Conclusion

The objective of patriot is being loyal to their country. However, this does not imply that a patriot has solid courtesy for the government in power or the citizens in the country. Indeed, it does not offer any guarantee of perfect achievement of country coherence. The support of patriots is hardly based on the status quo but to the nation as a major project. However, despite these critical concerns, individual patria must be subject to balance between the interests of a country...