David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Ethics 13 (4):383-399 (2009)
Associative duties—duties inherent to some of our relationships—are most commonly discussed in terms of intimate associations such as of families, friends, or lovers. In this essay I ask whether impersonal associations such as state or nation can also give rise to genuinely associative duties, i.e., duties of patriotism or nationalism. I distinguish between the two in terms of their objects: the object of patriotism is an institutionalized political community, whereas the object of nationalism is a group of people who share a common identity, often grounded in a belief in shared history, and an aspiration for collective self-government together. I explore three arguments for the thesis that a special concern for one’s polity and fellow-citizens, or one’s nation and co-nationals, is an associative duty: from reciprocity, from collective self-determination, and from the well-being of compatriots or co-nationals. I argue that the relationship among compatriots is a more plausible contender for generating associative duties than the relationship among co-nationals, although even in this case there are questions whether these are genuinely associative duties, or simply special duties. Although the relationship among co-nationals is a less plausible contender for associative duties, the well-being argument does apply to the relationship among both co-nationals and compatriots. I also suggest that there is a certain privileging of the status quo in the way that associative duties arguments work, because they tend to operate from existing relations and associations
|Keywords||Associative duties Patriotism Nationalism Reciprocity Samuel Scheffler Self-determination|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Thomas Scanlon (1998). What We Owe to Each Other. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
John Rawls (1999). The Law of Peoples. Harvard University Press.
Bernard Arthur Owen Williams (1985). Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Harvard University Press.
Bernard Arthur Owen Williams (1981). Moral Luck: Philosophical Papers, 1973-1980. Cambridge University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Seth Lazar (2009). Debate: Do Associative Duties Really Not Matter? Journal of Political Philosophy 17 (1):90-101.
Veit Bader (2005). Reasonable Impartiality and Priority for Compatriots. A Criticism of Liberal Nationalism's Main Flaws. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 8 (1-2):83 - 103.
David Miller (2005). Reasonable Partiality Towards Compatriots. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 8 (1-2):63-81.
Thomas Pogge (2002). Cosmopolitanism: A Defence. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 5 (3):86-91.
Gillian Brock (2008). What Do We Owe Others as a Matter of Global Justice and Does National Membership Matter? Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 11 (4):433-448.
Bas van der Vossen (2011). Associative Political Obligations: Their Potential. Philosophy Compass 6 (7):488-496.
Marco Mazzone (2011). Schemata and Associative Processes in Pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (8):2148-2159.
Niko Kolodny (2002). Do Associative Duties Matter? Journal of Political Philosophy 10 (3):250–266.
David O. Brink (2001). Impartiality and Associative Duties. Utilitas 13 (2):152.
Seth Lazar (2010). A Liberal Defence of (Some) Duties to Compatriots. Journal of Applied Philosophy 27 (3):246-257.
Added to index2009-11-07
Total downloads67 ( #63,990 of 1,907,694 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #273,183 of 1,907,694 )
How can I increase my downloads?