School of Historical and Philosophical Studies - Theses
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 1 of 1
-
ItemThe borders of nationalism( 2008)Given the primacy of the nation state the nationalism debate remains contentious. With interstate ties becoming stronger, unique regional pacts being formed and globalisation bringing us ever closer, a number of salient questions arise. Much research has been conducted into nationalism, addressing in particular a number of empirical matters. This paper considers the ethical permissibility of moderate nationalism, under a modified form of Gewirth's Principle of Generic Consistency. In the spirit of the work of Sidgwick (1874) the paper acknowledges that individuals observe conflicts in basic principles. The paper contends that a departure from a posited ideal is permissible in pursuit of a functional end state. The paper establishes the functional polity formed under a moderate nationalism as not merely permissible but desirable when compared with other select social architectures because it operates as a superior co-ordination point. The paper contends that nationalism beyond the moderate form offers little additional benefit to group co-ordination, as much of what is afforded is supererogatory. The paper argues that nationalism beyond the moderate form is unjustifiable. The paper asserts that the social architecture established under moderate nationalism, may encourage greater intra-state prosperity and wellbeing than a minarchist state architecture. The paper also responds to a number of contemporary accounts of Nationalism that infer that nationalistic partiality is a fait accompli purporting that much of this work is founded in reductionist and overly simplistic definitions of rationality. The most significant proposition of this paper is that moderate nationalism is more desirable than minarchist structures and immoderate nationalism because it best enables the subsequent satisfaction of universalist ends, a notion 1 term functional universalism.