Nationalism: Thomas Hurka Vs. Peter Singer

Thomas Hurka, on the other hand, takes on another approach to the dilemma of who one should be responsible for. Unlike Peter Singer, Thomas Hurka analyzes political aspects of nationalism and relates it to the question of responsibility. He argues against the idea that what justifies national partiality is that we are “embedded selves” and that what is moral and immoral for any person is relative to the society he or she inhabits and its social code. He then goes on to distinguish two kinds of partiality, both of which, according to him, are components of national partiality. The first kind of partiality is partiality to the impersonal goods associated with the survival and flourishing of one’s own nation and the second kind is partiality …show more content…
An example Hurka basically uses is that a Canadian nationalist is partial toward Canadians when compared to one’s partiality to another nation’s people. Hurka accepts this. However, he points out that nationalism commonly involves another element, as well. As mentioned before, this second element involves partiality to the impersonal goods associated with the survival and flourishing of one’s own nation, and the partiality towards co-nationals. Hurka states that the survival of a culture is an impersonal good, due to the fact that it cannot be reduced to the concern of an individual or the goods of an individual. It concerns all individuals of that culture and the relations between them. He states that concern for a nation’s impersonal goods are a highly partial concern and he questions whether or not the initial concern, of whether the impersonal goods of a nation or the goods of an individual are worth caring for more, is appropriate at all. Finally, he states that there should not be any argument against the fact that one must care for one’s co-nationals, but he questions whether this care should trump one’s care for people of other