Patriotism?

So, we seem to have gotten to the point in class of understanding that Patriotism (and it's more dangerous cousin, Nationalism) have some really serious potential for getting very out of control very quickly. The problem is that both of them are rooted in the ethnocentric notion of "We're better than everyone else", which leads to a problem of never really being able to fully cooperate with other nations because all nations seem to think that they are the best. Just mix in some animosity and you too can have the diplomatic fiasco of your choice.

However, there is also the question of what positive uses can Patriotism have?
One could view patriotism as not only a love for one's country, but also a desire to improve said country, as well as make sure it does not get any worse.
It would be one of the better things an individual could do for their country.
Maybe there are other positive uses for Patriotism?

Morality Rankings

So, we finished the discussion on how we as a species rank other non-humans on a spectrum of sentience and morality (or harming them). The group consensus seems to be that the higher its level of sentience (and intelligence) the higher the creature's morality ranking. Unlike some other arguments about morality, this one seems to work rather well. If nothing else, it explains how humans realistically rank other creatures in comparison to ourselves, and a desire for "quick and painless" slaughtering methods. There really isn't much else I can say on this one. Maybe we found something that does have a solid answer in the murky world of Philosophy. It was bound to happen eventually.

Morality

Okay, so we have been talking in class about how humans decide to place different non-human species on different "moral levels" in order to justify the killing, eating or exterminating of various species. One conclusion about why we value some creatures (like common pet species) is that we have realized these creatures (like most animals) feel pain when harmed, and we (as a species) agree that causing harm when it is not needed for us to survive (like eating one's cat when you are starving and have no other options) is wrong.

So the big question is why do we not apply this idea that causing undue pain is wrong to other species? Do we simply hypocritically ignore our previously stated moral ideals for certain species? What reasons would we have for such action? Willful ignorance?

I'm not sure what the answer is, or even if there really is one. Maybe that is true for all of human nature, and maybe that is the point: that sometimes there is no "right" or "true" answer.

I can't find one for this idea at least.

Human Nature 1

Well, one thing that seems to have come up a bit in the discussions is the idea of "evil" attributes being either learned from society, or possibly being innate within us. However, there is a part of this argument that is a bit skewed: our view of what attributes are evil, and why having them is important.

Depending on the culture we are raised in, different values are taught to be more or less important than others. According to most media, especially those aimed at younger children, Ambition seems to rarely be depicted as something positive. However, if no one had any sense of ambition at all, nothing would ever progress because no one would have any motivation.

Also, the case that these "evil" virtues come from the same places as the "good" ones could easily be made. Imagine for a moment a world where there were no negative emotions, no "evil" sides to human action or thought, where there was nothing but cooperation and sweetness and order. There arises a very important problem: this would be the only thing we would know. We would effectively be cut away from a full understanding of ourselves and the world around us because we could not even imagine something different than what we are. In a way, having "evil" traits exist in the world is one of the best ways to show us how to live, because it gives us a distinction, and a choice.

Thoughts on this anyone?