Good conversation topic, if you have the guts to honestly tackle it and to tolerate diversity of thought. All human behaviors and emotions exist for a reason. Pride in the group that you identify with, whether it is your ethnicity or your race or your gender or your political views or your religion, exists because it has a function, because it "works".
Perhaps what is going on with such pride is that it is a manifestation (symptom) of your emotional bond with the group, your solidarity with it, your "All for One and One for All" unselfish willingness to subordinate Self and put Self at risk in defense of, or for the benefit of, the group.
IOW, Carlin poses a good question. But his suggested answer is without merit.
I have a blog post that is somewhat relevant to this topic, since it discusses the hypothesis that racial differences are partially genetic. If that is true, then pride in one's race might also have the function of enabling the individual to visualize (and thus possibly realize) his full potential, which is partly determined by his genes. According to this hypothesis, which BTW has significant scientific evidentiary support, perhaps an Irish person really does have something to be proud about.
Thanks ideafarm for commenting. One of the complications of pride is that it entraps minds with an identity that takes on superiority or inferiority. That is without any accomplishments or achievements, people feel greater than or less than other people.
It has worked so far to identify with a group, a gender or political party up to a point. Perhaps though the capacity to be unselfish can be enabled without group identity. It has been my observation that "serving the greater good" does not benefit human kind. Subordinating oneself to authority has caused the most destructive behavior without any sense of wrong doing.
People do think it's for the benefit of the group if they follow orders and detain people for victimless crimes. People do think it's good to be obedient and drop bombs on people who they have never met. Being proud often obscures people's moral compass. It's alright though if pride causes someone to do something to themselves, so long as it doesn't cause harm to another.
There is much to unpack in your thoughtful reply. My most urgent response is that selfishness ruins everything, and it is the corruption caused by selfishness that gives many of the drives, emotions, and patterns of thought a bad name. For example, "male ego" is an essential part of male psychology that enables males to function under high stress and overwhelming danger. But "male ego" perverted by selfishness can manifest in ugly, evil ways. No one complains about the role that male ego probably played in Edison's laborious development of the electric light bulb.
So I would offer that pride isn't the problem. The problem is selfishness.
Another aspect of the issue is that to a great extent, morality is only relevant within a group. It is not relevant when warriors from two groups are fighting on a battlefield. In such contexts, pride in one's people (group) can be viewed as a "battlefield emotion", as can hate. In such contexts, feeling hate and feeling pride in one's group can be decisive in enabling the warrior to conquer his fear and fight selflessly for his group.
The relevance I am pointing to is how pride is used to excuse immoral behavior. This doesn't mean that pride is inherently evil or a bad thing. It just means that people have become prone to excuse immoral behavior based on pride.
Immoral behavior here is synonymous with wrong action. In order to know what wrong action always is, it is best to know what right action always is. Right action is any action that does not harm another. The only exclusion to this absolute is when it happens during the course of defending immediate harm from being inflicted on themselves.
My disdain comes from the blind obedience of order followers. Order followers, from the voter to the policeman and the soldier, perpetuate hell on earth by just doing what they are told. Right action is superior than any command, rule or regulation.
We are united by our concern for morals. Let this be more important than any difference between how we see the details or the implementation. Here's how I see it:
I don't think that any simple rule such as "cause no harm" is adequate. In the human body, white blood cells have only one job, and that job is to "cause harm" to cancer cells and other invaders. For another example, as an activist, I work for positive social change. But any social change will harm the people who are vested in the status quo. With any change, there are both winners and losers, people who gain, and people who are harmed.
Similarly, the situation with police officers and military personnel following orders "blindly" is problematic. Anyone who has ever served on active duty in either situation will quickly tell you that it is essential to follow orders blindly (within limits); otherwise, there is no ability to change a course of action quickly and decisively as the situation evolves.
On a personal level, I interact with police officers regularly, even daily, during a "speech operation" on the street. I don't expect police officers to do "the right thing". I certainly don't expect them to "cause no harm". I have several times told an officer that I want him to do whatever his supervisor has ordered him to do. I want him to be a "good officer" in the sense of doing the job exactly the way his supervisor tells him to do it. Then I tell him that any issue that I have is not with him personally; it is a conflict between me and the agency's policy.
Perhaps the best that can be said is, "Don't be a cancer cell".
Good conversation topic, if you have the guts to honestly tackle it and to tolerate diversity of thought. All human behaviors and emotions exist for a reason. Pride in the group that you identify with, whether it is your ethnicity or your race or your gender or your political views or your religion, exists because it has a function, because it "works".
Perhaps what is going on with such pride is that it is a manifestation (symptom) of your emotional bond with the group, your solidarity with it, your "All for One and One for All" unselfish willingness to subordinate Self and put Self at risk in defense of, or for the benefit of, the group.
IOW, Carlin poses a good question. But his suggested answer is without merit.
I have a blog post that is somewhat relevant to this topic, since it discusses the hypothesis that racial differences are partially genetic. If that is true, then pride in one's race might also have the function of enabling the individual to visualize (and thus possibly realize) his full potential, which is partly determined by his genes. According to this hypothesis, which BTW has significant scientific evidentiary support, perhaps an Irish person really does have something to be proud about.
Ref: https://steemit.com/racism/@ideafarm/why-sub-sahara-african-men-are-violent-morons-with-way-larger-penises-yes-they-are-and-do
Thanks ideafarm for commenting. One of the complications of pride is that it entraps minds with an identity that takes on superiority or inferiority. That is without any accomplishments or achievements, people feel greater than or less than other people.
It has worked so far to identify with a group, a gender or political party up to a point. Perhaps though the capacity to be unselfish can be enabled without group identity. It has been my observation that "serving the greater good" does not benefit human kind. Subordinating oneself to authority has caused the most destructive behavior without any sense of wrong doing.
People do think it's for the benefit of the group if they follow orders and detain people for victimless crimes. People do think it's good to be obedient and drop bombs on people who they have never met. Being proud often obscures people's moral compass. It's alright though if pride causes someone to do something to themselves, so long as it doesn't cause harm to another.
There is much to unpack in your thoughtful reply. My most urgent response is that selfishness ruins everything, and it is the corruption caused by selfishness that gives many of the drives, emotions, and patterns of thought a bad name. For example, "male ego" is an essential part of male psychology that enables males to function under high stress and overwhelming danger. But "male ego" perverted by selfishness can manifest in ugly, evil ways. No one complains about the role that male ego probably played in Edison's laborious development of the electric light bulb.
So I would offer that pride isn't the problem. The problem is selfishness.
Another aspect of the issue is that to a great extent, morality is only relevant within a group. It is not relevant when warriors from two groups are fighting on a battlefield. In such contexts, pride in one's people (group) can be viewed as a "battlefield emotion", as can hate. In such contexts, feeling hate and feeling pride in one's group can be decisive in enabling the warrior to conquer his fear and fight selflessly for his group.
The relevance I am pointing to is how pride is used to excuse immoral behavior. This doesn't mean that pride is inherently evil or a bad thing. It just means that people have become prone to excuse immoral behavior based on pride.
Immoral behavior here is synonymous with wrong action. In order to know what wrong action always is, it is best to know what right action always is. Right action is any action that does not harm another. The only exclusion to this absolute is when it happens during the course of defending immediate harm from being inflicted on themselves.
My disdain comes from the blind obedience of order followers. Order followers, from the voter to the policeman and the soldier, perpetuate hell on earth by just doing what they are told. Right action is superior than any command, rule or regulation.
We are united by our concern for morals. Let this be more important than any difference between how we see the details or the implementation. Here's how I see it:
I don't think that any simple rule such as "cause no harm" is adequate. In the human body, white blood cells have only one job, and that job is to "cause harm" to cancer cells and other invaders. For another example, as an activist, I work for positive social change. But any social change will harm the people who are vested in the status quo. With any change, there are both winners and losers, people who gain, and people who are harmed.
Similarly, the situation with police officers and military personnel following orders "blindly" is problematic. Anyone who has ever served on active duty in either situation will quickly tell you that it is essential to follow orders blindly (within limits); otherwise, there is no ability to change a course of action quickly and decisively as the situation evolves.
On a personal level, I interact with police officers regularly, even daily, during a "speech operation" on the street. I don't expect police officers to do "the right thing". I certainly don't expect them to "cause no harm". I have several times told an officer that I want him to do whatever his supervisor has ordered him to do. I want him to be a "good officer" in the sense of doing the job exactly the way his supervisor tells him to do it. Then I tell him that any issue that I have is not with him personally; it is a conflict between me and the agency's policy.
Perhaps the best that can be said is, "Don't be a cancer cell".