Love and the morally ambiguous.(patriotism)

WHEN LOVE invites Marvell to taste his meat, he takes some convincing before he accepts that, despite being guilty of dust and sin, he is still worthy of the highest love. There is a tendency to think that an entity that has a morally ambiguous history is unworthy of love. However, it is a fact of life that those whom we love most are often of a morally ambiguous nature and we must find a way to love them whilst still being able to acknowledge their moral ambiguities.

When it comes to nations, the magnitude of moral ambiguities is amplified dramatically. Does the patriot cease loving his country when he discovers its chequered history? Should he suspend his love of country until he has passed moral judgment on it?

Early this year, the University of London's Institute of Education released the findings of a study advocating that patriotism--the love of one's nation--should be taught as a controversial issue in history classes. The study asks, "Are countries really appropriate objects of love?" Michael Hand, a co-author of the report, argues that it is not desirable to inculcate love of country because countries are morally ambiguous entities: "Loving things can be bad for us, for example when the things we love are morally corrupt. Since all national histories are at best morally ambiguous, it's an open question whether citizens should love their countries."

Dr Hand believes that young people should not be encouraged to love morally ambiguous objects, or at least that they should suspend their love of such objects until they have resolved their moral status. But this is clearly the wrong logic. For most of us, the central objects of our love are other people. Yet few people can be described as wholly morally unambiguous. If the love of country is a model for the kind of loving interpersonal relationships that we might hope our young people will develop in later life, they should learn how to love morally ambiguous objects in spite of their moral ambiguity.

I am not saying that every nation is worthy of love or even that the British nation is particularly worthy of love. There may be a lot of good reasons not to love a particular nation. And I am not saying that the way to cultivate love is through a certain understanding of national history. I just want to say that an object's having a morally ambiguous status is not a particularly good reason not to love it. Only the most mundane objects will be lovable on such an account.

There comes a time when most young people discover that their parents are not paragons of virtue. In an age of high divorce rates, this time is likely to come earlier rather than later. Do we cease to love our parents when we discover their moral flaws? Is it an open question whether we should still love them? Ought we to suspend our love of them whilst we resolve our judgment of their moral ambiguities, and only afterwards decide whether to resume our loving relationship? No. What is required is the ability to continue loving them whilst we struggle with the moral ambiguities we have discovered, and ultimately to find a way to love them notwithstanding any moral judgment.

Most children have a healthy experience of the unconditional love of their parents. At some point during their childhood, they have committed some transgression which their parents have ...