Nationalism is often presented as a self-evident truth (people are shunned if they don’t adhere to it and are presented as « degenerates » for such behaviour): believing one’s nation is superior, that its interests outweigh those of individuals and that loyalty to it is a moral duty. These beliefs are very often treated as unquestionable, finding their origin in history, culture or collective identity. However, philosophy approaches such beliefs differently. Instead of accepting them as an obvious and given thing, philosophy constantly questions them.At the core of philosophy lies the practice of asking « why? ». And this practice is quite fatal for nationalism; Why should a nation be considered superior to others? Why should the interests of a collective override the value of individual human lives? And deeper than that, why should these claims matter at all? And this applies even to the answers that one might give to these questions: why should that matter? Nationalist reasoning often reaches a point where justification ends with appeals to tradition, ancestry or belonging, they say « because it’s ours. It’s what our ancestors fought for. » Philosophy refuses to accept such answers as final. It differentiates between explaining why people believe something and justifying why one SHOULD/NEEDS to believe it.By constantly questioning the foundations of nationalist claims, philosophy starts to expose their contingent nature. Borders, national identities and historical narratives are shown to be human constructions instead of absolute moral facts. If their value depends on justification, then they can’t demand unconditional loyalty. This doesn’t mean that nations are meaningless, no, what it rather means is that their moral authority is limited and must be argued for, not assumed.In this sense, philosophy doesn’t oppose the idea of a nation; it opposes its absolute and extreme ideology. An ideology that requires unquestioned loyalty can’t survive endless questioning. Philosophy insists on rational justification and this turns nationalism from a sacred certainty into a debatable position, which strips it of its claim to absolute authority.One should ask themselves: why should I follow what I am following? Is this really the upmost truth? Is what my nation requires of me good? Should I really sacrifice my life for my family? Tradition, family, lineage, why? Why? Why?One may try to claim that they don’t need a deep reasoning and it is just necessary for them to abide it for their self-preservation. However, how would one know this is correct if they do not first question such an ideology? One only falls into a circular reasoning otherwise:Why be nationalist? It preserves us and that is inherently good. Who said so? Nationalism itself.And this is dangerous, history repeatedly shows that blind loyalty to an ideology becomes destructive once it places the cause above human life and refuses questioning. A clear example is Stalinist communism. Under Stalin, the ideology of the state was treated as infallible. The party was always right and any questioning of its goals was labeled betrayal. And millions were imprisoned, starved or executed not because they were proven enemies but because loyalty to the ideology simply outweighed individual human worth.
What made this system especially destructive wasn’t just its economic theory but its demand for unconditional obedience. The ideology justified suffering by appealing to a higher collective purpose: the future of the state, the revolution or historical necessity. Once people accepted that reasoning, atrocities became morally invisible and entirely justified. This indeed raises an uncomfortable question for any ideology that demands absolute loyalty: what makes us different? If unquestioned devotion to communism led to catastrophe, why should unquestioned devotion to any other collective identity, nation, blood, or history be immune and saved from the same danger? If the logic is identical « the cause is above the individual » then philosophy demands that it be judged by the same standard.
What made this system especially destructive wasn’t just its economic theory but its demand for unconditional obedience. The ideology justified suffering by appealing to a higher collective purpose: the future of the state, the revolution or historical necessity. Once people accepted that reasoning, atrocities became morally invisible and entirely justified. This indeed raises an uncomfortable question for any ideology that demands absolute loyalty: what makes us different? If unquestioned devotion to communism led to catastrophe, why should unquestioned devotion to any other collective identity, nation, blood, or history be immune and saved from the same danger? If the logic is identical « the cause is above the individual » then philosophy demands that it be judged by the same standard.
