Loyalty is deeply immoral

[bilby]

Loyalty is typically presented as a virtue, but I am increasingly of the opinion that it's the exact opposite.

Loyalty implies support for a person regardless of the morality of what they do, or what they ask you to do on their behalf.

To be loyal implies the suspension of your own moral code and moral judgement, in favour of someone else's, and this shouldn't be necessary, if what they are doing or requesting is morally justified - if you would have complied with their requests, orders, or commands regardless of from whom they had issued, then loyalty is needless; If you would not, then loyalty causes you to do something you would otherwise consider to be wrong.

It's clear that loyalty is a desirable trait to find in one's supporters, particularly if you are an immoral leader, and doubtless that is why historically it is portrayed as virtuous and good; But it's in fact a lever by which people who are not good can gain the support or acquiescence of people who are good.

Loyalty is one of the least desirable traits an individual can express. Nationalism is a subset of loyalty. Trust is not. Trust is justified loyalty, and can be withdrawn from a leader who becomes, or is shown to be, untrustworthy.

Loyalty is the fundamental underpinning of authoritarianism. It needs to die.

 

[Hermit]

Trump's boast "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" pretty much encapsulates what you mean, but you are overly categorical. Loyalty can be conditional, and often is. People do revoke their loyalty to a person or cause.

 

[The AntiChris]

To be loyal implies the suspension of your own moral code and moral judgement, in favour of someone else's,

Loyalty certainly can manifest itself in this way (and when it does it's morally repugnant). However I'm not at all sure that loyalty necessarily implies this for most people.

 

[Tigers!]

Do you have a working definition of loyalty? The definition you use Loyalty implies support for a person regardless of the morality of what they do, or what they ask you to do on their behalf
How does it differ from love or trust?

Just thinking as an example the mother who supports her no-hoper wastrel of a child through stints in and out of gaol or rehab. Is she exhibiting loyalty or trust. In your (Bibly's) view she should probably cut lose that wayward child.

Another example - in Ukraine soldiers are dying for their families, country. Is that a misplaced loyalty unto death? What is their, or rather an, alternative? When should they say no family/country is not worth getting hurt or killed over. (Putin would love it if a significant number of Ukrainians felt that way).

 

[SIB]

Loyalty is typically presented as a virtue, but I am increasingly of the opinion that it's the exact opposite.

Loyalty implies support for a person regardless of the morality of what they do, or what they ask you to do on their behalf.

To be loyal implies the suspension of your own moral code and moral judgement, in favour of someone else's, and this shouldn't be necessary, if what they are doing or requesting is morally justified - if you would have complied with their requests, orders, or commands regardless of from whom they had issued, then loyalty is needless; If you would not, then loyalty causes you to do something you would otherwise consider to be wrong.

It's clear that loyalty is a desirable trait to find in one's supporters, particularly if you are an immoral leader, and doubtless that is why historically it is portrayed as virtuous and good; But it's in fact a lever by which people who are not good can gain the support or acquiescence of people who are good.

Loyalty is one of the least desirable traits an individual can express. Nationalism is a subset of loyalty. Trust is not. Trust is justified loyalty, and can be withdrawn from a leader who becomes, or is shown to be, untrustworthy.

Loyalty is the fundamental underpinning of authoritarianism. It needs to die.

Definitely, it can be, for sure. I always start with "Police your own first." Try and apply your own words against yourself and see what gives. I often say love can be one of the most selfish emotions I know but I like how you put it also.

I shy away from all or nothing approaches. "loyal" is not only good or only bad. It also depends on what one is loyal to. I am loyal (well, you know what I mean) to doing the best we can with what we have. So I am an atheist that believes that the belief in something more (whatever that is to one) is more reliable than the reverse belief. then we look at what beliefs match what we see better. Some atheist really do not like that and claim that I am not a "loyal atheist".

I call people like that fundy think types.

 

[Jarhyn]

Loyalty is more of a "signal virtue" than anything else.

There are two sides to it and I'm not sure at this time how they would be appropriate to parse in entirety.

First, there is the "liar problem". Person says all the right words, oaths, affirmations, or catechisms... And then betrays it all.

Loyalty is an impetus against that, and oathbreakers are generally treated very bad.
Such disloyalty appears to be a very bad trait in any system for which a discrimination against bad faith is necessary.

This means a better system is always going to be "trust, but verify": to only hold out loyalty just as long as it needs to be so to replace it with something else less junky.

 

[TomC]

Loyalty implies support for a person regardless of the morality of what they do, or what they ask you to do on their behalf.

I don't think loyalty is the best word for this. It's more like "fealty". It's the sort of loyalty demanded by kings and dictators and such. Not so much family and such.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Loyalty implies support for a person regardless of the morality of what they do, or what they ask you to do on their behalf.

I don't think loyalty is the best word for this. It's more like "fealty". It's the sort of loyalty demanded by kings and dictators and such. Not so much family and such.
Tom

To be fair, family does often demand such fealty as well.

 

[steve_bank]

Loyalty and misplaced loyalty are different things. Loyalty can be associated with survival. Tribe nation, family, or business. Friends.

I would hardly call the Trump phenomena loyalty. It came out that except for a few FOX News was all about ratings and profuts.

Yiu can argue romantic love can be awful, can't you?

If loyalty is immoral, the what is the alternative and consequences with social behavior?

 

[bilby]

Trump's boast "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" pretty much encapsulates what you mean, but you are overly categorical. Loyalty can be conditional, and often is. People do revoke their loyalty to a person or cause.

Sure, but such revocation is the essence of disloyalty, and thereby laudable.

 

[bilby]

To be loyal implies the suspension of your own moral code and moral judgement, in favour of someone else's,

Loyalty certainly can manifest itself in this way (and when it does it's morally repugnant). However I'm not at all sure that loyalty necessarily implies this for most people.

I don't see how it can fail to. Agreement with someone because they are, in a given instance, right is very different from agreeing with them because of who they are. Loyalty invariably constitutes the latter.

 

[bilby]

Do you have a working definition of loyalty? The definition you use Loyalty implies support for a person regardless of the morality of what they do, or what they ask you to do on their behalf
How does it differ from love or trust?

I covered the difference with trust in the OP. As for love, it might inspire loyalty, but it's a completely different thing. Loyalty isn't an emotional state.

Just thinking as an example the mother who supports her no-hoper wastrel of a child through stints in and out of gaol or rehab. Is she exhibiting loyalty or trust. In your (Bibly's) view she should probably cut lose that wayward child.

Yes, she probably should. Why shouldn't she?

Another example - in Ukraine soldiers are dying for their families, country. Is that a misplaced loyalty unto death? What is their, or rather an, alternative? When should they say no family/country is not worth getting hurt or killed over. (Putin would love it if a significant number of Ukrainians felt that way).

If people are dying solely because they support anything Ukraine ever does or stands for, then they are daft.

If they are defending themselves against an aggressor in a way that simply happens to align with their nation's policies, that's not loyalty, it's agreement.

 

[bilby]

Loyalty implies support for a person regardless of the morality of what they do, or what they ask you to do on their behalf.

I don't think loyalty is the best word for this. It's more like "fealty". It's the sort of loyalty demanded by kings and dictators and such. Not so much family and such.
Tom

I am not seeing any significant difference. If a family member is doing something wrong, you have a moral duty not to support them in that wrongdoing, that is unchanged from the duty you would have if the wrongdoer were a stranger.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loyalty can manifest in bad ways as you say, but it also can refer to standing by someone when the relationship is no longer beneficial to the person--say, someone who has become disabled.

 

[steve_bank]

If a large number of citizens say to hell with loyalty to the county, where does that lead us? China will have us for lunch.

We are seeing it blatantly in congress, loyalty not to the country and our survival but loyalty to personal gain and self interest.

Without loyalty among NATO members that can transcend politics where would Putin be in Eastern Europe today?

The idea of shunning someone in a family is kind of repugnant to me. Obviously there are limits, but to not support a family mener with problems is not what family is supposed to be about.

There are people who think they are being moral by reejcting loyalty to the US aka the empire and seeing themselves as a citizen of the world. The question to ask themselves who in the world has any loyalty to you?

 

[bilby]

If a large number of citizens say to hell with loyalty to the county, where does that lead us? China will have us for lunch.

We are seeing it blatantly in congress, loyalty not to the country and our survival but loyalty to personal gain and self interest.

Without loyalty among NATO members that can transcend politics where would Putin be in Eastern Europe today?

The idea of shunning someone in a family is kind of repugnant to me. Obviously there are limits, but to not support a family mener with problems is not what family is supposed to be about.

There are people who think they are being moral by reejcting loyalty to the US aka the empire and seeing themselves as a citizen of the world. The question to ask themselves who in the world has any loyalty to you?

Why would I want anyone to be loyal to me? If I am a good person, then they will trust me without loyalty, and if I am not, then they would be wrong to trust me at all.

If your country became a totalitarian hellhole, you would be absolutely wrong to remain loyal to it. Nationalism is abhorrent.

 

[lostone]

Patriotism is also a questionable virtue. It depends on how it is applied. 'My country, right or wrong', is no virtue. Trying to make your nation, state, or community the best place it can be, OTOH, is a virtue. Loyality is also double edged.

 

[Hermit]

Trump's boast "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" pretty much encapsulates what you mean, but you are overly categorical. Loyalty can be conditional, and often is. People do revoke their loyalty to a person or cause.

Sure, but such revocation is the essence of disloyalty, and thereby laudable.

The person(s) you withdraw loyalty from will very likely regard you as being disloyal indeed. This does not necessarily mean you were loyal to them - or any particular cause - because you suspended your own moral code and moral judgement, in favour of someone else. Loyalty may be due to an admiration of the moral code and values of the person you are loyal to. Its dissolution may be due to those codes and values having changed in either party, or the person you were loyal to having turned out to be a fraud.

Further, you may have been loyal to the Crown and then become a Republican. Neither necessarily implies a suspension of your own moral code and moral judgement. The more likely scenario is that your values have changed.

Another possibility is that you lose all moral codes and become loyal to nobody but yourself. Then you have become a libertarian.

 

[SIB]

Loyalty is more of a "signal virtue" than anything else.

There are two sides to it and I'm not sure at this time how they would be appropriate to parse in entirety.

First, there is the "liar problem". Person says all the right words, oaths, affirmations, or catechisms... And then betrays it all.

Loyalty is an impetus against that, and oathbreakers are generally treated very bad.
Such disloyalty appears to be a very bad trait in any system for which a discrimination against bad faith is necessary.

This means a better system is always going to be "trust, but verify": to only hold out loyalty just as long as it needs to be so to replace it with something else less junky.

I think the lying angle is past the limits of what we are saying about loyalty. We all can get suckered. Thats different to me.

ANn we are in the grey area.

I think rigorous self honesty is a key component (or variable for the math types). "why and I siding with somebody that broke the rules?" Or "what is my real loyalty to? Its hard to explain. I list what people are say and I list why I am standing behind their actions. Maybe that's it.

Am I loyal to the "actions" the person did or the "Uniform" they ware? If I am standing behind a "criminal/traitor" because they ware the same uniform I do or did the "criminal/traitor" actually do the right thing and is in being run up the flag pole?

Like that dude that went and hid in Russia. Did he stop the government from watching too many people even though nobody is innocent, nobody!

 

[Swammerdami]

This brief video outlines five "pillars of morality":

• Avoiding harm to others (especially the weak)
• Fairness
• Loyalty (to an in-group)
• Authority and tradition
• Purity

According to the video,

• conservatives give high weight to ALL five pillars
• libertarians give low weight to all five — whatever you want to do is OK.
• liberals give high weight only to the first two — actions are OK if they're fair and not harmful to others

There are MANY discussions of this idea on the 'Net. Here is a 18-page pdf paper by Jonathan Haidt et al; and one more click from this link will take you to a more recent 20-page pdf paper.

Jonathan Haidt is an intelligent centrist commentator who is cited here often, especially by me:

. . .
Yet huge attention is hijacked away from all important issues so one side can yell at the other about gender identity, racial conflicts, and so on. A big problem — working toward fixing it should be one of the most urgent tasks of political America — is this extreme polarization. Without a strong center, priorities get scrambled and conflict just grows.

I look in vain for a thread in "Political Discussions" where this highest-priority discussion is on point. In all the dozens of recent threads, this one may come closest. So I'll repost here some comments from another thread.

Here is a YouTube in which Jonathan Haidt discusses the "Structural Stupidity" which arose in America about 2012. (He blames Twitter, Instagram and other social media.) It's related to his article "Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid" in The Atlantic