Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Concept of Loyalty

Rate this topic


KevinDW78

Recommended Posts

I was recently thinking about whether or not the concept of loyalty goes against objectivism and represents the unearned. My reasoning was that the meaning of loyalty is to promise oneself to another who has not earned it. Where one has earned it, no "loyalty" is necessary. Opinions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps David can explicate.

But, I don't think loyalty goes against Objectivism. I can be loyal to the principles of Objectivism, for instance, and my primary loyalty is toward realty. However, I do agree you should not be blindly loyal to a person. Loyalty to a person should be predicated on their goodness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious. What is un-blind loyalty? What would constitute the difference? To me, it seems the only use of the concept of loyalty is to guilt someone into putting someone else before themself. So what would loyalty that is not altrusitic look like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As with many things, there is a rational and an irrational sense in which one can speak about loyalty.

If by loyalty you mean: adherence to reality, commitment to what one knows to be right, commitment toward one's own life and one's own chosen values — then I would say that loyalty is an extremely positive concept.

If, however, you're talking about blindly following a person, movement or cause — the willingness to fight and die for one's country, for example, merely because said country happens to be where one resides — then loyalty becomes a very vicious idea, and has been responsible for no end of suffering throughout history.

Note that one meaning of this term contradicts the other: to be loyal to one's values means that one will not accept (nor will one "stand up for") that which is foisted upon him by culture, family, etc. It means devotion, not to people, but to principles — principles which one understands in a first-hand way to be right, true, just.

A thinking person is slavishly interested in facts. A dogmatist is primarily concerned with what other people think, and doesn't question the expectations that others have for him. Ultimately, the only kind of loyalty is loyalty to oneself and to the achievement of one's happiness. Anybody who manages to remain consistently "loyal" in that respect is a truly great person indeed.

Edited by Kevin Delaney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A thinking person is slavishly interested in facts. A dogmatist is primarily concerned with what other people think, and doesn't question the expectations that others have for him. Ultimately, the only kind of loyalty is loyalty to oneself and to the achievement of one's happiness. Anybody who manages to remain consistently "loyal" in that respect is a truly great person indeed.

I think I would agree that one can be loyal to oneself and this would be positive. But the concept of loyalty to anyone else would be altruism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as I said before - what would be the point? I guess the question is more - What is loyalty in the first place? Commitment? To what point? What would it take for someone's loyalty to go "too far"? and if there is such a point, did the loyalty ever really exist in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess an important question would be whether there is any difference between integrity and loyalty. Are they synonymous, or is loyalty a type of integrity, or something slightly different?

Take an example: A particular colleague at work is also a friend. One day, you discover that he's been violating trading rules, risking huge amounts of the company's money. For whatever reason, you conclude that they will not stop unless they're reported. So, you tell the right manager. Your friend now says: "I thought you'd be loyal to me". The obvious answer to this would be a reply along the lines that you are simply being loyal to your principles. There is no real contradiction of loyalties, because anything you "owed" him was actually based off those same principles, and when other facts became clearer, you acted according to those same principles that had made you his friend.

In this type of example, the notion of loyalty that the colleague/friend is begging for, is a type of attachment to values that does not waver in the face of new information and new evaluations. Whereas, the notion of loyalty in the reply, is simply the equivalent of integrity. The friend is hoping to count on a certain "stickiness" of evaluation.

Take another example, one where no third party is getting hurt. Say that a friend is going through some phase of life where he is not acting as rationally as he normally does. Imagine whatever fits: excessive drunkenness, repeated inappropriate emotional reactions, supporting Ron Paul [just kidding :thumbsup: ], etc. Suppose this: if this is how he was when you originally met them, then you would probably not have befriended them. Still, because one has seen him in better times, you think that he can return to that, and one sticks by them. If one accurately evaluate that he would not have become a friend as he is now, then why stand by him? Is that integrity? Or is that loyalty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a good description of integrity would be loyalty to one's self. I take loyalty to be a devotion to someone or something--a ready willingness to work for its benefit, with emphasis on "ready". I take the rational form of loyalty to be that which is based on reason. For instance, I may be loyal to my country because I have seen its court procedures, read its Constitution, and believe that it will protect my freedoms when needed. And since I put such a high premium on this, I am deeply loyal to my country, meaning that in any situation where it is threatened or needs my help, I will not consciously and careful make a list of pros, cons, and percentages of risk. That is not a ready willingness to serve. I will instead help immediately unless some other more fundamental loyalty, such as to a very close friend, loved one, or self, supersedes it.

Also take an army. Disloyalty to your army would take the form of deserting it as soon as your side seems to be losing. Here loyalty is rational (if it is rational) because you may have a loyalty to your country, and because you need a bond between your fighters if your army is to be at all effective. An army that disperses as soon as shots are fired is doomed from the outset. There has to be an agreement among the soldiers beforehand that each will stand by and serve the other in order to maximize the possibility of winning a war. And so if I were a soldier and I saw a fellow soldier wounded, I would help him without knowing who he is. He might actually be a very bad person--in fact, I might even know that he's a bad person, but I may still help him because to renege upon the agreement to serve each other breaks down trust among all the soldiers. At that point, you'll have a company of men all very careful not to piss each other off and yet all very suspicious of what the others will do in battle, which is a recipe for disaster.

Loyalty to a friend would mean giving the benefit of the doubt. Suppose you had a very close friend whose judgment, values, and philosophy you have found to be unwaveringly wise and upstanding. One day, you see a person getting angry with him and then getting violent. A loyal friend will not jump in and say, "What was the argument about? Were you right, or is he justified in breaking your nose?" He will readily defend his friend, without asking questions.

These are examples of rational, un-blind loyalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no real contradiction of loyalties, because anything you "owed" him was actually based off those same principles, and when other facts became clearer, you acted according to those same principles that had made you his friend.

I think this is a very good point. To profess loyalty to someone, just as to declare your love to them, is to recognise first who the "I" is. Since the ego comes before all else (well, technically, the ego's commitment to reality), one can only express one's loyalty to someone in as much as the character of that person deserves loyalty, according to one's own standards.

Loyalty exists without being disconnected from reality. One must be careful not to separate concepts which inherently involve other people - be it Romantic Love, international warfare or health care - from reality. One needs to maintain a strict tie to reality, so as to avoid falling into the trap which I think starts the road for many an altruist. That trap, is the where one sees the nature of something as being social, and then thinks that, because it requires other people, then those people should be raised above the standard of reality. So, for example, we should love unconditionally, says the Christian; we should avoid warfare because people will die; health care is vital to the survival of a society, therefore it must be guaranteed by law. These all have dreadful outcomes when applied, because, reality does trump all.

When one commits to a sense of loyalty towards someone, it is simply an abstraction based on what they have concretely seen of these person. They have seen that person, time and time again, defend the things you hold to be good principles, so you feel a sense of loyalty to him. Your loyalty is a judgement you make of him based on the facts present. If the facts change, then of course your loyalty will waver. The trouble is, people see any kind of judgement as being inherently flawed, because they think if one is going to make an absolute judgement, it will be blind towards the facts, which couldn't be further from the truth.

It's like those Looney Tunes cartoons, where the Coyote goes running after the Road Runner, goes off the cliff, but still keeps on scrabbling against thin air. I think a lot of people see absolute judgements like this - as blind, unrealistic devotions to something, disconnected from reality. Your concern that loyalty is purely a blind devotion suffers from the more central problem that people often have if you tell them you believe in absolute judgements. I believe it is connected to the Analytic-Synethetic dichotomy, whereby one can only hold a commitment to abstract concepts or to concrete facts, but never to both, and that commitment to one means rejection of the other.

Somehow, I feel this slipping into that same field we had a short while back, with that long thread about what a 'judgement' actually means, and how we can ever fairly create a judgement of someone.

Edited by Tenure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Curious. What is un-blind loyalty? What would constitute the difference? To me, it seems the only use of the concept of loyalty is to guilt someone into putting someone else before themself. So what would loyalty that is not altrusitic look like?

Someone can not force loyalty. That, as you have already aluded to is coersion.

Similarly loyalty does not trump reason nor does it trump ones values.

I am loyal to my Country, I serve it as a soldier. If my nation is threatened then I will fight for it, understanding full well that I could be killed in the process. None of this conflicts with my reason or my values.

If my nation was to invade a peaceful neighbour completely unprovoked I would have a problem. I may not be permitted to follow my inclination to not support the actions of my nation, but that is the state using it's monopoly on the use of force against me to compell me to support it, it is not the state being able to command my loyalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Similarly loyalty does not trump reason nor does it trump ones values.

I'll rephrase my question another way - What is the use of "loyalty" if it is not absolute? I am reminded of the line from Galt's Speech when he says, "in a compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll rephrase my question another way - What is the use of "loyalty" if it is not absolute? I am reminded of the line from Galt's Speech when he says, "in a compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win."

Are we arguing semantics? I could very well ask what is the use of love, because that too is not absolute.

To respond though, there really is no compromise. A person either gives his/her loyalty or he/she does not. Where it becomes poison is the moment that it is given without being waranted. Same as any other emotion, love, compassion, honour or respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as I said before - what would be the point? I guess the question is more - What is loyalty in the first place? Commitment? To what point? What would it take for someone's loyalty to go "too far"? and if there is such a point, did the loyalty ever really exist in the first place?

Well, suppose while still in highschool you get a part time job at a food distribution company. You do good work and your employer decides he's found a potentially valuable, long term employee. In time he offers to pay part of your college tuition and offers you a full time job. 30 years later you're still working there. You have a lot of responsibility, a great deal of trust and make a very good living.

How loyal would you be to such an employer? How loyal should he be to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to address the topic of loyalty to people specifically. I think that loyalty is tremendously important and want to befriend people who are loyal vs. those who are not.

To me, loyalty, like friendship, is a response to values in the other person, but it's not of quite the same nature as friendship. In fact, I think you can be loyal to someone who is not your friend or have a friend to whom you do not feel particular loyalty. I take loyalty to be related to valuing consistently. It means giving your friend the benefit of the doubt, and it also means not falling into the "what have you done for me lately" mode of friendship. In other words, it's a way of being steady in a relationship over the longer term by not getting too caught up in any short term occurrences. If your friend of five years pisses you off badly, say, you don't turn around the next day and slander them to your other friends or, worse, some random strangers.

Like someone said above, loyalty is not absolute or eternal. If someone you have been loyal to uses it to harm you, for example, especially if they do it consistently, it would be foolish and counterproductive to continue to be loyal to them. Similarly loyalty is not "my friend right or wrong". In fact, I find that somewhat disloyal, because if you enable your friend in wrong action you're actually harming them. For example, if you know your friend stole something, helping them hide it is not loyal or moral. On the other hand, calling the cops on them straightaway is not really loyal either. What you should do is confront them and give them the chance to right the wrong themselves, by returning the item and turning themselves in, letting them know that if they don't you will, and that you'll also lose respect for them. If it was someone you weren't as loyal to, it might be more appropriate to just turn them in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll rephrase my question another way - What is the use of "loyalty" if it is not absolute?

It is precisely when one lacks the absolute that loyalty comes into play, though I'm sure that's not how you were referring to absolute.

Consider this example; You've grown up with a person who is becomes your best friend over an extended period of time. He becomes you friend because over a significantly long period of time he's demonstrated that he is remarkably virtuous. Level-headed, rational, compassionate, friendly, helpful, slow to anger, etc. etc. (insert good qualities here). Then one day, you friend's wife is found murdered, there is enough circumstantial evidence that points in his direction and he is charged. The evidence is pretty damning, but not a slam dunk, and he tells you he did not do it. Your long term estimation of his character suggests that it is very improbable that he committed the crime, but obviously you don't know with certainty. To what level should you assist and support your friend at this point? How loyal should you be helping him deal with this ordeal?

Re-examine the example but change the evidence against him to be a slam dunk, no doubt whatsoever that he did it. Does that change how loyal you should be to him?

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is precisely when one lacks the absolute that loyalty comes into play, though I'm sure that's not how you were referring to absolute.

Consider this example; You've grown up with a person who is becomes your best friend over an extended period of time. He becomes you friend because over a significantly long period of time he's demonstrated that he is remarkably virtuous. Level-headed, rational, compassionate, friendly, helpful, slow to anger, etc. etc. (insert good qualities here). Then one day, you friend's wife is found murdered, there is enough circumstantial evidence that points in his direction and he is charged. The evidence is pretty damning, but not a slam dunk, and he tells you he did not do it. Your long term estimation of his character suggests that it is very improbable that he committed the crime, but obviously you don't know with certainty. To what level should you assist and support your friend at this point? How loyal should you be helping him deal with this ordeal?

Re-examine the example but change the evidence against him to be a slam dunk, no doubt whatsoever that he did it. Does that change how loyal you should be to him?

I think it does. If it's obvious he did it, if there's a video tape of him killing his wife and tons of other physical evidence, etc. then you should not be loyal to him any longer. But until then, if he tells you he didn't do it and there is any reasonable possibility that he didn't, you should believe him and help him. That's my position anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it does. If it's obvious he did it, if there's a video tape of him killing his wife and tons of other physical evidence, etc. then you should not be loyal to him any longer. But until then, if he tells you he didn't do it and there is any reasonable possibility that he didn't, you should believe him and help him. That's my position anyway.

I agree. This is what a bunch of us were saying at the beginning of this thread: that loyalty, just like any concept or virtue, should always be held below reality. Reality is what is important. If that person really did go out and murder his wife in front of a cocktail party of guests, get picked up with her blood on him by the police later, and then starts yelling, "I'm glad the bitch is dead!" [thank you, Blackadder], then I cannot ignore the reality of the situation. I am not going to stick by him and defend him just because of his past actions.

I mean, I think that's what you were asking anyway with that question - would you hold loyalty over reality? Loyalty is a special interest that can only stretch as far as actions have determined that loyalty should stretch, but will always hit a brick wall when faced with something absolutely damning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think something interesting has popped up out of this discussion, at least in my mind. It's about the nature of social judgment. In a court of law, we have objective standards (in theory) to determine guilt or innocence. For a criminal case, if there is reasonable doubt that he may not have committed the crime for which he is accused, a responsible juror must vote to acquit. In the court of public opinion, however, there is no such bar set. For the average person (not necessarily the average Objectivist, but perhaps even many Objectivists) even the SUSPICION that someone has done something can be enough to damn them. This is why in order to destroy a person's reputation it can be sufficient merely to accuse them of something, even if later in court they are completely cleared of any wrongdoing. I want to reiterate this point - a person can be COMPLETELY INNOCENT in reality but still have serious harm done to their lives from mere accusation, and this accusation can be based on nothing more than hearsay.

I think this is where loyalty comes in. When you are loyal to a person you are not swayed by the changing tides of opinion with regard to them. You will stick up for them in both word and deed, even when it may be disadvantageous to you to do so, because you know that the value of this person is greater and not to be sold out to the lesser achievement of safety from the displeasure of the mob. I think another important aspect of loyalty, ironically enough, is not to shrink from judgment. If you hear someone saying something damning but false about a friend and then someone asks you what you think, it's disloyal for you to say, "Er, hm, I dunno, it's tough to say either way." Instead you ought to say "No, that's complete crap, it never happened, and I understand if you thought it was true but now that you know it's a lie you should stop telling people this." Do you run the risk of being wrong? Sure, but it's better to take a stand and be wrong then never take one at all.

I also want to note, you can be loyal to people or to groups, but perhaps the most misunderstood and most important loyalties are to ideas. When I say I'm loyal to America, I don't mean this particular government running America, but I mean the idea of America and what it stands for, individual rights and freedom on principle. You can be loyal to all sorts of ideas, including Objectivism, and I think that when you show yourself to be loyal to anything, person, group, idea, even thing (although we could debate how rational that would actually be), you are saying, "I will not sell out this enduring value for any fleeting temptation that may appear advantageous in the moment." That's my interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...