|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
Virtue of Loyalty We can start by looking at the case of soldiers. If a soldier is willing to switch sides in a conflict based on whichever side is willing to pay more, he is derogatorily called a mercenary. He has no loyalty to his country. Whichever side offers him a better deal, he'll be willing to take it. There are no other considerations. Contrast that with a soldier who is loyal to his country. There may be any number of reasons for that loyalty. It could be a blind loyalty, accepted because he was told it was the right thing to do and never questioned it. Or it could be an informed loyalty based on a proper evaluation of the two sides. He could decide that one side of the conflict stands for the values and principles he thinks are good and necessary. His loyalty is due to a fundamental agreement on principles and a recognition of a deeper set of values. When offered money to switch sides, he rejects it because he knows the stakes are much higher than mere money. In a different case of loyalty, we can look at two friends. One of the friends may be invited to join a new, "cool" group, but he has to leave his old friend behind or even treat him poorly. If he leaves for the new group, he may be accused of disloyalty. This could be interpreted as the blind kind of loyalty. It might be claimed that he owes his old friend, and should make the sacrifice and stay with him. While the details may not be specified, it is claimed a debt exists and loyalty is an obligation. But there is a more rational view of loyalty. In this other view, he should not be swayed by superficial values like being seen as "cool" among strangers. He should recognize that his existing friendship is a deep source of may different values, and walking away from that friendship would be the real sacrifice. It would be throwing away a greater value for a lesser one. Another common example where loyalty is brought up is in certain kinds of relationships. A couple might fight over loyalty when one of them is confronted with some kind of choice between his partner and some third party, like a friend or family member. Say a girlfriend violates the trust of one of their friends by sharing a secret given in confidence. The boyfriend may be asked to take sides in the resulting fight, maybe being asked who's fault it is. The common view is that he should be loyal to his girlfriend, even if he thinks she is to blame. He should side with her, blinding himself to the truth, because some mysterious force called "loyalty" demands it. That's clearly a problematic view of loyalty. Not only does it call for dishonesty and irrationality, but it's difficult to know where a line could even be drawn. How immoral can she act while loyalty would still require him to take her side? Murder? Theft? Racism? Objectivism would obviously reject a view of loyalty that claimed an obligation to sacrifice or blind yourself to the faults of someone. If this were the embodiment of loyalty, of course it wouldn't be virtuous behavior. Any approach to living that demands you to act irrationally is an impediment to your life, not a benefit. But that kind of loyalty is not the only kind. In the other two cases, with the soldier and the existing friendship, loyalty is not a method of willful blindness and obligation to be irrational. It is a recognition of the value and impact that someone or something has on your life. You can be loyal to your country by recognizes its important in your life. You can be loyal to your friend because you understand the values there are deep and difficult to replace. You don't abandon these source of value so easily. Another aspect of this rational loyalty is how it deals with giving someone the benefit of the doubt. A common loyalty situation is where someone close to you is accused of something, the evidence presented seems to confirm the accusation, and yet this person denies the wrong doing. The blind form of loyalty would call for you to ignore the evidence, and put personal connection above the truth. The rational form of loyalty would not call for a blind loyalty, but it could suggest that you should offer the benefit of the doubt. Not that this is not an unlimited excuse to ignore the evidence. Instead, it is the recognition that you are close to this person, that you have a history with this person, and you have many indirect reasons to trust what they are saying. The evidence presented may look bad, but it can be weighed against what you already know. This person may have years of proving the he lives a life of integrity. He may be very trustworthy. The accusation, if true, would be completely out of character. In other words, the evidence may be balanced with the information you already have. If there are legitimate doubts, it may be fair to offer the benefit of the doubt. This is not a method of blinding yourself. It is a method of seeing the full context and making judgments, or reserving them if necessary, until you are really convinced. The rational form of loyalty is not an excuse. It does not ask you to blind yourself to facts or character flaws. It does not ask you to overlook problems. Instead of narrowing your vision, it demands that you widen your view. To look at the big picture, and include all of the relevant details. It says to recognize the deep source of values in the people you care about, and don't trade them so easily for short term gains. It says that you should look at all of the evidence, including what you know about a person's character, before you make judgments. Consider another case that comes up occasionally, especially on internet discussion forums. A person may have a long and noted track record of understanding what they are talking about, having deep insights that are thought out, and generally knowing what he is talking about. But now imagine he discusses a new topic and says something that doesn't sound right or you don't quite understand. What would be the rational course of action? For many, the rational action is to ignore the source of an argument, and instead focus on the merits of the argument itself. It doesn't matter that the speaker is knowledgeable and competent. The argument is either true or not. And if you don't think it's true, you pounce on it arguing that he's obviously wrong, etc. But loyalty as a virtue might suggest a different kind of behavior. Instead of ignoring his past contributions, the principles of loyalty would suggest that you consider the fact that he usually knows what he's talking about. Instead of ignoring this point, it would say that you should consider it carefully before acting. Instead of screaming "You're wrong!", you might offer some benefit of the doubt. You might ask him to clarify his argument. Or ask him how he deals with a troubling scenario. Or even ask if you have understood him correctly. The fact that the argument ultimately rests on its own merits, and not the arguer, is not the critical issue here. Of course that's what's important. But the question is how do you act when confronted with an idea you don't readily accept when it comes from someone who has the expertise or consistent track record. Do you dismiss that knowledge and claim he must be an idiot? Or do you use that information as a hint that you may not be fully understanding his position, or that he probably has some interesting reason for taking that position? Once again, this is not an argument to blind yourself to the truth. It is a call to use more of the truth, more of your knowledge, to make better decisions. If the evidence piles up that the person is wrong, then you will still reject him. But instead of treating him like he's an idiot with no history of being right, you can treat him with the respect he's earned and find an opportunity to get something positive out of the interaction. Nor is loyalty a demand for you to be irrational. Some groups will offer you values, but then demand that you obey their commands. They'll tell you who you can interact with, which conferences you can go to, and even whether you're allow to speak someone's name who is no longer in favor. The virtue of loyalty is not a demand to act favorably towards someone. It is a virtue of cognition. It doesn't demand you to act in ways that please a person. It demands that you recognize all of the values and facts and make a decision based on your best information. If you find that your country is not worth supporting, loyalty does not demand you support it anyway. If you think your partner was unfair to someone, you do not have to take his or her side. If you think the evidence is clear, you don't have to continue to suspend judgment. And just because someone offers you values does not mean they can demand obedience. So loyalty as a virtue is a call for you to recognize and acknowledge certain kinds of truth. A disloyal person is one who ignores his knowledge of the history and values of another, and acts as if none of that information was known or relevant. A loyal person is one who considers and appreciates a fuller context of knowledge, enabling him to act more rationally.
Discuss this Article (9 messages) |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
