| | Joe,
In my first post of this thread I considered the idea that loyalty was a measurement of the amount of commitment one showed (or had) to a value. And that it would be a virtue to the degree that it arose rationally out of a consistency with the person's deeper values. But as I look at that now, I'm uncomfortable calling something a virtue when it isn't an action. Rand said, “'Value' is that which one acts to gain and keep, 'virtue' is the action by which one gains and keeps it." I think she is right that to be a virtue it must be an action (and the action is one that is volitional). She also wrote, "Man has a single basic choice: to think or not, and that is the gauge of his virtue." From her formulation, to be a virtue requires expression as an action, born of choice, and that it be rational. My concept of loyalty as a measure of the amount of commitment shown to a value has merit, but not as a virtue, because I think Rand is right that about it being an action (not the measure of an aspect of some action).
But as I chewed on this, I shifted to exploring the idea of loyalty as an action that bridged ones values (in the abstract) to a specific concrete. In your example of a teenage boy who is tempted to join a group of the 'cool' kids, but at the expense of his friend, loyalty is the bridging of the core value of friendship to his old friend who best embodies those values, rather than the new kids who, upon examination, don't. When he stands 'loyal' to his old friend, he is acting more closely in accord with his basic values. He is being 'loyal' to those values as they are exemplified in his old friend, and it shows as an act.
I think that description of loyalty matches your description of "...the application of a moral principle in pursuit of values. It's a kind of approach to making productive choices." We seem to be on the same page when I describe a bridge between fundamental values and a concrete embodying those values and when you say, "I suggested loyalty can be understood as a recognition of a fuller context of facts and values. By recognizing the larger context of values that a person contributes to your life, you can choose to act in a way that maintains those values despite short-sighted temptations."
------------------- So instead of trying to view [loyalty] in terms of the strength of one's commitment, I suggest we look at it in terms of the reasoning behind the commitment. Loyalty, when used appropriately, is a process by which we broaden our scope of evaluation to see the full range of values or the larger context. Where a blind loyalty would diminish the scope of what you evaluate, encouraging you to ignore temptations, a rational form of loyalty would do the opposite. It would open your eyes and allow you to see more clearly. That's well put. It dovetails perfectly with Rand's requirements for virtues in general. It not only expands one's range of vision, but it also aids us in the integration of our values - binds us closer to that which is of value while helping keep us from that that would harm us. And from a psychological perspective, it becomes yet another example of the how we can increase our powers, our capacities, our experience of self-worth, by deepening and sharpening the introspection that should accompany our experience of the events of our lives.
|
|
