Loyalty vs Justice

[Jack of Spades]

I think that in normal persons life, excluding extreme psychopaths, criminals etc., our sense of loyalty is the greatest threat for our sense of justice. We like to think that we're defenders of justice, and we are opposed to injustice but in reality, that lasts only until we become loyal to someone or something.

For couple of examples:

- Friends and the people we know. We are very good at convincing ourselves that our friends are good people and when they do something wrong, we are prone to not judging them like "that's not who they are" or "they didn't really mean it to happen". etc.

- Political party, religion, ideology, our favorite agenda. If you have ever read CF, I don't need to explain this one...

- Nationality. We all know that foreigners are a bit untrustworthy, and yet we all are foreigners for the overwhelming majority of the other people on earth.

- And the biggest of all, our own children. I do not know any other topic where normal people are more prone to being fierce knights for injustice, defending the guilty and punishing the innocent, than when they are defending their own child who got in trouble.

Thoughts? Comments?

 

[Radrook]

All that humans need is a catchy slogan, a charismatic leader and a good weapon in hand in order to suddenly go flying off like dervishes and begin feverishly slaughtering left and right.

Here are some motivators used in the past:

Fighting for freedom and the American way
Making the world free for democracy
Stop the spread of communism
Remember the Main!
Manifest destiny!
Rounding up hostiles
Weapons Mass Destruction
For the Fatherland!
Lebensraum!
Master race!

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I think that in normal persons life, excluding extreme psychopaths, criminals etc., our sense of loyalty is the greatest threat for our sense of justice. We like to think that we're defenders of justice, and we are opposed to injustice but in reality, that lasts only until we become loyal to someone or something.

For couple of examples:

- Friends and the people we know. We are very good at convincing ourselves that our friends are good people and when they do something wrong, we are prone to not judging them like "that's not who they are" or "they didn't really mean it to happen". etc.

- Political party, religion, ideology, our favorite agenda. If you have ever read CF, I don't need to explain this one...

- Nationality. We all know that foreigners are a bit untrustworthy, and yet we all are foreigners for the overwhelming majority of the other people on earth.

- And the biggest of all, our own children. I do not know any other topic where normal people are more prone to being fierce knights for injustice, defending the guilty and punishing the innocent, than when they are defending their own child who got in trouble.

Thoughts? Comments?

I think the example of Eli pretty much covers that.

 

[OcifferPls]

Loyalty is a good thing. Even if I'm debating international politics with someone from another country that I don't agree with, I tend to have more respect for those who are loyal to their nations or causes, than people of my own nation, etc, who appear to me to be disloyal.

What you're describing is partiality, basically injustice. That isn't loyalty. It's allowing people to perpetrate crimes against others, simply because we like them more than the victims, and to be complicit in those crimes. That's gang-like mentality, whereas loyalty should hinder us from ravaging our own neighborhoods.

 

[Radrook]

Loyalty is a good thing. Even if I'm debating international politics with someone from another country that I don't agree with, I tend to have more respect for those who are loyal to their nations or causes, than people of my own nation, etc, who appear to me to be disloyal.

What you're describing is partiality, basically injustice. That isn't loyalty. It's allowing people to perpetrate crimes against others, simply because we like them more than the victims, and to be complicit in those crimes. That's gang-like mentality, whereas loyalty should hinder us from ravaging our own neighborhoods.

The virtues can be employed in the service of injustice. Loyalty itself remains a virtue as a quality viewed without a context. It's application is what is to be condemned. Loyalty to a tyrant is deplorable. Loyalty to a benevolent king is not. Yet the quality of loyalty itself is unsoiled. The same applies to bravery.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

.. That's gang-like mentality, whereas loyalty should hinder us from ravaging our own neighborhoods.

The one main thing that is exemplified in the patriarachs is that they were responsible as to the things that went on within their gates. Is that what you meant by being loyal to those within the neighborhoods?

 

[Jack of Spades]

Loyalty to a tyrant is deplorable. Loyalty to a benevolent king is not.

In theory yeah. But in practice, if there are two opposing kings, you only have knights who think they are being loyal to a benevolent king and the knights on both sides say that the other king is a tyrant.

 

[Radrook]

In theory yeah. But in practice, if there are two opposing kings, you only have knights who think they are being loyal to a benevolent king and the knights on both sides say that the other king is a tyrant.

True! Actually, when the Boston Strangler was arrested he claimed that he had never done anyone any harm.

 

[OcifferPls]

The one main thing that is exemplified in the patriarachs is that they were responsible as to the things that went on within their gates. Is that what you meant by being loyal to those within the neighborhoods?

Not necessarily. I don't think of loyalty as merely a concept, but more of an inward disposition toward others, wherein loyalty to God and neighbor is a requisite for true lawfulness.

"For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him..." (2 Ch 16:9)

In scripture, especially in the NT, it's treated as practically synonymous with faithfulness, being related to faith. It's the same faithfulness which demands hospitality toward strangers, respect of boundaries and impartiality in judgment. I would not confuse it with whatever temporary bond might be shared among those united by a common enemy or interest, who lack loyalty, since, as I've observed, once that enemy or interest has disappeared, through their disloyalty they begin to turn on each other, just like what Euripides once said about "friendship:"

Again, did you never see curs fawning on one another and playing with one another, so that you say nothing could be friendlier? But to see what friendship is, throw a piece of meat among them and you will learn. So with you and your dear boy: throw a bit of land between you, and you will learn how your boy wishes to give you a speedy burial, and you pray for the boy to die. Then you cry out again, 'What a child I have reared! He is impatient to bury me'.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Not necessarily. I don't think of loyalty as merely a concept, but more of an inward disposition toward others, wherein loyalty to God and neighbor is a requisite for true lawfulness.

"For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him..." (2 Ch 16:9)

In scripture, especially in the NT, it's treated as practically synonymous with faithfulness, being related to faith. It's the same faithfulness which demands hospitality toward strangers, respect of boundaries and impartiality in judgment. I would not confuse it with whatever temporary bond might be shared among those united by a common enemy or interest, who lack loyalty, since, as I've observed, once that enemy or interest has disappeared, through their disloyalty they begin to turn on each other, just like what Euripides once said about "friendship:"

Again, did you never see curs fawning on one another and playing with one another, so that you say nothing could be friendlier? But to see what friendship is, throw a piece of meat among them and you will learn. So with you and your dear boy: throw a bit of land between you, and you will learn how your boy wishes to give you a speedy burial, and you pray for the boy to die. Then you cry out again, 'What a child I have reared! He is impatient to bury me'.

I think it could be easily equated to the liberty in Christ within the bounds of the summery of what the law and prophets represent.

 

[Radrook]

Loyalty in the service of injustice is very easily historically exemplified. All we need to do is focus on those who did whatever ruthless dictators demanded.

 

[OcifferPls]

Loyalty in the service of injustice is very easily historically exemplified. All we need to do is focus on those who did whatever ruthless dictators demanded.

But can you name an injustice which could not also be considered disloyalty? It seems to me that murder, betrayal, adultery, theft, etc., all involve disloyalty in some sense. That disloyalty could be required by loyalty, would not seem to be possible to me. If a dictator required a soldier to betray others, to act in a disloyal sense, would it or even could it be done as an act of loyalty? To simplify the question: if one act is rightly considered an act of disloyalty, but also considered an act of loyalty by some other party, is this the result of a contradiction, or is the logic itself over-simplified meaning that disloyalty can be an act of loyalty?

 

[Radrook]

But can you name an injustice which could not also be considered disloyalty? It seems to me that murder, betrayal, adultery, theft, etc., all involve disloyalty in some sense. That disloyalty could be required by loyalty, would not seem to be possible to me. If a dictator required a soldier to betray others, to act in a disloyal sense, would it or even could it be done as an act of loyalty? To simplify the question: if one act is rightly considered an act of disloyalty, but also considered an act of loyalty by some other party, is this the result of a contradiction, or is the logic itself over-simplified meaning that disloyalty can be an act of loyalty?

Good question! Does that person posses the virtue of loyalty if he can betray one group and then be loyal to another? I think that depends on the reason for the betrayal. Did the group deserve to be betrayed? Did they force betrayal on the person based on moral grounds? A person displaying loyalty mighty suddenly decide that he was mistaken. In short, that his loyalty had been misplaced. He doesn't lose virtue of loyalty simply because he realizes he has been mistaken.

 

[OcifferPls]

That's... not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about war crimes, and the like. It seems reasonable to me that two enemy combatants can face each other in mortal combat, without betraying one another. The same cannot be said for war crimes. The question is, can a person be acting in any sense that can be considered "loyal" while violating (which can be seen as a sort of betrayal of or act of disloyalty toward) innocent persons?

To re-frame the problem in another context, if I were a high ranking officer and someone under my command did commit some kind of highly dishonorable crime against the "enemy," this is not someone I would promote. I know instinctively that this person did not do the deed out of any sense of loyalty, and is not trustworthy. So how does this apply to the quandary? I would posit that it is contradictory to believe that such an act is or could be enacted out of loyalty.

Even if I were a bad leader and expected my subordinates to behave this way, well I would just be a kind of outlaw or pirate, so there is no expectation of loyalty there.

 

[Radrook]

That's... not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about war crimes, and the like. It seems reasonable to me that two enemy combatants can face each other in mortal combat, without betraying one another. The same cannot be said for war crimes. The question is, can a person be acting in any sense that can be considered "loyal" while violating (which can be seen as a sort of betrayal of or act of disloyalty toward) innocent persons?

To re-frame the problem in another context, if I were a high ranking officer and someone under my command did commit some kind of highly dishonorable crime against the "enemy," this is not someone I would promote. I know instinctively that this person did not do the deed out of any sense of loyalty, and is not trustworthy. So how does this apply to the quandary? I would posit that it is contradictory to believe that such an act is or could be enacted out of loyalty.

Even if I were a bad leader and expected my subordinates to behave this way, well I would just be a kind of outlaw or pirate, so there is no expectation of loyalty there.

You mention two things which you seem to believe determine whether a person has the quality of loyalty or not:

1. Innocence of victims
2. Expectation of the one giving orders

First, the innocence or guilt of the hypothetical victims doesn't imbue or divest of loyalty. However, willingness or doing things under coercion do. What is relevant to loyalty and disloyalty is if we are doing as we are told to do willingly and not grudgingly under coercion. The crucial factor in whether the person possesses the virtue of loyalty or not are the motives of the person himself.

That's because loyalty and servile, coerced obedience aren't the same thing.

Example:

Were the Jews who cooperated with the Nazi's in death concentration camps in the holocaust being LOYAL to the Nazis? Of course not. They were obediently going through the motions under extreme duress for survival purposes. But being loyal in the virtue sense we are speaking about in this context just doesn't apply to them. It would be tantamount to saying that the slaves being whipped while rowing are being loyal or posses the quality of loyalty simply because they row.

Second:

The expectation of a person giving an order doesn't imbue nor divest the one being ordered of the virtue of loyalty. The one ordered might choose to disobey. But the motives for disobedience have to be examined in order to determine if they constitute disloyalty or not.
The disobedience might be motivated out of a sense of loyalty in order to protect a bumbling, inexperienced commander against his own folly. In such a case to obey the order would constitute disloyalty.

BTW
I agree about the two combatants: Two combatants can indeed fight to the death without being disloyal to each other. An example of this is provided in the film Spartacus starring Kirk Douglass where Spartacus and his friend , played by Tony Curtis, fight till the death while striving to prevent the other from surviving to suffer the humiliation of being crucified by the Romans.

Of course I am responding in accordance to how I understood. If I misunderstood you in any way please clarify.

 

[OcifferPls]

You mention two things which you seem to believe determine whether a person has the quality of loyalty or not:

1. Innocence of victims
2. Expectation of the one giving orders

First, the innocence or guilt of the hypothetical victims doesn't imbue or divest of loyalty. However, willingness or doing things under coercion do. What is relevant to loyalty and disloyalty is if we are doing as we are told to do willingly and not grudgingly under coercion. The crucial factor in whether the person possesses the virtue of loyalty or not are the motives of the person himself.

That's because loyalty and servile, coerced obedience aren't the same thing.

Example:

Were the Jews who cooperated with the Nazi's in death concentration camps in the holocaust being LOYAL to the Nazis? Of course not. They were obediently going through the motions under extreme duress for survival purposes. But being loyal in the virtue sense we are speaking about in this context just doesn't apply to them. It would be tantamount to saying that the slaves being whipped while rowing are being loyal or posses the quality of loyalty simply because they row.

Second:

The expectation of a person giving an order doesn't imbue nor divest the one being ordered of the virtue of loyalty. The one ordered might choose to disobey. But the motives for disobedience have to be examined in order to determine if they constitute disloyalty or not.
The disobedience might be motivated out of a sense of loyalty in order to protect a bumbling, inexperienced commander against his own folly. In such a case to obey the order would constitute disloyalty.

BTW
I agree about the two combatants: Two combatants can indeed fight to the death without being disloyal to each other. An example of this is provided in the film Spartacus starring Kirk Douglass where Spartacus and his friend , played by Tony Curtis, fight till the death while striving to prevent the other from surviving to suffer the humiliation of being crucified by the Romans.

Of course I am responding in accordance to how I understood. If I misunderstood you in any way please clarify.

Ok. Firstly, I was not saying the "innocence" of victims divests an action of loyalty. I'm only disambiguating between at least two categories of actions there, without attempting to arrive at a conclusion about what it is that qualifies an action as loyal or otherwise. When those acts result in injustices against people, as I previously mentioned, it's a given that there is a victim that is not deserving of those actions. Also that may not be the case if two enemies were engaged in a fair fight.

Secondly, while I agree that motive needs to be examined to determine if disobedience of an order constitutes disloyalty, why shouldn't we take this further, and examine the motives of every action? I do not see how willingness or coercion are the determining factors behind what is or is not a loyal motive, besides that coercion complicates things, but I don't see any reason to examine the role of coercion in the scope of this discussion.

Since we're discussing the idea of loyalty being contrary to justice, and because it appears to me that any injustice, being an act which violates another, must necessarily involve an act of betrayal on some level, my argument is that it cannot be the case that loyalty is contrary to justice.

Just to re-examine this problem from another angle, and going back to the examination of motives, if all deliberate injustices require a betrayal in some sense, and a willingness to betray (disloyalty) to carry it out, then a deliberate unjust act is never and cannot ever be motivated by loyalty. Where injustices are purported to be acts of loyalty, it's a lie, not unlike the scenario where a gang leader requires gang members to commit crimes as a test of so-called loyalty, and there is no real expectation of loyalty among people who are willing to betray others.

 

[Radrook]

Ok. Firstly, I was not saying the "innocence" of victims divests an action of loyalty. I'm only disambiguating between at least two categories of actions there, without attempting to arrive at a conclusion about what it is that qualifies an action as loyal or otherwise. When those acts result in injustices against people, as I previously mentioned, it's a given that there is a victim that is not deserving of those actions. Also that may not be the case if two enemies were engaged in a fair fight.

Secondly, while I agree that motive needs to be examined to determine if disobedience of an order constitutes disloyalty, why shouldn't we take this further, and examine the motives of every action? I do not see how willingness or coercion are the determining factors behind what is or is not a loyal motive, besides that coercion complicates things, but I don't see any reason to examine the role of coercion in the scope of this discussion.

Since we're discussing the idea of loyalty being contrary to justice, and because it appears to me that any injustice, being an act which violates another, must necessarily involve an act of betrayal on some level, my argument is that it cannot be the case that loyalty is contrary to justice.

Just to re-examine this problem from another angle, and going back to the examination of motives, if all deliberate injustices require a betrayal in some sense, and a willingness to betray (disloyalty) to carry it out, then a deliberate unjust act is never and cannot ever be motivated by loyalty. Where injustices are purported to be acts of loyalty, it's a lie, not unlike the scenario where a gang leader requires gang members to commit crimes as a test of so-called loyalty, and there is no real expectation of loyalty among people who are willing to betray others.

Will have to give this some deeper thought before responding in detail but you do make a very compelling case for disqualifying a person as possessing the virtue of loyalty if he disregards justice. Thanks for the fascinating discussion.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think that in normal persons life, excluding extreme psychopaths, criminals etc., our sense of loyalty is the greatest threat for our sense of justice. We like to think that we're defenders of justice, and we are opposed to injustice but in reality, that lasts only until we become loyal to someone or something.

For couple of examples:

- Friends and the people we know. We are very good at convincing ourselves that our friends are good people and when they do something wrong, we are prone to not judging them like "that's not who they are" or "they didn't really mean it to happen". etc.

- Political party, religion, ideology, our favorite agenda. If you have ever read CF, I don't need to explain this one...

- Nationality. We all know that foreigners are a bit untrustworthy, and yet we all are foreigners for the overwhelming majority of the other people on earth.

- And the biggest of all, our own children. I do not know any other topic where normal people are more prone to being fierce knights for injustice, defending the guilty and punishing the innocent, than when they are defending their own child who got in trouble.

Thoughts? Comments?

I think another big one is "brothers in arms". When you trust someone to save your life as you would theirs...time and time again...there tends to be a bond that goes beyond "justice".

 

[quatona]

I think that in normal persons life, excluding extreme psychopaths, criminals etc., our sense of loyalty is the greatest threat for our sense of justice. We like to think that we're defenders of justice, and we are opposed to injustice but in reality, that lasts only until we become loyal to someone or something.

For couple of examples:

- Friends and the people we know. We are very good at convincing ourselves that our friends are good people and when they do something wrong, we are prone to not judging them like "that's not who they are" or "they didn't really mean it to happen". etc.

- Political party, religion, ideology, our favorite agenda. If you have ever read CF, I don't need to explain this one...

- Nationality. We all know that foreigners are a bit untrustworthy, and yet we all are foreigners for the overwhelming majority of the other people on earth.

- And the biggest of all, our own children. I do not know any other topic where normal people are more prone to being fierce knights for injustice, defending the guilty and punishing the innocent, than when they are defending their own child who got in trouble.

Thoughts? Comments?

With some it´s easier to find our empathy, with some it´s harder. Is that about what you wanted to say?

 

[Jack of Spades]

With some it´s easier to find our empathy, with some it´s harder. Is that about what you wanted to say?

Not really. What I wanted to say there was that with some people or groups of people we are at risk of losing our capability for objectivity and therefore, for justice. Because sometimes, our sense of justice and our feeling of loyalty and sympathy are at odds.

When it comes to societies, in the societies where family loyalty is the highest principle, it is virtually impossible to build a society where there would be a rule of law, because everyone puts their family above the law.