Loyalty vs Justice

[quatona]

Not really. What I wanted to say there 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.

Ok, thanks.
Personally, I don´t experience myself as acting out of a sense for justice nor acting out of a sense for loyalty. Thus, I was just trying to translate the observed issue into terms that make sense to me.

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.

Yes, if principle/value A is pronounced the greatest good, all other principles/values logically have to sit on the cheaper places.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Yes, if principle/value A is pronounced the greatest good, all other principles/values logically have to sit on the cheaper places.

I believe this exarrogated sense of family loyalty to be one of the big, if not the biggest, reasons for corruption in the third world. That automatically leads to nepotism, which is a form of corruption in itself.

 

[quatona]

I believe this exarrogated sense of family loyalty to be one of the big, if not the biggest, reasons for corruption in the third world. That automatically leads to nepotism, which is a form of corruption in itself.

No doubt, their value systems do shape societies.

 

[Radrook]

Here is an article which delves into various intricacies which the concept of loyalty generates.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/loyalty/

After reading it I am still under the impression that Loyalty is merely a tendency to remain faithful to an ideal, principle, religion, person, organization, group, etc. to the exclusion of others which might be opposed to or incompatible with them. In short, a character tendency towards constancy as opposed to a strong tendency to be swayed via temptations or difficulties due to either fear or selfishness. The virtue of loyalty then is therefore amoral just as a hand or a gun or a pick ax or physical strength or beauty is amoral, a mere faculty or personality tool which can be employed in the service good or evil. Some contend that to really isn't a virtue at all. So it is indeed a controversial subject.

BTW
One can be loyal to in one area but disloyal in another. Loyalty doesn't require total loyalty to moral principles or to mankind in general. All it requires is constancy to be considered a virtue a person possess. Hitler had it. Fanatical? Of course. Evil? Absolutely. Loyal? Of course. To be recommended as an example to imitate. Never! Unjust? Definitely! His constancy admirable totally isolated in itself? Yes.

 

[Radrook]

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

No.

 

[quatona]

No.

Did I inadvertantly quote the wrong poster?

 

[bhsmte]

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?

You raise an interesting question.

IMO, you have loyalty and you can have blind loyalty. With blind loyalty, one is required to deny well evidenced reality to protect their loyalty towards whatever it is they are loyal to. Denying reality, never works out very well in the end and usually involves hurting other people, to protect one.

 

[Radrook]

Did I inadvertantly quote the wrong poster?

You are the one who knows whom you meant to address.

BTW

You didn't quote. You offered a suggestion of what I had really meant to say in a question form which I responded to with no. If indeed there is something I specifically said that is difficult to understand for whatever the reason might be please tell me what it is so I can clarify. Thanks. God Bless.

 

[quatona]

You are the one who knows whom you meant to address.

Indeed. I meant to address Jack of Spades, and, alas, upon double checking it turned out that I did.

You didn't quote.

Yes, I did. I quoted Jack of Spades´OP.

You offered a suggestion of what I had really meant to say in a question form which I responded to with no.

...except my post wasn´t directed at you at all - which can easily be demonstrated by the fact that I quoted Jack of Spades, and not you.