What do you think of loyalty?

[Unlearner]

I've been studying ethics for the past two months, and we've started talking about loyalty. I'm not entirely sure how exactly I feel about it at the moment, but I've also been reading about it from several different perspectives. I just kind of wanted to throw it out there as a general question to see what people here (being of a slightly different mindset than the people I interact with otherwise) think about it: what's your opinion on loyalty? Are there different kinds of loyalty? When is it good and when is it bad?

[silent thunder]

Depends on the situation.

 

It's good to be loyal to spouse, friends, pets.

 

It's not so good to be loyal to say, abusive parents, or spouses, or friends.

[Aetherous]

I personally think it's a virtue, and is literally always good. Even if lets say, you're a loyal friend to someone who is a criminal, and give them shelter when running from the law or something. What you're doing is good. You might be the only person in the world who has unlimited compassion for them...and that can mean a lot. Who they are doesn't hurt you as much as your decision to either be loyal or not...the decision not to be, is what can truly damage you. Even if you were to be thrown in prison for being an accomplice to the crime, for helping your friend...which undeniably seems like a horrible thing...at least you can sit in there with a clear conscience. This is called honor...which in the past, was a more important concept to more people than it is today.

So, that decision in the moment is really the only thing you have control over. To be loyal or not. You do not control your friend's decisions...that's on them. You being unfriendly does not help them to change their ways. You only control how you respond to this world, and spiritual cultivation deals precisely with this decision that you make. Will you respond positively, helping others, being a good example, being a true friend?

 

Or will you be unloyal...be a poor friend...not help people who need it...focus on the negative...?

 

Anyway...I get that it doesn't always seem like the wisest thing. For instance in abusive relationships. You have to take care of yourself first and foremost in life. Just providing a case for my view on loyalty being a virtue.

[nestentrie]

Loyalty is one of those phantom virtues. It is difficult to see what is actually operating when loyalty is called out as such. Like the example given above with sheltering a criminal friend; is it compassion for the danger the friend has placed themself in? Or is it rather an example of righteousness, propriety, wisdom and or benevolence? (...that the person embodying the loyalty is seeking some end that they should have no business seeing to).

 

Lao Tzu doesn't have a high opinion of the latter motives, and neither do I.

 

Aetherous, you raise the proper point about sheltering this friend being a good thing, but I would be looking for what comes about by the presumption involved in it. (Or at least, the presumption that may follow). If one seeks by righteousness to defy the law and advantage their friend in so doing one is really just adding disorder to things. The compassion, that should really have come first and long before the crisis, is the real hinge on which the good will act.

 

By co-incidence (or maybe just because it's been called to my attention) there is an active thread in the Tao Te Ching subforum with a chapter that I feel is relevent:

 

Robert Henricks

What is at rest is easy to hold;
What has not yet given a sign is easy to plan for;
The brittle is easily shattered;
The minute is easily scattered;
Act on it before it comes into being;
Order it before it turns into chaos.
A tree [so big] that it takes both arms to surround starts out as the tiniest shoot;
A nine-story terrace rises up from a basket of dirt.
A high place one hundred, one thousand feet high begins from under your feet.
Those who act on it ruin it;
Those who hold on to it lose it.
Therefore the Sage does not act,
And as a result, he doesn't ruin [things];
He does not hold on to [things],
And as a result, he doesn't lose [things];
In people's handling of affairs, they always ruin things when they're right at the point of completion.
Therefore we say, "If you're as careful at the end as you were at the beginning, you'll have no failures."
Therefore the Sage desires not to desire and doesn't value goods that are hard to obtain;
He learns not to learn and returns to what the masses pass by;
He could help all things to be natural, yet he dare not do it.

 

 

If the compassionate person were to have fostered the proper unfolding of their part of the relationship before the friend needed help then I think no such murky situation needed to arise. The compassionate person should have been kind *before* the crisis, extending no trouble and affording the friend ease in their undertakings.

 

Kindness of course cannot alone prevent the friend from acting the way they do, but neither can the compassionate one by any other mode kill the chaos. Righteous defiance doesn't help anybody.

 

There are probably many more examples of this where loyalty is troublesome, not just the one Aetherous has used. And while this probably isn't the greatest post ever to have been presented on the Tao Bums it's a pretty good first take on what I think of loyalty. I think more people need to add their thoughts...

[Unlearner]

I personally think it's a virtue, and is literally always good. Even if lets say, you're a loyal friend to someone who is a criminal, and give them shelter when running from the law or something. What you're doing is good. You might be the only person in the world who has unlimited compassion for them...and that can mean a lot. Who they are doesn't hurt you as much as your decision to either be loyal or not...the decision not to be, is what can truly damage you. Even if you were to be thrown in prison for being an accomplice to the crime, for helping your friend...which undeniably seems like a horrible thing...at least you can sit in there with a clear conscience. This is called honor...which in the past, was a more important concept to more people than it is today.

 

So, that decision in the moment is really the only thing you have control over. To be loyal or not. You do not control your friend's decisions...that's on them. You being unfriendly does not help them to change their ways. You only control how you respond to this world, and spiritual cultivation deals precisely with this decision that you make. Will you respond positively, helping others, being a good example, being a true friend?

 

Or will you be unloyal...be a poor friend...not help people who need it...focus on the negative...?

 

Anyway...I get that it doesn't always seem like the wisest thing. For instance in abusive relationships. You have to take care of yourself first and foremost in life. Just providing a case for my view on loyalty being a virtue.

 

You might find Josiah Royce's work on loyalty interesting. He's one of the philosophers we've read, he wrote a famous piece called Philosophy of Loyalty in the early 20th century. He takes a similar stance in defending loyalty as being good, and that by being "loyal to loyalty" we can spread loyalty among all people so that everyone will be loyal to each other. Also, rather than identifying loyalty as one virtue among many, he says that all good virtues are merely special forms of loyalty to loyalty.

 

Still haven't decided on my opinion about it, but it's a different point of view on the subject, you might find it interesting as I did.

 

Edit: https://archive.org/details/philosophyloyal00roycuoft

If you're interested in reading about it. The above ideas are specifically from Chapter 3

Edited October 19, 2014 by Unlearner

[Marblehead]

In my mind, loyalty is remaining true to commitments we have made. It does not include commitments that were forced upon us by others.

 

In other words, keep your promises.

[Aetherous]

If the compassionate person were to have fostered the proper unfolding of their part of the relationship before the friend needed help then I think no such murky situation needed to arise. The compassionate person should have been kind *before* the crisis, extending no trouble and affording the friend ease in their undertakings.

 

Well, sometimes people just are who they are, and you can't really change that. I'm thinking of a friend of mine...I always had the intention to be there for him as his good friend, to show him a better way to live by example, to talk about it at times without forcing a change on him (which is actually a very unfriendly thing to do). His life might have turned out much worse if I hadn't been there as his friend at times...but it's not like he became a really good person after all. He's still basically a criminal type, despite us having been fairly good friends for many years. I would still help him out if he's in a jam...not just because I have almost a complete lack of respect for authority...not because I will get some reward spiritually, although I think that is the case...but because I'm a friend to him.

 

Sometimes you just have to accept people as they are, and KNOW they aren't changing. Or learn the hard way, by continually failing to change them. And then if you're on the spiritual path...it's your choice to either be good to them as they are, or to shun them for who they are. The former is good cultivation, and the latter cultivates the opposite of spirituality. True spiritual cultivation is to be accepting of them with their faults. It can help to think of them like a unique spice...you don't want to rid the entire world of black pepper just because you took a tablespoon full of it at once. It serves a unique purpose in the bigger picture...in the right combination. If you're the friend, then be the spice that brings balance to that black pepper. It might mean that life gets less easy by being around such a person...but that too is part of real spiritual cultivation.

 

Also...in talking about criminals...there's a point where I would not help them. Like if it's a serial killer or rapist or something (not speaking from experience, this is just hypothetical). Sometimes you have to lend your hand in administering justice, and it's good to have a well calibrated scale, to weigh out your options. Sometimes a true friend could stop helping the criminal, for the sake of the greater good.

[soaring crane]

Without having read the other replies, I'm going to say that loyalty in general isn't a pure concept. It's always mixed with other things like love, respect or fear. And then it's not so easy to discern the root of the actions that may be attritbuted to this thing called "loyalty".

 

Now, loyalty to a flag or political body is, imo, the strongest signal that a human has been swayed into giving up his/her personal identity, and is also form of laziness. imo.

[GrandmasterP]

Polonius:

This above all: to thine own self be true,

And it must follow, as the night the day,

Thou canst not then be false to any man.

Farewell, my blessing season this in thee!

 

Laertes:

Most humbly do I take my leave, my lord.

 

Hamlet Act 1, scene 3, 7882

Edited October 20, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[C T]

Almost all beings are loyal subjects of memories. Their present actions, patterns of behaviour, choice of physical, mental & emotional responses, etc., are largely constrained within a reservoir of conditionings determined by a blueprint of similar habitual patterns. This blueprint guides present activities, and will continue to do so in like manner until beings attain human form. Humans are not exempted by token of their humanness, but by a resolute spiritual potential (resolute - in this sense, full awakening is attainable) that beings of other classes do not have; those who cultivate this potential have the ability to cut the cord of karmic imprints and usurp the force of past habits, in other words, only humans have this innate ability to put aside the old and re-design a new blueprint if they so choose.

[thelerner]

I'm very pro loyalty (& giri) though one must be pretty choosy about where one lays it out. There are times its a blank check and other times on loan.

[manitou]

I think it begs the question 'loyalty to what?' To always be there for someone, all of the time, 24/7? To enter into an unspoken verbal agreement that one will never say anything bad about the other to someone else? Loyal to the sense that you will put up with someone's abuse and never call the cops?

 

Such an arbitrary quality! I know that my old police Captain always told me he valued loyalty above everything else in the people around him. And what a nut job he was - he just wanted to hedge his bets and make sure his superiors didn't find out about his antics.

 

the Sage and others like him would value Humility greatly. To humbly be of service to mankind. But loyalty? The only loyalty I can remember off the top of my head is mention of 'filial piety' or something like that in the TTC. Why would a Sage pledge loyalty to someone (other than his family). For personal gain? To simply keep one's word to fulfill a promise - perhaps a very

noble reason at that?

 

I just glanced up at CT's quote. Loyal to memories. That's what we are. Conditioned and loyal to the patterns that were implanted early. The fears that were implanted early. Yup. That's what we're loyal to.

[Aetherous]

the Sage and others like him would value Humility greatly. To humbly be of service to mankind. But loyalty? The only loyalty I can remember off the top of my head is mention of 'filial piety' or something like that in the TTC. Why would a Sage pledge loyalty to someone (other than his family).

 

The two bolded parts are conflicting.

[Marblehead]

The two bolded parts are conflicting.

I'm glad you don't read a lot of my posts. Conflicts everywhere!!!

[manitou]

Good point, Atherous.

 

I'm not equating humbly being of service to mankind to pledging loyalty to someone who may not be 'deserving' of his loyalty. Like the above mentioned police captain. I think that type of loyalty is 'usury' under the guise of loyalty.

 

The sage would be loyal to his sageness, I'm guessing. He will take the highest path in every fork in the road; of that I am sure. He would be loyal to that concept. To a concept, perfect loyalty would be possible.

 

For one to be totally loyal to an individual may be politically or practically expedient, from the point of view of the person being loyal. It may be totally beneficial to both parties, both the loyalor and loyalee. But I don't see 'loyalty alone' as a particular wonderful concept in and of its own accord. An abuse victim is plenty loyal to her abuser, usually.

 

Again, this is one relativistic topic.

[Unlearner]

Good point, Atherous.

 

I'm not equating humbly being of service to mankind to pledging loyalty to someone who may not be 'deserving' of his loyalty. Like the above mentioned police captain. I think that type of loyalty is 'usury' under the guise of loyalty.

 

The sage would be loyal to his sageness, I'm guessing. He will take the highest path in every fork in the road; of that I am sure. He would be loyal to that concept. To a concept, perfect loyalty would be possible.

 

For one to be totally loyal to an individual may be politically or practically expedient, from the point of view of the person being loyal. It may be totally beneficial to both parties, both the loyalor and loyalee. But I don't see 'loyalty alone' as a particular wonderful concept in and of its own accord. An abuse victim is plenty loyal to her abuser, usually.

 

Again, this is one relativistic topic.

 

This is a very good observation. I definitely agree that humility and loyalty are not mutually inclusive. I value and practice humility as a way of diminishing the ego, but that's a personal thing for me; showing humility to another for me does not imply my loyalty to them.

 

Also, there certainly does seem to be a significant difference between loyalty to an individual or group as opposed to loyalty to an ideal. Still, both can have their good and bad sides, such as loyalty to a person whom you trust has good values (sageness/wisdom, perhaps?) or loyalty to a good ideal, versus loyalty to a person/group which may seem to work well in practice but, ultimately, has bad fundamental ideals, or even misguided loyalty to a bad ideal (perhaps through negative personal experience?).

 

Still, in the end, doesn't this all eventually boil down to loyalty to ideals/values, since loyalty to a person would initially be warranted by some sort of perception that they are loyal to the same values you are loyal to? Then again, this could also give birth to blind loyalty, such as, "I like this person's values, so I will be absolutely loyal to them," but then that person doesn't follow those values I saw in them as closely as I originally thought. This blind loyalty is something we certainly need to be cautious of.

 

Also, CT's observation about loyalty to memories is a great observation.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Unlearner

[Aetherous]

I'm glad you don't read a lot of my posts. Conflicts everywhere!!!

 

I scour every single one.

[Spotless]

Loyalty - it is for the most part exterior.

 

Loyalty to a valley of trees - this can be done with passion and without fear of being saddled to a sleeping horse.

 

Loyalty to a human or a group - this is something that often breeds the blind leading the blind.

 

Loyalty to oneself - if the loyalty is to the discovery of oneself - when it is discovered it will be loyalty to all and everything. (But it will no longer be contained by loyalty - loyalty will be transcended, given over - released)

 

Never ending patience and compassion require no loyalty - loyalty for the most part is identification with a side or ownership or positions or DNA.

 

Loyalty applies the heat to war and the resolve to obliterate. It brings grandure to horrendous stupidity.

Loyalty is a blanket we cover our positions with and something we require of those under us so that we may solidify our positions.

 

Humans are mesmerized by romantic sentimentality that justifies sleep - the deep sleep of positions and those we share our positions with - those we fortify with.

Their is no such thing as loyalty from a sleeping person.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Spotless

[manitou]

I think being loyal to one's own word may be the best type of loyalty there is. Everything else seems to stem from that.

 

(FYI - Unlearner - CT's observations about anything are always awesome )

Edited October 22, 2014 by manitou

[Marblehead]

I think being loyal to one's own word may be the best type of loyalty there is.

Dear heart, I already told you that. Hehehe.

[Brian]

I personally think it's a virtue, and is literally always good. Even if lets say, you're a loyal friend to someone who is a criminal, and give them shelter when running from the law or something. What you're doing is good.

 

<snip>

What if you loyally provide shelter to your criminal friend and you come home from work the next day to find a meth lab in your bathroom? Or an eleven-year-old tied-up in your bedroom? Your loyalty still literally always good or do you call the police?

 

Loyalty is the reverse side of the respect coin. Both should be earned and both should be continually reassessed.

 

Allegiance is a tricky thing.

[Brian]

I think being loyal to one's own word may be the best type of loyalty there is. Everything else seems to stem from that.

 

(FYI - Unlearner - CT's observations about anything are always awesome )

I would add what may be an implied nuance in your statement, manitou, in that the challenge is becoming that person who is able to remain true to one's word AND who is able to be a good and moral person -- consistently & at the same time -- there's the rub...

[C T]

There are some reformed criminals, when reflecting back, who will gratefully acknowledge a friend or family member for turning them in - although at that time there will undoubtedly arise some amount of bitterness. Not common, but it happens.

 

I think we can value and remain loyal to friendships without the assumption that loyalty necessarily includes condoning stupid actions from our friends. We have a responsibility first and foremost to abide by some moral standards, and be guided forthwith. If a friend who acted foolishly acknowledges either immediately or at a later time his or her foolishness, enough to make amends, then such a realisation can actually turn out to be a factor in cementing the friendship even further. There will certainly be a greater degree of mutual trust and respect arising from such honest encounters.

 

just a thought.

Edited October 22, 2014 by C T

[Spotless]

The general patina regarding Loyalty is that it is a good thing and from the standpoint of a patina I would agree.

It is kind of a safety thing like friends don't steal someone's girl friend or talk behind their back or make them feel uncomfortable for fun beyond what capacities they have to endure this without some corrosive effect.

 

Loyalty in general slides in along "past time" proclivities. Loyalty to someone or some position makes it much harder to see in present time that person or position. Moreover it makes it harder for us to be in the present - loyalty is not based in the now.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Spotless

[Marblehead]

 

just a thought.

And a good thought, I think.

 

And what you said returns to the importance of first being true (loyal) to one's self.