Loyalty v. Righteousness

[Prince_James]

Suppose you pledge absolute fealty to a person. You swear "I will do whatever you want me to do".

For many years, the person asks you to do only things which are morally correct. That is to say, he does not ask you to commit an act which we would all consider evil in the normal sense. However, eventually he asks of you to do something morally incorrigible. Let us say something something which almost all human beings would find revolting:

Abducting a random child and raping and murdering that child.

Recalling that one has sworn absolute allegiance to this man without any provisions for morality, is it ethically valid to refuse?

 

[Oniw17]

I consider loyalty more of a feeling than something to be pledged. But...no, if I ever found myself in that situation, it wouldn't be right to decline that request.

 

[Baron Max]

That's easy! What's the penalty for either "violation"?

Ethics is determined by the society and social conditioning/training, it's not written on some stone somewhere.

Baron Max

 

[vslayer]

i think a more realistic scenario, which i have thought abotu myself is this:

one of your friends starts a fight with someone at a pub and then starts losing, you know he is in the wrong by starting that fight, but would it not also be immoral to let your friend get beaten up?

 

[Prince_James]

Oniw17:

So you would rape and murder the child because you have pledged yourself to that person?

Baron Max:

There is no penalty for raping and murdering the child, one is killed if one does not do as he says.

VSlayer:

A good addition to it.

There is also the other consideration: Does your loyalty to your friend allow you to interfere with a fair fight?

 

[Oniw17]

That's easy! What's the penalty for either "violation"?

Ethics is determined by the society and social conditioning/training, it's not written on some stone somewhere.

Baron Max

Ethics are determined by the individual, laws are determined by society.

i think a more realistic scenario, which i have thought abotu myself is this:

one of your friends starts a fight with someone at a pub and then starts losing, you know he is in the wrong by starting that fight, but would it not also be immoral to let your friend get beaten up?

Of course I would jump in. Except I'd probably be the one starting the fight if we were getting drunk(also I can't go to bars to drink).

 

[Baron Max]

Baron Max: There is no penalty for raping and murdering the child, one is killed if one does not do as he says.

Then I'd kill the little kid without a second thought.

Baron Max

 

[Oniw17]

So you would rape and murder the child because you have pledged yourself to that person?

Yes, it's an obligation.

There is also the other consideration: Does your loyalty to your friend allow you to interfere with a fair fight?

It makes you obligated to do so, regardless of whether you end up in an 'unfair fight later on.

 

[FallingSkyward]

Uh, yes. Some ethical dilemmas are of greater moral validity than others, for instance - if you had to choose between killing a cat and killing a child, it would be more morally correct to kill the cat(for obvious reasons, let's not get into the "specism" BS). While under normal circumstances murdering a cat would be unethical, when given two absolutes(either child or the cat will be dead as a result of your decision), it would be completely immoral to kill the child so that the cat can live.

Similarly, if you are an ethical person, it is easy to see that your word to a crazy person would mean nothing if you were faced with having to murder anyone, let alone a child. You would not be hurting anyone by going back on your word except perhaps a little pride in yourself and the person's esteem in you. When weighed against what the child and anyone associated with the child(including yourself, if you're sane) would feel, I think it is easy to come to a conclusion.

To look at it more subjectively - if someone swore their allegiance to someone without any guidelines for morality, perhaps assuming they'd be given an immoral task to undertake, there would probably be no concern for ethics. If that is true, the person could just as easily go against his word without concern for the ethical implications of loyalty.

 

[Oniw17]

Why do they have to be immoral to swear their allegiance with no moral guidelines? Maybe they weren't expecting an immoral task.

 

[FallingSkyward]

Yes, it's an obligation.


It makes you obligated to do so, regardless of whether you end up in an 'unfair fight later on.

That's disgusting. How is your obligation to a fucked up person when he asks you to mame a child of more weight than your obligation to all of your other morals, assuming you have any? Why is keeping your "word" more of a moral highground that refraining from murder?

 

[Oniw17]

That's disgusting. How is your obligation to a fucked up person when he asks you to mame a child of more weight than your obligation to all of your other morals, assuming you have any? Why is your "word" more of a moral highground that refraining from murder?

I personally would never make such an agreement, but I place loyalty higher as a virtue than I place killing as a bad thing.

 

[FallingSkyward]

I personally would never make such an agreement, but I place loyalty higher as a virtue than I place killing as a bad thing.

Why?

So you view all loyalty as the same loyalty? Let's say you vow loyalty to a political figure who becomes insane and starts dishing out irrational orders; this doesn't alter your vow?

A word is not some impenitrible ethical rock. It is something that should be maintained as long at is is rational to do so.

 

[Oniw17]

Why?

I guess I'm probably a little different than you.

So you view all loyalty as the same loyalty?

No.

Let's say you vow loyalty to a political figure

...would've been lying in the first place.

who becomes insane and starts dishing out irrational orders; this doesn't alter your vow?

Of course it does, but it didn't seem like that was part of the situation.

A word is not some impenitrible ethical rock. It is something that should be maintained as long at is is rational to do so.

It doesn't have anything keeping my word, I have no problem with lying.

 

[FallingSkyward]

I guess I'm probably a little different than you.

Right. I'm asking why you are.

Of course it does, but it didn't seem like that was part of the situation.

It is. If a person with rational moral standards vows to obey someone, then they are obligated to continue obeying the person until the demands become irrational/unethical. Loyalty to madness is reprehensible.

Only if a person were unethical would they partake in doing anything someone asks. If the situation is unethical to begin with, it is ridiculous to make separations between ethical and unethical in regards to their adherance to the agreement. Of course they are unethical if they follow through with an unethical agreement.

This question, I think, answers itself.

It doesn't have anything keeping my word, I have no problem with lying.

It doesn't? Then what is this whole "loyalty" thing about? Going back to the original hypothetical, you vowed to serve this person. Your word is linking you to obligation.

 

[Oniw17]

Right. I'm asking why you are.

I haven't looked into it very much, but I'd guess a combinations of my nature and my experiences.

It is. If a person vows to obey a person and you have rational moral standards, then you are obligated to continue obeying the person until the demands become irrational/unethical.

The OP doesn't say that the person went crazy. Perhaps they are just indifferent about death, and would like to 'enlighten' you to be the same way.

Only if you are an unethical person would you partake in doing anything a person asks.

Like I said, I wouldn't have made such a statement(and meant it) in the first place. That doesn't mean that it's unethical. What if that person saved your mom's life? Or your daughter's?

If the situation is unethical to begin with, it is ridiculous to make separations between ethical and unethical in regards to their adherance to the agreement.

If they're just any old person(which would always be the case for me) then it would be kind of slavish.

It doesn't? Than what is this whole "loyalty" thing about? Going back to the original hypothetical, you vowed to serve this person. Your word is linking you to obligation.

No. What's binding me would be my actual loyalty, not my word. Assuming I wasn't lying(primarily to myself) in such a vow, it would be the feeling of loyalty(that I was talking about in my first post) linking me to obligation. For example, in a hypothetical situation, if I had to kill any number of people v. my sister, that number of people would be dead the next day every time.

 

[FallingSkyward]

I haven't looked into it very much, but I'd guess a combinations of my nature and my experiences.

If you make a statement like that in debate, it's good to have an explanation as to why. I told you why I think the right of the child to life outweigh your obligation to an incredibly sick person.

The OP doesn't say that the person went crazy. Perhaps they are just indifferent about death, and would like to 'enlighten' you to be the same way.

If they were "indifferent" to death, they would not be asking someone to seek it out. Indifferent means apathetic. The fact that they ask is implying that they want it done. If you don't believe that a person like that is sick, there is something wrong with you.

Like I said, I wouldn't have made such a statement(and meant it) in the first place. That doesn't mean that it's unethical. What if that person saved your mom's life? Or your daughter's?

It doesn't matter if you would in actuality, this is a hypothetical. A flawed hypothetical, but one nonetheless.

Because a person did something you appreciate, it would be ethical to pledge yourself to any dark service they wish carried out? I don't think so. There is no circumstance that would warrant such an unethical pledge.

No. What's binding me would be my actual loyalty, not my word. Assuming I wasn't lying(primarily to myself) in such a vow, it would be the feeling of loyalty(that I was talking about in my first post) linking me to obligation.

Loyalty is one thing(as you agreed before, it is subject to change). Your word is more binding. You would not be in any way obligated to the person to complete such an egregious task if it weren't for the verbal pact you had made, would you?

If you were just loyal to this person, would you carry out the task he asked you to?

There is a definite separation of loyalty and vow as far as what is binding in this situation. Do you understand?

For example, in a hypothetical situation, if I had to kill any number of people v. my sister, that number of people would be dead the next day every time.

Curious: if the original hypothetical were in place here, would you kill your sister if the person you'd made this pact with asked you to?

 

[whitewolf]

One's most important, natural obligation is loyalty to self. Therefore, if one decides that keeping a dogged loyalty to a third party is more important than a life of a child, then one ought to follow through with that principle. There are more sickos like that than we'd like to think.

I advise no other loyalty than loyalty to self; that makes things more simple.

 

[Oniw17]

If you make a statement like that in debate, it's good to have an explanation as to why. I told you why I think the right of the child to life outweigh your obligation to an incredibly sick person.

Ok. I'm assuming that it's some random child who I don't know. If I feel loyal enough to the person in the first place to make such a vow, their happiness is obviously more important to me than some random kid.

If they were "indifferent" to death, they would not be asking someone to seek it out. Indifferent means apathetic. The fact that they ask is implying that they want it done. If you don't believe that a person like that is sick, there is something wrong with you.

I know what indifferent means. However, if you were to psychological condition someone else to be indifferent about something they would normally be against, they must experience it in order to realize it's insignificance(insignificant in your opinion).

It doesn't matter if you would in actuality, this is a hypothetical. A flawed hypothetical, but one nonetheless.

Because a person did something you appreciate, it would be ethical to pledge yourself to any dark service they wish carried out?

I wouldn't do such a thing, as I've already said, but if one was to do such a thing9say they have a family member hostage), I don't see a problem.

I don't think so. There is no circumstance that would warrant such an unethical pledge.

No circumstance? That's kind of arrogant. What if I kidnapped everyone you know and threatened to kill all of them aswell as you?

Loyalty is one thing(as you agreed before, it is subject to change). Your word is more binding.

Your word only binds you if it means anything to you.

You would not be in any way obligated to the person to complete such an egregious task if it weren't for the verbal pact you had made, would you?

Yes, if I felt it was up to me to do.

If you were just loyal to this person, would you carry out the task he asked you to?

If I felt I should.

There is a definite separation of loyalty and vow as far as what is binding in this situation. Do you understand?

Understand what? You expect me to accept the same things you do?? Let's go woship the sun together.

Curious: if the original hypothetical were in place here, would you kill your sister if the person you'd made this pact with asked you to?

No. My loyalty to my sister would outweigh my loyalty to the other person. With a randomkid, there are no other loyalties.

 

[Prince_James]

Fallingskyward:

Why do you hold that murder is a greater sin than disloyalty?