Strategic moves or blind faith? The truth behind loyalty

LOYALTHY is a deep-rooted commitment with unwavering trust and allegiance to a person, group, or cause that stems from shared values, experiences, or emotional bonds. In law and political science, loyalty is the fidelity of an individual to a nation. In politics, change of allegiance to a party or a leader is seen as a betrayal of loyalty. Hence, loyalty could be manifested at different levels.

One could be a loyal servant to a king, a loyal citizen to a country, a loyal member to a political party or a loyal employee to an organisation. In every level, loyalty demands sincere commitment to the existence, honour and protection of the entity for whom or for which we vouch for our loyalty.

From a theological perspective, loyalty is a central pillar of faith.

According to the Gospel of Matthew, "No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other”. In Buddhist teachings, the path of enlightenment necessitates cultivating qualities such as trustworthiness, devotion and commitment. Worshiping and obedience to none but Allah is the fundamental creed in Islam.

However, military institutions are ideal earthly mundane models to exemplify loyalty. In Bushido Shoshinshu - the Samurai Code of the Warrior - loyalty is the most important and frequently emphasised virtue. The revenge of the forty-seven rōnin also known as the Akō incident or Akō vendetta is a true story in Japanese culture as a symbol of loyalty, sacrifice, persistence, and honor.

The loyalty and bravery of John of Bohemia’s knights, even in the face of overwhelming odds, is an exemplary testament of loyalty that embodies unwavering commitment, trust, and steadfast dedication in military institutions.

Nevertheless, “loyalty is not just a simple habit of attachment, but involves ethical obligations and duties relative to the object of that loyalty” - argued Pauline Shanks Kaurin, a professor of Professional Military Ethics.

Even in the Military, where obedience and loyalty are central virtues, manifestly illegal or immoral commands can be ignored.

As a matter of fact, finding a legal boundary to be obedient or loyal is easier than finding a moral boundary. In other words, drawing the moral boundary beyond which the virtue of obedience and loyalty is not unconditional could be elusive.

Ideally, an oath of loyalty - be it legal or ceremonial - demands an all-out dedicated commitment and effort. Often that makes one blind. Thus, finding the fine line between blind loyalty and a sincere commitment with a moral compass is a challenge.

A blind loyalty to a political party, for example, might prevent one from becoming a critique of the wrongdoings of the leaders. Or a blind loyalty to a superior might impel a subordinate to keep mum which would eventually cost an organisation a grave toll. In the end, blind loyalty without ethical obligations does more harm than good to those whom we are loyal to. Not to mention, blind loyalty breeds injustice.

Albeit, blind loyalty often involves hiding the truth in the name of protecting honour or preventing any potential crisis and is often considered as a strategic move. However, when hiding the truth becomes a culture of the so-called “strategic move”, then lies become the tool of blind loyalty.

Hence identifying the purpose of hiding the truth for the sake of loyalty might help one to draw the elusive boundary of ethical obligations in loyalty. An utilitarian way to draw the ethical boundary of obligation is to identify the hierarchy of obligation of obedience.

An ethically loyal person would carefully pursue the obligations of obedience according to an order of priority - a hierarchy of obligation of obedience. In ethically guided loyalty, as it is commonly accepted, an obligation to an organisation is higher than an obligation to a superior, an obligation to a nation is higher than the obligation to an organisation or an obligation to humanity is higher than the obligation to a nation.

Contrary to that common perception, a narrative of loyalty without following the hierarchy of obligation of obedience “crowns” a leader of a party, an organisation or a nation to a higher throne than they deserve. However, in the end, both the leader and their entity suffer a grave toll.

On the other hand, the loyalty of the followers with a moral compass and a hierarchy of obligation of obedience not only can save the leader from losing their deserving crowns but also from harming their entity - be it a party, an organisation or a nation. This understanding is important for both - those who are steadfast and loyal and those who owe one’s loyalty.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of Sinar Daily.