Loyalty to your friends and family means protecting them from a lynch mob, and then making sure they repent for their crimes properly once that is done. Only one part of that is seen to the public, which is why you have some warped idea of how it works.
If a person has earned my loyalty, they have done enough good by me to not be instantly tossed away like garbage the moment an accusation happens. And they have done enough to earn my defense from an angry bunch of idiots trying to attack them, regardless of what they have committed.
Everyone deserves to have someone in their corner. And if their current action is irrelevant to whatever prior action earned my loyalty, then I won't discard it entirely once it comes to light. No sin is so great that the punishment is "every single thing you've ever done is now erased, and you are damned to solitary confinement until death."
You’re reading way too much context into what I said. I didn’t say anything about lynch mobs, crimes, or giving people the benefit of the doubt.
It seems to me that loyalty may be a substitute for higher values that would make loyalty unnecessary.
You shouldn’t let anyone be killed by an angry lynch mob. You shouldn’t toss away anyone the moment an accusation happens. You should extend the benefit of doubt to anyone who hasn’t done something to explicit make you distrust them. Everyone should be granted some degree of grace as they try to make their way through this crazy world.
These are values that should be upheld regardless of who the person is, friend or stranger, so loyalty in this context just seems like a substitute for people unwilling or unable to do these things for people who they aren’t personally invested in.
Loyalty makes sense in the context where morality isn’t clearly involved, such as loyalty to a sports team or to a country or even to an ideology, but in moral matters it’s insufficient and can even be problematic.
The only time loyalty exists as a quality that can be quantified and brought up, is during times of struggle where you are being asked to turn against them. The vast majority of these times are when a crime or sin is committed. You didn't need to put context, because the very word being used adds context itself, and you don't want those problems brought up because it immediately makes the reason for loyalty obvious.
in moral matters it’s insufficient and can even be problematic.
It doesn't need to be anything more than it is. You hate loyalty because you've been on the losing end, as your own example demonstates. The entire point of it is to keep external forces on the losing end to protect someone who has done right by you enough to have earned your loyalty.
Sure in a perfect world where everything is exactly perfectly utopian its unnecessary, but this isn't that world and never will be. The same reason why for all the "flaws" and "unnecessary" elements you can in things like capitalism, monogamy, and religion they still exist and are superior to the alternative.
You hate loyalty because you've been on the losing end,
Not true. You don't know me. Also, I didn't say I hate loyalty.
The entire point of it is to keep external forces on the losing end to protect someone who has done right by you enough to have earned your loyalty.
So it's a tribal substitute for informed judgement. That fits more or less with what I said.
A good person doesn't need loyalty to do this because they believe everyone who hasn't done anything to explicitly lose their trust has the right to the benefit of the doubt.
Sure in a perfect world where everything is exactly perfectly utopian its unnecessary, but this isn't that world and never will be.
I disagree. In my experience it's in the imperfect world where grace shines the brightest. I know many people's whose lives are a testimony to that end. You may think me naive but I encourage everyone to resist the pull of tribalism and seek higher values.
Nope, but when you complain about a specific problem being the reason you don't understand something considered a good thing by most people, it comes across to everyone as exactly that.
That fits more or less with what I said.
Sure, we can add more and more words to make you sound smarter by adding more and more complexity to one of the most basic human concepts and instincts.
You may think me naive but I encourage everyone to resist the pull of tribalism and seek higher values.
While you are encouraging everyone to live in a purity spiral of aiming for perfection and creating a perfect world, you are being cut down and rendered powerless by people who are under no such restriction and are under no care for your morals or preserving them.
And they love you trying to uphold all those values, while downplaying loyalty and other "imperfect" traits of morality. Makes it incredibly easy to isolate people out and remove them entirely, while also making you hilariously easy to manipulate to their whims and needs until you yourself are isolated out and lobotomized.
Loyalty to your friends and family means protecting them from a lynch mob, and then making sure they repent for their crimes properly once that is done. Only one part of that is seen to the public, which is why you have some warped idea of how it works.
If a person has earned my loyalty, they have done enough good by me to not be instantly tossed away like garbage the moment an accusation happens. And they have done enough to earn my defense from an angry bunch of idiots trying to attack them, regardless of what they have committed.
Everyone deserves to have someone in their corner. And if their current action is irrelevant to whatever prior action earned my loyalty, then I won't discard it entirely once it comes to light. No sin is so great that the punishment is "every single thing you've ever done is now erased, and you are damned to solitary confinement until death."
You’re reading way too much context into what I said. I didn’t say anything about lynch mobs, crimes, or giving people the benefit of the doubt.
It seems to me that loyalty may be a substitute for higher values that would make loyalty unnecessary.
You shouldn’t let anyone be killed by an angry lynch mob. You shouldn’t toss away anyone the moment an accusation happens. You should extend the benefit of doubt to anyone who hasn’t done something to explicit make you distrust them. Everyone should be granted some degree of grace as they try to make their way through this crazy world.
These are values that should be upheld regardless of who the person is, friend or stranger, so loyalty in this context just seems like a substitute for people unwilling or unable to do these things for people who they aren’t personally invested in.
Loyalty makes sense in the context where morality isn’t clearly involved, such as loyalty to a sports team or to a country or even to an ideology, but in moral matters it’s insufficient and can even be problematic.
The only time loyalty exists as a quality that can be quantified and brought up, is during times of struggle where you are being asked to turn against them. The vast majority of these times are when a crime or sin is committed. You didn't need to put context, because the very word being used adds context itself, and you don't want those problems brought up because it immediately makes the reason for loyalty obvious.
It doesn't need to be anything more than it is. You hate loyalty because you've been on the losing end, as your own example demonstates. The entire point of it is to keep external forces on the losing end to protect someone who has done right by you enough to have earned your loyalty.
Sure in a perfect world where everything is exactly perfectly utopian its unnecessary, but this isn't that world and never will be. The same reason why for all the "flaws" and "unnecessary" elements you can in things like capitalism, monogamy, and religion they still exist and are superior to the alternative.
Not true. You don't know me. Also, I didn't say I hate loyalty.
So it's a tribal substitute for informed judgement. That fits more or less with what I said.
A good person doesn't need loyalty to do this because they believe everyone who hasn't done anything to explicitly lose their trust has the right to the benefit of the doubt.
I disagree. In my experience it's in the imperfect world where grace shines the brightest. I know many people's whose lives are a testimony to that end. You may think me naive but I encourage everyone to resist the pull of tribalism and seek higher values.
Nope, but when you complain about a specific problem being the reason you don't understand something considered a good thing by most people, it comes across to everyone as exactly that.
Sure, we can add more and more words to make you sound smarter by adding more and more complexity to one of the most basic human concepts and instincts.
While you are encouraging everyone to live in a purity spiral of aiming for perfection and creating a perfect world, you are being cut down and rendered powerless by people who are under no such restriction and are under no care for your morals or preserving them.
And they love you trying to uphold all those values, while downplaying loyalty and other "imperfect" traits of morality. Makes it incredibly easy to isolate people out and remove them entirely, while also making you hilariously easy to manipulate to their whims and needs until you yourself are isolated out and lobotomized.