Rational Loyalty

Lately, it seems like I'm always finding that the things I dislike the most have some element of irrational loyalty. For instance, religion has its blind faith, neo-conservatism has its patriotism, sports its die-hard fans, racism its rednecks, etc. However, when I tell middle-aged people that it seems loyalty in most cases is quite worthless - they look at me like I violated some holy writ (which I guess I have).

At first, I began to think that loyalty was completely irrational and based mostly on pure emotions - something to be disposed of. However, this intuitively seemed wrong to me. I don't think the world would function if we were a bunch of back-stabbers. Further, faith drives men to do amazingly good & bad things, as does patriotism, etc. So, yet again, this is an problem existing by degree - not dichotomy.

Where does one draw the line though? Let me start from what I know: loyalty in personal relationships seems like something to keep. I'd hate to think all my friends were just around so they could take my wallet, etc. - that's not a world I'd like to live. This it seems is a rational response society developed because we're all better off if their are social norms approving of loyalty in small groups. In fact, it may even be the case that the tribes our species have evolved from within have allowed our brain to be wired for this very action.

As we move into larger groups, loyalty seems to have a problem. Let's take the example of workers previous loyalty to their place of work. It was very common 40 years ago to work your entire life in one company and retire. You can see how this would promote loyalty. It's all you've known; the people, the system, all of it you've been surrounded with. However, more and more this loyalty can only be shown to be one way. The companies that are the object of your admiration go bankrupt or simply lay you off - for what end was this loyalty?

Larger still - to the level of a whole state or country is the issue of patriotism. It seems like every neo-conservative and most Republicans worship the USA but hate its government - fascinating... I remember hearing multiple talking heads call anyone who thought the US was to blame for foreign policy tragedies was a part of the "blame America first crowd". It's funny that such people will stick up for our country at all costs with no rationality - only for the love of tradition.

It seems safe to say that large scale loyalty is almost always irrational and unhealthy. I'd like to remove as much of any such biases from my worldview.

Now let's go to the opposite end of the spectrum: what are examples of irrational loyalty on the small scale? A problem that I've often tried to rid myself of is biases associated with my current beliefs - put another way: idea stickiness. This stickiness is irrational because you should let your thoughts be easily swayed by rational thought. As soon as I started to delve into Christianity, I realized my sticky worldview was going to change - but I resisted.

Some might say we need a strong moral core in order to function, but I'd have to say that almost all people don't have a moral core - they have societal-referencing: ie the Zeitgeist. Most people who worship God think nothing of lying to their kids about Santa or even pre-marital sex. This is because its reinforced by society at large. They don't kill people, not because it's sin, but because you'll be locked up or executed.

If our minds are open to let rational evidence shape our views we'd still recognize that society is a good thing - morals don't need to be sticky due to loyalty but from constant rational enforcement. To this end - it seems like the only times loyalty can be applied with positive effects is to personal relationships where there is a rational self-interest for both parties to remain loyal to each others interests.

I'd love to get some further thoughts on this.

Comments

[Jami]

all good points, except I'd also add that irrational loyalty, even in personal relationships, can be a bad thing. for instance, clinging to a relationship that is not mutually beneficial is probably the wrong way to go. determining whether personal relationships are mutually beneficial is sometimes fuzzy territory, however.

i'd also say we do have a moral core. or some of us do, anyway. that's where guilt comes into play. i doubt bernie madoff had a moral core, so maybe it depends on the person. and sometimes we may feel a little guilty, but do something we're not "supposed" to anyway. whether that guilt stems from society or our own sense of self depends on the person, and what they value. some people care about what other people think to the degree that they are shaped more by society, while others have set standards that they hope to live by, and are shaped by their self-imposed "morals". mostly, i think we all pick and choose between doing right and wrong, and try to pick the right thing to do when we can. and if we can't, we admit we're human and move on.

overall, i agree with you. irrationality is detrimental in all situations, except, perhaps, where 'ignorance is bliss' applies, even if it involves a perceived virtue, loyalty.

[Scottsweep]

Perhaps irrational loyalty is simply a shortcut for bypassing some of the harder lessons life and society have to offer.

[Pete Marchetto]

By "stickiness" you seem to be referring to hammer-and-nail syndrome: when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[Seth "Old Money" Plyler]

Nick,

I read this post a few days ago, and today was reading a neurology book which had an answer for your query.

First, emotions are essential in making decisions. Studies done on people with damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex show them to be unemotional and incapable of making decisions. They can be intelligent, morally sensitive, and can foresee consequences and solutions to hypothetical problems, but are unable to take action. If a person is unable to put an emotional value on a option, it seems a decision cannot be made.

Since emotion mediates all action, rationality alone will never decide the fate of humanity. Loyalty comes into play as an expression of pride. Pride for one's group and an "us and them" mentality allowed our predecessors to be more socially aggressive, and thus able to claim more land and better mates.

Morality and societal-referencing are two different things. Morality is the acquired feeling that murder is wrong. A societal reference would be someone noticing that murder leads to incarceration. At times one may trump the other depending on social stigmas, trends, necessity, etc.

I am not sure it's correct to assume that large scale loyalty is always bad. It's not an excuse to blindly play follow the leader, but if you think about it, turmoil is part of the human condition. A part that I'd say is (in small doses) essential for our survival as a species.

[Catholic Supporter]

How do you know something is rational, be it thought, evidence, or response? Does each person define that for themselves? That would imply that something that is rational can also be irrational and something irrational rational. Everything must begin somewhere...

[Nick Pinkston]

Yea, I think rationality comes in degrees like everything else. I'd think the strongest form of rationality is a mathematical proof. Everything from 1+1=2 on up can be proven in this way - hence the basis of math.

It seems what you're getting at is how to define truth or facts. I'd say repeatability is probably the biggest part of this. Rational means doing things in a thought out manner consistent with reality.

The reason for the scientific method is to derive facts. Are they always right? Of course not, but they are more right as they progress. This is being logical to me. Of course pure mathematics will be more rigorous than anything else.

I think to make a black and white distinction between rational and irrational is to have an unrealistic view of rationally itself - ie there is not a purely rational or irrational idea or action - but a spectrum of degrees of rationality.