I’m not sure loyalty is blindly defending or agreeing with objectively bad or incorrect things. I’d define loyalty as having the courage to offer honest correction, hold someone accountable, and help them to do the right thing.

I don’t think that’s what loyal means.

Layputy doesn’t mean taking their side when they’re wrong. It often can mean helping them realize that or staying by their side when they decide to meaningfully improve

I reject your definition for “loyal”.

I’m loyal to my cousin. I love him and will try to do best by him. He’s an alcoholic and I would throw his ass in jail myself if I could the next time I hear he’s drunk driving again.

Slaves and owners, 🤮

Would that narrow a definition make “blind loyalty” a redundant phrase? I agree on the biased part, but not all bias is unethical.

The word you’re looking for is “fanaticism”. And few consider it positive.

Fanaticism and loyalty are essentially the same thing. You pick the word to describe the same behaviour, depending on context. You call someone a fanatic when it is a bad thing. You call someone loyal, when it is a good thing.

Loyalty/fanaticism is trust+commitment. Children taking care of their parents as they age is a form of loyalty, and few would argue that’s a bad thing.

Yes people can be biased in favour of their loved ones but it’s pretty clear that we can’t help this in most cases; instead of hoping for people to self adjusted their loyalty/bias towards people, we instead just avoid having impartial judges, by not allowing people to judge their loved ones in many different professional walks of life

agreed man, fuck your family.

True. It is unethical and unscientific as well.

If I’m loyal to someone, it is because this person earned it by being loyal to me too. It needs to go both ways.
Maybe you’re considering the feudal type of loyalty where it mostly goes up? I don’t support that, I would feel exploited.
If I think they are wrong, then my loyalty will not make me support them being wrong, it will motivate me to make them understand they are wrong.
It’s if I don’t care about someone that I will let them be wrong.

I like to use the phrase “biased towards”, lol. But yeah, and even that only goes so far, because if you commit an act of grave immorality I’m gonna drop you from my life/report you to the authorities regardless of who you are. But expecting it not to take place is just silly: assuming good relationships, if you could only save one mom, wife or son from a fire, how could I blame you for saving yours and not mine? We’re just human beings after all and not disembodied and unbiased intelligences.

Per your definition, the effects of loyalty are always per se negative. I don’t doubt that in many situations this is true. I don’t think it’s always true. And a lot of it has to do with how we socialize. We need strong bonds. On a purely rational level, I’d be inclined to agree with you. We aren’t very rational though.

If my hypothetical friend, out of the blue, got drunk, got behind the wheel, and ran somebody over, many people might turn away. If I stayed by their side, helped them arrange themselves in this new life of guilt, helped them make restitutions, and kept them from sliding into isolation and depression, my loyalty could be seen as a force for good in a bad situation. I could still donate to cover the victim’s medical costs or funeral. There are bonds that keep us together even when we effed up.

Now, if I had willfully ignored all signs of alcohol abuse before, I think I’d be back on your page. So what I’m saying is we can create scenarios of loyalty with good outcomes. So the categorical dismissal as something negative isn’t true.

this ho ain’t loyal

This is why Buddhists teach that “attachments” are a bad thing.