A. Describing the Loyalty Framework
”Loyalty” can be defined in many ways. In its most basic sense, it describes the desire one has to be faithful to someone or something, for whatever reason. Inherent in any conception of loyalty is an assessment of right and wrong; we feel the pull to be loyal because we feel it is the right thing to do. As one commentator has observed, “[t]he ideal of loyalty is at the heart of common-sense He continues:
That morality highlights our special obligations to ourselves and one another and duties of personal loyalty to other people bulk large amongst these; they are the duties that we owe to other people in virtue of more or less intimate bonds, whether bonds of family, friendship, comradeship, collaboration, or whatever.
Loyalty can manifest itself in three ways, the simplest of which is the loyalty an individual has toward another individual. Person-to-person loyalty can take many forms-be it loyalty to a friend, colleague, sibling, parent, child, or anyone else- and can vary depending on the circumstances. One commentator has described this variance as follows: “[I]nside the family I might find my interests conflicting with my son's, but, outside the family, loyalty is likely to make me see his interests as ours or even as This perception of a unity of interests is characteristic of the strongest form of person-to-person loyalty.
The second form of loyalty is loyalty to groups. Examples of group loyalty include loyalty to one's coworkers, teammates, or community. Groups can be defined in many ways, and the loyalty that members feel to a given group can vary considerably. As a result, recognizing manifestations of group loyalty is often more difficult than recognizing person-to-person loyalty. Mark Van Vugt and Claire Hart have described loyalty as a “complex, multifaceted construct, consisting of emotive, cognitive, as well as behavioral Due to the many possible manifestations of group loyalty, assessing the extent to which each member feels loyalty to the group can be challenging: “[G]roups may be cohesive in different ways and, within the same group, members may contribute to the cohesion of the group in different However, for our purposes, it is sufficient to recognize that group loyalty exists as a concept separate and apart from loyalty to an individual, and the compulsion to be loyal to a group can be quite strong.
The third form of loyalty is loyalty to principles. This form of loyalty is distinct from loyalty to individuals or loyalty to groups in that it is considerably more abstract. But generally speaking, “[O]ne is loyal to . . . principles if one sticks to them even when it is difficult to do Principles to which one might be loyal include religious tenets, a prescribed code, or a general sense of right and wrong. Loyalty to principles, like all other loyalties, is not exclusive. It follows that loyalty to principles and other loyalties can frequently come into conflict. What am I to do, for example, when my son, to whom I am loyal, violates an essential tenet of our faith or when he commits a crime I deem reprehensible without justification? Every individual is loyal to a number of principles, and these loyalties can at times conflict both with one another and with loyalties to individuals or groups.
When an individual's numerous loyalties-to individuals, groups, and principles-can exist harmoniously, having numerous loyalties poses no significant hurdle. One can be loyal to one's fellow union members during the day, for example, and loyal to one's family at night and on weekends. When loyalties conflict, however, the result is greater clarity; in resolving such conflicts, an individual must determine which of his or her loyalties is stronger. Because a given individual has numerous loyalties of varying strengths, the depth of his or her loyalty to any one person, group, or principle is often unclear, even to the individual. Resolving conflicts of loyalties is always a challenge, and choosing which of two conflicting loyalties to privilege is both highly individualized and situational.
Moreover, as George Fletcher explains, due to the strong connection between one's loyalties and one's notion of self, individuals frequently adhere to the stronger of their loyalties, even when, from an external perspective, it might be wrong to do so: “Loyalties generally lead people to suspend judgment about right and wrong . . . . In loyalty, as in love, there is not even an illusion of scientific neutrality and intellectual Thus, in attempting to resolve a conflict of loyalties, abstract judgments about what is “right” or “wrong” are secondary to determining to which of two conflicting interests one is more loyal.
