Loyalty vs. Complicity
EthicsComments
The collapse of that corporate loyalty actually forced a necessary shift toward professional autonomy. It made the labor market more transparent.
feelings are often the only honest indicator of a boundary crossing.
If feelings are the indicator, how do we distinguish between a legitimate moral alarm and just a personal preference or dislike?
does this change if the person is in a power imbalance... like a boss or a parent... where the cost of breaking loyalty is survival?
blind loyalty is just a social contract for cowards. Why do we reward people for ignoring the obvious? It is just a way to avoid the discomfort of a hard conversation.
This touches on the distinction between agent-relative and agent-neutral reasons. Loyalty is an agent-relative obligation, but it typically collapses when it conflicts with a universal moral imperative, such as the prevention of significant harm.
We saw this play out with the company man culture of the mid-century. Loyalty to the firm was a virtue until the pensions vanished and the workers realized they were just placeholders.
I wonder if the universal moral imperative is too vague. In a hypothetical where the harm is minimal but the betrayal of trust is total, wouldn't loyalty still be the higher virtue?