<I'm appalled at the lack of even "enlightened" loyalty that pervades this thread>
Your statement implies that loyalty is an inherently positive human characteristic (the absence of which is appalling). I'd argue it is, at best, a double edged sword that requires some constraints.
I was somewhat amused last week with the noise about the capture of Saddam last week - the suggestion that the world was a safer place with the evil murderer behind bars. When we all know that Saddam was not individually responsible for a single victim of those who died under his government (ok, i don't really know, but a handful at best). And of course, it is the same with Hitler and most of the other psychopaths that have throughout history, come into power and directed a society (of regular people like you and me)to commit atrocities.
And this is all possible, to some meaningful extent, because of loyalty. Of course we could debate whether it is really loyalty, or obedience or coercion but at the end of the discussion i think we'd agree, at some level, that it's all a variation of that human tendency towards tribalism - that desire of people to align themselves with the group in order to enjoy the benefits of inclusion.
And, of course, the tribal instinct isn't all bad because without the willingness of people to subordinate their our desires for that of the group we'd have anarchy.
But in any case, like all the other characteristics that allows our ancestors to win the evolutionary battle for survival, we should examine where it works positively and where it creates unnecessary conflict and harm.
Does a citizen have a duty to support their country? Yes. Unswerving allegiance? No (not for me anyways). |
