Philosophy Now Forum

In an ideal world, of course, we would want both, in equal measure. But given that our world is not ideal, if you had to choose one quality above the other in any sort of interaction with another person, ranging from the most intimate relationship, to casual acquaintances, which would it be?

I'm going to go with loyalty, because this undoubtedly covers the most important stuff. If your partner came to you one day and said, Oh, by the way, I slept with your best friend last night, well, he might get top marks for honesty, but loyalty, not so much. Unless he was lying, of course, but that would raise a whole load of other questions.

That's an extreme case, but I think the principle holds true for pretty much everything.

Maia wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 9:11 am In an ideal world, of course, we would want both, in equal measure. But given that our world is not ideal, if you had to choose one quality above the other in any sort of interaction with another person, ranging from the most intimate relationship, to casual acquaintances, which would it be?

I'm going to go with loyalty, because this undoubtedly covers the most important stuff. If your partner came to you one day and said, Oh, by the way, I slept with your best friend last night, well, he might get top marks for honesty, but loyalty, not so much. Unless he was lying, of course, but that would raise a whole load of other questions.

That's an extreme case, but I think the principle holds true for pretty much everything.

That you people have 'grown up' to become so insecure that you need 'loyalty' from another/s, like above, is quite worrisome.

Just maybe if you could all be honest with each other, in the first place, then you would not end up being what is referred to as 'not being loyal', to each other.

Maia wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 9:11 am In an ideal world, of course, we would want both, in equal measure. But given that our world is not ideal, if you had to choose one quality above the other in any sort of interaction with another person, ranging from the most intimate relationship, to casual acquaintances, which would it be?

I'm going to go with loyalty, because this undoubtedly covers the most important stuff. If your partner came to you one day and said, Oh, by the way, I slept with your best friend last night, well, he might get top marks for honesty, but loyalty, not so much. Unless he was lying, of course, but that would raise a whole load of other questions.

That's an extreme case, but I think the principle holds true for pretty much everything.

self respect is more important

-Imp

Indeed, we may have a sophisticated ploy there, in fact. The lover uses his infidelity to afford himself a chance to display his honesty and with very much at stake... making the honesty even more costly and therefore vauluable to who receives it. Very clever.

It's a form of the switcharoo by way of augmenting a particular quality at the temporary expense of another. The betrayed lover admires his honesty so much that she eventually forgives the infidelity.

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Honesty or loyalty, which is more important?
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
If you are a mass murderer I suppose they are equally important if you intend to deceive them prior to chopping them up.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 9:59 pm Indeed, we may have a sophisticated ploy there, in fact. The lover uses his infidelity to afford himself a chance to display his honesty and with very much at stake... making the honesty even more costly and therefore vauluable to who receives it. Very clever.

It's a form of the switcharoo by way of augmenting a particular quality at the temporary expense of another. The betrayed lover admires his honesty so much that she eventually forgives the infidelity.

And no doubt beg forgiveness as he's doing it. Wouldn't actually work, though.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 11:53 pm ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Honesty or loyalty, which is more important?
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
If you are a mass murderer I suppose they are equally important if you intend to deceive them prior to chopping them up.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

Funnily enough, I recently read a book about that.

Maia wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 7:52 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 11:53 pm ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Honesty or loyalty, which is more important?
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
If you are a mass murderer I suppose they are equally important if you intend to deceive them prior to chopping them up.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

Funnily enough, I recently read a book about that.

I've probably read that one too, was it "The Complete Idiots Guide to Mass Murder" ?

..loved the conclusion.

Honesty is loyalty to the truth and loyalty is always honest when honesty is necessitated.

If the partner cheated than apparently he was not honest about the issues in the relationship that led to the cheating.

Too vague of a question to make much sense of it. Is "honesty" merely the absence of lying? Does it require volunteering information unasked, but perhaps felt to be important?

In terms of Philosophy, loyalty is more important to maintain relationships with others, than honesty.

Honesty destroys everything, because there's a point where other people don't want to know what you truly feel/think/believe.

You should know this well, already, Maia.


People want the Magic, not the Truth.

Loyalty is faithful allegiance to a person or institution or idea. Truth is either on or off in the case of any action committed by a person. So, what is the situation when you are loyal to a person who is not truthful to you? What if you're loyal for decades even though you know they're untruthful and maybe even actually hostile to you in their actions? When do you choose to honor the truth they are revealing to you and not your faithfulness to the idea of loyalty?

I would say that loyalty to friends or relatives, say, is most like a science experiment. Try it multiple times, perhaps even as long as you can bear it, to determine if they will ever change with regard to their actions to you. After enough iterations with the same results it would be most prudent to cut off the loyalty and deal with situation honestly.

Sexual fidelity is a different kind of question in many ways. It is either important to you or not, it depends on the situation or not. Does the infidelity involve love--in which case, you may as well walk away or start negotiating? Or was it a more complicated situation that does not? Loyalty is somewhat irrelevant, as it becomes a question of your own truth.

Truth is a difficult question, because there are situations where lying is actually a more ethical choice than telling the truth. However, as a general rule, truth is worth pursuing. It's hard to measure or analyze anything without it.

There's only three main categories of philosopher type, really. There's the good metaphysician; he's the one looking for god. There's the active nihilist; he's the one taking advantage of the fact that there is no god (and everything is permitted read Dos) and life is meaningless and ends up getting into trouble. And then there's the passive nihilist; he's the regular middle working class atheist who doesn't believe in immortality but is fine with living roughly 83 years, buying a house, and having a family. The secular citizen good guy. He has a strong moral sense that he gets from evolutionary theory and has likely read Dawkins or of him. The selfish gene doesn't bother him because we have culture and transcend the animals like aristotle. The fact that the universe is 99 percent cold empty space (you know what i mean) doesn't bother him. He persists. He does his duty and follows the rules because that's how they were when he got there, and they seem to work so far. Well adjusted and never developed any of the perversions the active nihilists always have. Prefers Jeff Goldblum style sex sans the sex scene in The Fly. Scientific, masculine and cool, analytical, sport coatish, nothing risqué, crude or over the top.

So there's basically three classes, good, evil, and stoic. Then, you have subdivisions like lawful, chaotic, and neutral. Then there are character types like Bretons, Wizards, Bards, Rogues, Archers, Barbarians, Mages, Assassins, etc.

Loyalty is of no value whatsoever, unless we qualify it. Adolf Eichman was loyal to the Furher. The Grand Army was loyal to Napoleon. Squeaky Frome was loyal to Charles Manson.

Honesty is also overrated. If the gestapo asks where the Jews are hiding, lie.

A sense of honor demands loyalty on some occasions and honesty on others. But neither is a virtue ipso facto.

In accord with Alexiev,

Ben JS - ILP wrote:[...] We are born with preferences - born with instinctual goals.
But often our instincts conflict upon one another.
They cannot each be followed indiscriminately without undermining each other.

Therefore people, due to many influences, set goals themselves in a hierarchy.
A problem emerges when others disagree with that hierarchy.
The case is to be made why one hierarchical set of goals, is wiser, than another set.[...]

If someone had a button to destroy the planet,
and the only foreseeable way to stop them pressing it was a lie -
the value of honesty, would be trumped by it's cost.

And to repeat Alexiev again in likely poorer words,
the value of honesty or loyalty are context dependent.
Your personal values and objectives, would determine which takes priority.

And odds are, neither of these are your ultimate priority.
I believe if you recognize what your highest aim is,
then all else will naturally fall into order -
in alignment with serving that primary aim.