A politician made this statement to his leader 'loyalty is more important than morality'. I dont think he was right but he certainly believed it. What do others think?
2007-11-21 17:42:49 · 12 answers · asked by pete the pirate 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think the 2 go hand in hand because if you are moral, then you're going to be loyal.
2007-11-21 17:46:07 · answer #1 · answered by First Lady 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Gosh... I thought loyalty stemmed FROM morality... that loyalty was part of what morals are. Nice of you to quote "a politician" without knowing or citing the source. Just because someone says something doesn't make it true. Just because you can string words together doesn't make it possible... i.e. you can't have a married bachelor, can you?
Unfortunately, this world has seemingly embraced the idea of "Moral Relativism," the "what's right for me is right for me, what's right for YOU is right for YOU" philosophy. While in some instances this is a "good" and correct idea, when it comes to MORALITY it is NOT a good thing. It denies the existance of a "Universal Truth" and leads to chaos, since each one of us can define morality for ourselves.... thusly murder can be RIGHT and GOOD in one person's "book of morals" but not in another's. But this leads to chaos.
Have a right-wing day.
2007-11-21 18:48:18 · answer #2 · answered by wyomugs 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Loyalty if what you are dedicated to. When you are dedicated to ideals and creed, the Ideals and creed (morality) remain constant, assuring your loyalty does not betray you.
Loyalty to people is risky. People are variables and my not share the values you hold. In this way your loyalty could betray you and your vital interests. Loyalty to one friend may betray another. Does this serve society?
All men should be judged by the loyalty they commit to.
Morality is a single definition of what is right and wrong. When a man commits wrong for another man, he betrays the rest of society to that interest.
2007-11-21 18:16:05 · answer #3 · answered by Dr weasel 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Man-made laws are relative but spiritual laws are based on truth. Man creates his values in this world, of wealth, power, prestige; however, in the sight of God all souls are of equal value for the Divine Light is within us all. It reminds me of the words, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what belongs to God." I'm puzzled by what you say, of humans being separate from animals, is a lie. How so? Granted, we have a physical form that belongs to the animal realm, but we also have a higher consciousness which sets us apart from the animal kingdom. Example is, a horse will stand out in the rain and feel the wet and cold, but a man will stand in the rain and ask "Why am I here? Why didn't I put on my raincoat before going outside?" Man has a consciousness of "I am" - self awareness - but an animal only reacts to its surroundings. I think what you are seeing and asking about is the value of a man. There are the individual values and the universal values. Individually, we value our position and contribution to the world around us and somehow think our only identity is by what work we do whether it's a bus driver, teacher, plumber, or whatever else, "that" is what we are as a person. Yet as an awakening soul such accumulations are immaterial and are eventually discarded when we realize the truth of our being. There are just different levels of perception, not lies, as you've stated. All the best.
2016-05-24 23:56:06 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think many people believe it; in a way, I think it's inculcated in American youth -- "be a team player", "don't be a tattle-tale", etc.
And I think that politician was right, in the sense that it's more important to a group that its members be loyal than that they be moral.
I believe the statement is wrong as a personal value by which one lives their life.
2007-11-21 17:48:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The aggitator in me wants to say "Define Morality." In the Reagan years, Congress spent a great deal of our money trying to do just that. They tried to determine what is pornographic and what is "art." In the Clinton years... well, never mind.
2007-11-21 17:49:57 · answer #6 · answered by Doc 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both terms get defined by the situation.
It depends on which loyalty or which morality.
There is no absolute answer.
2007-11-21 18:01:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Loyalty to want?
2007-11-21 17:56:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
For some reason The Grateful Dead come to mind.
2007-11-21 17:45:30 · answer #9 · answered by bbcranks 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I totally agree.
2007-11-21 17:46:44 · answer #10 · answered by Zaya the Slaya 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋