I want to be a
loyal person. I want to be loyal to my friends. What do I do when I
find out that one of my friends is doing something wrong? Wouldn't it
be disloyal to turn them in? Doesn't being loyal mean sticking by
someone, no matter what? If I tell someone, I'll be a rat and a
tattle-tale. I'll have broken the confidence of my friend. I would be
a bad friend, wouldn't I? But helping them cover up seems wrong too.
What do I do?
I believe that the
understanding of the concept of loyalty is of critical importance
here. For my business ethics class, I recently read an article by
Robert A. Larmer that addresses this issue. Larmer addresses this
issue so well, I will simply refer directly to his arguments.
I encourage you
to take a few minutes and read the whole thing. I found it extremely
helpful, and I believe you will also.
(All
quotations below are from “Whistleblowing and Employee Loyalty”
by Robert A. Larmer, which I read in Taking Sides by Newton,
Englehardt, and Prichard, 2012, pp. 184-189. Most are sections taken
from homework submitted for 560 - Business Ethics at Aspen
University. Emphasis/bold mine. I have modified some words to apply
more to friends than business. The meaning is unchanged.)
Larmer first
explains that people often consider loyalty and confidentiality to be
high duties and ethics. Reporting on someone “seems a violation of
these duties and [many] argue that it is an act of disloyalty and
hence morally wrong”. A person “must choose between two acts of
betrayal, either her [friend] or the public interest, each in itself
reprehensible”.
“Behind this view
lies the assumption that to be loyal to someone is to act in a way
that accords with what that person believes to be in her best
interests. . . . I think this view . . . is mistaken . . . by
ignoring the possibility that [reporting someone] may demonstrate
greater loyalty than not [reporting]”.
“I am not, for
example, disloyal to a friend if I refuse to loan her money for an
investment I am sure will bring her financial ruin; even if she
bitterly reproaches me for denying her what is so obviously a golden
opportunity to make a fortune”.
“A more adequate
definition of being loyal to someone is that loyalty involves
acting in accordance with what one has good reason to believe to be
in that person's best interests. . . . We [often] accept that a
person thinking that something is in her best interests is a
sufficiently good reason to think that it actually is. Other times,
especially when we feel that she is being rash, foolish, or
misinformed we are prepared, precisely by the virtue of being loyal,
to act contrary to the person's wishes”.
Larmer presents
three important points about loyalty.
“First, to the
degree that an action is genuinely immoral, it is impossible to say
that it is in the agent's best interests. We would not, for example,
say that someone who sells child pornography was acting in his own
best interests, even if he vigorously protested that there was
nothing wrong with such activity. Loyalty does not imply that we
have a duty to refrain from reporting the immoral actions of those to
whom we are loyal”.
“The [friend who reports wrong behavior] may be demonstrating
greater loyalty than the [friend] who simply ignores the immoral
conduct, inasmuch as she is attempting to prevent her [friend] from
engaging in self-destructive behaviour”.
“Second, loyalty requires that, whenever possible, in trying to
resolve a problem we deal directly with the person to whom we are
loyal. If, for example, I am loyal to a friend I do not immediately
involve a third party when I try to dissuade my friend from
involvement in immoral actions. Rather, I approach my friend
directly, listen to his perspective on the events in question, and
provide an opportunity for him to address the problem in a morally
satisfactory way.” . . . “This principle of dealing directly with
the person to whom the loyalty is due needs to be qualified, however.
. . . There may arise cases where acting in a person's best
interests requires that one act independently and perhaps even
against the wishes of the person to whom one is loyal. Such cases
will be especially apt to arise when the person to whom one is loyal
is either immoral or ignoring the moral consequences of his actions.
Thus, for example, loyalty to a friend who deals in hard narcotics
would not imply that I speak first to my friend about my decision to
inform the police of his activities, if the only effect of my doing
so would be to make him more careful in his criminal dealings [and, I
might add, give him time to hide the evidence before the police
arrive]. . . . Neither is a loyal [friend] under obligation to speak
first to [a friend] if it is clear that by doing so she places
herself in jeopardy from [someone] who will retaliate if given the
opportunity. Loyalty amounts to acting in another's best interests
and that may mean qualifying what seems to be in one's own interests,
but it cannot imply that one take no steps to protect oneself from
the immorality of those to whom one is loyal. The reason it
cannot is that, as has already been argued, acting immorally can
never really be in a person's best interests. It follows, therefore,
that one is not acting in a person's best interests if one allows
oneself to be treated immorally by that person. Thus, for
example, a father might be loyal to a child even though that child is
guilty of stealing from him, but this would not mean that the father
should let the child continue to steal”.
“Third, loyalty requires that one is concerned with more than
considerations of justice. I have been arguing that loyalty cannot
require one to ignore immoral or unjust behaviour on the part of
those to whom one is loyal, since loyalty amounts to acting in a
person's best interests and it can never be in a person's best
interests to be allowed to act immorally. Loyalty, however, goes
beyond considerations of justice, in that, while it is possible to be
disinterested and just, it is not possible to be disinterested and
loyal. Loyalty implies a desire that the person to whom one is loyal
take no moral stumbles, but that if moral stumbles have occurred that
the person be restored and not simply punished [this assumes, of
course, that the person will be punished]. A loyal friend
is not only someone who sticks by you in times of trouble, but
someone who tries to help you avoid trouble”.
Therefore, Larmer argues, a true friend will always address any wrong
or immoral behavior.
First, if it isn't likely that there is danger of coverup or
personal harm, you should talk directly with your friend and address
it. Give them the opportunity to correct their behavior and make it
right. You should not promise that you won't tell anyone.
Instead, inform them that if they do not correct their wrong
behavior, it is your duty to them, to God, and to others to involve
other people.
Second, if they do not amend their own behavior (or if they claim to
and you find out they have not), it is right for you to turn them in
to the proper authority. It is morally wrong for you to take
their blame for them, cover up for them, or to allow yourself to be
harmed, used, or mistreated in order to protect them in their
wrongdoing.
Third, depending on the situation, because you are their loyal
friend, you should be the one to help restore them after their
punishment and encourage them to lead a moral and upright life in
the future.
In some cases however, especially in dating/romantic relationships,
in order for the person to be truly restored, you may have to step
out of the relationship and perhaps even the friendship. If you
sticking with them is helping prevent them from getting right with
the Lord, you are hurting them, encouraging their immorality, and
hindering them from redemption. As a loyal friend, in order to
truly help them, you may have to step out of the relationship and
trust God to take care of them. Seek Godly counsel from older,
mature Christians if you are in a dating situation where you are
aware of immoral behavior.