What is Loyalty?

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.