Main > The Round Table

Discussion: Loyalty

(1/3) > >>

Sir Edward:

Well, we skipped a couple of weeks due to the holidays, and will probably do so again with more holidays around the corner. But I figured it was time to start another discussion thread.

This week we have Loyalty.

Loyalty is another trait that we probably consider pretty straightforward. But what does it really mean to be loyal? Back in the day, loyalty to your lord or king was paramount. Even when (or particularly when) you disagreed with them. However, history is full of stories of nobles, barons, and knights who rebelled against their lord to side with another, only to make peace again later. Our own Sir William Marshal had once been declared a traitor by King John, and spent several years estranged from each other, only to re-unite later.

Does loyalty demand that you do things you wouldn't otherwise do? What sorts of limits do you think it does/should have?

Sir Wolf:
ya there is such a thing as loyalty and blindly following.

i know in the 15th century when england was at war against itself, the nobles or ringleaders of the battle were killed if they were the losers and the lower gentry and common man was left alone. they were loyal to their land holder, and after they lost they said they would be loyal to the king/side that one etc.

being a blind follower could make a noble knight crumble. it could eat him inside and out. most i think fought daily with this decisions. some followed their leader trying to be loyal but hated it in every way, while others were loyal to a point

Sir William:
I think there are degrees of loyalty; there will be those who disagree w/me- but there is no such thing as absolute loyalty w/out question in terms of the thinking man.  For me, loyalty to family is key, then to God, fellow man and country.  I feel that it means doing what is in the best interests of the person in question- even if that person may not share your views.

Sir Edward:

--- Quote from: Sir Wolf on 2010-12-09, 15:18:18 ---i know in the 15th century when england was at war against itself, the nobles or ringleaders of the battle were killed if they were the losers and the lower gentry and common man was left alone. they were loyal to their land holder, and after they lost they said they would be loyal to the king/side that one etc.

--- End quote ---

That's a good point. The medieval mindset was that commoners had to do what they were told. They were more like assets that belonged to the local lord, rather than independent people. So when the rulership changed, they weren't liable for what the predecessor did.

But in the modern context, blindly following has severe moral consequences, IMHO. A great example is WWII. How many German soldiers and officers said they were only following orders? How much does that get you off the hook for following through on immortal acts?

Sir William:
Well said, Sirs Wolf and Edward.  By that token, terrorists follow their religious leaders...one could argue that they are 'just doing their job' - at the risk of pissing off veterans, our soldiers are also 'just doing their job'...should they kill someone during the course of said job, it is considered collateral damage.  That very term belittles the ones to whom it is applied...because it happened during the course of someone's important job.

But they would be considered disloyal...in the case of the American soldier, if he refused an order on moral grounds he could face a court martial and dishonorable discharge.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page