No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Loyalty and Morality
Abstract
This introductory chapter explores the relationship between loyalty and morality. Loyalty does not limit faithful adherence to the lawful government but includes faithful adherence to any group of which one is a member. It requires an individual to be willing to make some significant personal sacrifices to avoid causing harm to the group or to prevent or relieve harm suffered by members of the group. Meanwhile, moral ideals encourage preventing and relieving pain and suffering. The disagreement about whether loyalty is compatible with morality involves a disagreement about the kind of impartiality required by morality. Realizing that impartiality must be specified with regard to both group and respect explains how there can be disagreements about whether the impartiality required by morality is always, never, or sometimes incompatible with loyalty.
... The first value, loyalty, values sacrifices. This value intends to give consideration to a person or group, by preventing harm to them (Gert, 2013). By having loyalty, people have a willingness to go beyond their own capability and to suffer more than the person or group to whom they give their loyalty. ...
Chinese dramas, in recent years, have gained popularity in the international market. To be precise, historical dramas have a market that has increased year by year since 2017. This thesis is about Confucian virtues found in four women characters in a historical Chinese drama titled The Sword and The Brocade. This television drama intrigues the writer to analyze four women characters Luo Shi Yi Niang, Qiao Lian Fang, Madam Xu, and Xiang Yi Zhen in the story because The Sword and The Brocade shows the dynamic relationship between the women characters and the plot is wrapped in historical settings but with modern perspective. This thesis aims to find out how the female characters’ actions reflect Confucian virtues and what the impacts of the reflected actions are for them. The analysis is based on Confucianism; focusing on five Confucian virtues: loyalty, filial piety, wisdom, benevolence, and harmony. Moreover, the analysis begins with the women’s way to express the Confucian virtues within their actions and then moves to how the actions from reflecting the virtues impacted their life. From expressing loyalty to harmony, Luo Shi Yi Niang, Qiao Lian Fang, Madam Xu, and Xiang Yi Zhen get positive changes in their lives like getting a new status, achieving their goals, making their family proud, and getting positive aftermath from their past actions. The finding is these women prove that women can gain benefits from Confucianism that is known to be patriarchal and these women are the example of how ancient belief can be modernized to suit nowadays’ modern issues and the story is suitable for everyone and in every era.
... MAC predicts that because solutions to coordination problems realise mutual benefits, they will be regarded as morally good. This theory can explain why participating in collaborative endeavours (Royce, 1908), favouring your own group (Bernhard, Fischbacher, & Fehr, 2006;Gert, 2013), and adopting local conventions (Gibbard, 1990a(Gibbard, , 1990b have been widely regarded as important components of morality. ...
Morality-as-Cooperation (MAC) is the theory that morality is a collection of biological and cultural solutions to the problems of cooperation recurrent in human social life. MAC uses game theory to identify distinct types of cooperation, and predicts that each will be considered morally relevant, and each will give rise to a distinct moral domain. Here we test MAC's predictions by developing a new self-report measure of morality, the Morality-as-Cooperation Questionnaire (MAC-Q), and comparing its psychometric properties to those of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ). Over four studies, the results support the MAC-Q's seven-factor model of morality, but not the MFQ's five-factor model. Thus MAC emerges as the best available compass with which to explore the moral landscape.
... MAC predicts that because solutions to coordination problems realise mutual benefits, they will be regarded as morally good. This theory can explain why participating in collaborative endeavours (Royce, 1908), favouring your own group (Bernhard, Fischbacher, & Fehr, 2006;Gert, 2013), and adopting local conventions (Gibbard, 1990a(Gibbard, , 1990b have been widely regarded as important components of morality. ...
Morality-as-Cooperation (MAC) is the theory that morality is a collection of biological and cultural solutions to the problems of cooperation recurrent in human social life. MAC uses game theory to identify distinct types of cooperation, and predicts that each will be considered morally relevant, and each will give rise to a distinct moral domain. Here we test MAC's predictions by developing a new self-report measure of morality, the Morality-as-Cooperation Questionnaire (MAC-Q), and comparing its psychometric properties to those of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ). Over four studies, the results support MAC's seven-factor model of morality, but not the MFQ's five-factor model. Thus MAC emerges as the best available compass with which to explore the moral landscape.
... MAC predicts that because solutions to coordination problems realise mutual benefits, they will be regarded as morally good. This theory can explain why participating in collaborative endeavours (Royce, 1908), favouring your own group (Bernhard, Fischbacher, & Fehr, 2006;Gert, 2013), and adopting local conventions (Gibbard, 1990aGibbard, , 1990b) have been widely regarded as important components of morality. ...
What is morality? What explains its content and structure? And how is it best measured? The
theory of Morality-as-Cooperation (MAC) argues that morality is a collection of biological and cultural solutions to the problems of cooperation recurrent in human social life. Using evolutionary biology and nonzerosum game theory, MAC identifies seven distinct types of cooperation (helping kin, helping group, reciprocating, hawkish signals of prowess, dove-ish signals of deference, dividing disputed resources, and respecting prior possession), and predicts that each will be considered morally relevant, and each will give rise to a distinct moral domain. By starting from these fundamental principles, MAC offers a novel, systematic and comprehensive alternative to previous accounts of morality. Here we test MAC’s predictions against those of one such account: Moral Foundations Theory (MFT). We develop a new self-report measure of moral values, the Morality-as-Cooperation Questionnaire (MAC-Q; Study 1: N=1,392), examine its psychometric properties, and compare its performance to the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ; Study 2: N=1,042; Study 3: N=469; Study 4: N=137). The results support MAC’s predictions: each type of cooperation is considered morally relevant; and each gives rise to a distinct moral domain (family values, group loyalty, reciprocity, heroism, deference, fairness and property rights). The results do not support MFT’s five-factor model. Thus the MAC-Q emerges as the best available map of morality; and MAC emerges as the best available compass to guide further exploration of the moral landscape.
The Shylock stereotype was behind Union General Ulysses S. Grant's reasons for ordering General Order Number 11, on December 17, 1862, expelling "Jews as a class" from areas of Northern occupied former Confederate states Tennessee, Mississippi, and the Border State of Kentucky. General Order Number 11 stands out in American history as the first instance of a policy of official anti-Semitism on a large scale. At the time, prominent Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise called it an "outrage, without precedent in American history." During the Civil War, loyalty was a significant issue, especially in the three Border States. All three states, Missouri, Maryland, and Kentucky, had issues of dual-loyalty. Grant's Order was directly related to Southerners' Northern suspicions of those on the Border States about where their loyalties lied during the war. Jewish loyalties were always questioned throughout history more because the nation feared their devotion was to their co-religionists as opposed to their country. These two issues of loyalty collided and resulted in the worst incident of anti-Jewish prejudice in American history until that point.
Legitimacy is a key concept in political science. It has deep normative roots in democratic theory and refers usually to righteous, just, fair, and therefore acceptable rule. However, non-democracies also try to create a following among their citizens. They also engage in justifying their rule through politicization, be it of religion, ethnicity, or ideologies ranging from left-wing communism to right-wing nationalism. Against this backdrop, I pose the question: does it make sense to use the concept of legitimacy for both types of regimes, democracies and autocracies alike? Or, do we overstretch the concept when transplanting it to the non-democratic realm? And, empirically, how can we assess to what degree a non-democracy is viewed as legitimate by its citizens? I aim therefore at defining what legitimacy and legitimation is in autocratic settings; drawing a semantic map of rival concepts like support, trust, and loyalty; and tackling concrete challenges in measuring this elusive concept.
Legitimacy is a key concept in political science. It has deep normative roots in democratic theory and refers usually to righteous, just, fair, and therefore acceptable rule. However, non-democracies also try to create a following among their citizens. They also engage in justifying their rule through politicization, be it of religion, ethnicity, or ideologies ranging from left-wing communism to right-wing nationalism. Against this backdrop, I pose the question: does it make sense to use the concept of legitimacy for both types of regimes, democracies and autocracies alike? Or, do we overstretch the concept when transplanting it to the non-democratic realm? And, empirically, how can we assess to what degree a non-democracy is viewed as legitimate by its citizens? I aim therefore at defining what legitimacy and legitimation is in autocratic settings; drawing a semantic map of rival concepts like support, trust, and loyalty; and tackling concrete challenges in measuring this elusive concept.
The concept of loyalty to the state has been occupying an increasingly central place in political discourse in Israel. The underlying premise of this discourse is that citizens owe a duty of loyalty to their state. Israel’s Arab-Palestinian citizens, it is argued, fail to fulfill such duty. In the legal arena, this discourse has been manifested in a series of bills referred to by the media as the “Loyalty-Citizenship Bills,” justified by their initiators both as measures necessary to protect the state from alleged threats posed by disloyal citizens and as means for strengthening citizens’ loyalty to the state. This article challenges the premise underlying the Loyalty-Citizenship Bills and criticizes the Bills’ content. The article argues that to the extent that citizens can legitimately be expected to be loyal to their state of citizenship, such expectation derives from the existence of social solidarity. While the initiators of the Loyalty-Citizenship Bills fail to demonstrate how the Bills advance any legitimate goal, the Bills are likely to have a negative effect on social solidarity by nurturing a public discourse that alienates Israel’s Arab-Palestinian citizens and undermines their citizenship.
What is morality, where does it come from, and how does it work? Scholars have struggled with these questions for millennia. But we now have a scientific answer. The theory of ‘morality as cooperation’ uses the mathematics of cooperation—the theory of nonzero-sum games—to identify the many distinct problems of cooperation and their solutions, and it predicts that it is the solutions employed by humans that constitute ‘morality’. Thus, morality turns out to be a collection of biological and cultural solutions to the problems of cooperation and conflict recurrent in human social life. This theory generates a comprehensive taxonomy of moral values—a Periodic Table of Ethics—that includes obligations to family, group loyalty, reciprocity, bravery, respect, fairness, and property rights. And because morality as cooperation makes principled predictions about the structure and content of human morality, which can be tested against those of rival theories, it reveals that the study of morality is simply another branch of science.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.