Blind Loyalty?

[ordos45]

Yes this is another debate thread...also it is a shameless plug for the Duniverse Section.  In the thread "The Sadukar" posted by The_Sadukar they have begun discussing blind loyalty to a cause, person, government, etc.  Since it is unlikely anyone will go over there that might view only here, what are your opinions on blind loyalty in the world today?

Personally I feel that you should not blindly follow orders.  I know if I was ordered to shoot dozens of unarmed people I would not be able to follow that order, but if I was blindly loyal I could do it as easy as blinking an eye.

[Acriku]

I think it depends on the situation and perception. If I was an officer in war I wouldn't want people with a will and opinion about every thing. I would want people who react without question and not waste time asking "But I never killed a person before" or "Even though it would decide the war and save millions of lives there might be a civilian in there, I don't want to blow it up!". That's how you lose wars. But I wouldn't want total blind loyalty in my men, because that leads to people doing anything in the name of you and things you never ordered them to do. Loyalty is one of the many main things I would want in a soldier.

But sometimes you have to blindly follow orders that you know would have a greater effect in the end to keep your conscience from taking over your actions. Like ambushing or getting attention of  a group of tangos alone, but to create a diversion so the team can get them and continue the mission getting closer to completion.

[ordos45]

Slight variations of the same side.  Good point with the need for ambushes and little hesitation.   If I had to launch an ambush on an enemy infantry squad I would most likely use civilian buildings as cover.  As a town is a sniper's paradise.  

If the enemy was coming in on my position and had no air.  I would want troops that were blindly loyal.  If they are willing to die for you, let them.  First have them round up the civilians and put them in front of your soldiers.  The soldiers kill the enemy, the civilians act as human shields for a few moments.  Then you can order your blindly loyal troops to rush the enemy and they will.  They just sacrificed civilians for you, why not themselves.

[Acriku]

To let everyone know, I'm not a ruthless leader with no emotion about anything. I just don't think that saving millions of lives is worse than killing far less amount of civilians. If there was a way to do it with less deaths of course I would do it, but if there is no other option, I would go ahead. And if I were an officer leading a platoon, I would go into the same danger they would be going into, I wouldn't be in a trench or base ordering them from a transmitter. That would boost morale and confidence a lot, and would probably make them better soldiers.

[ordos45]

Hmm, leading it yourself.  Great for inspiring the blind loyalty, sort of reminds me of the 1800s Officers.  

[Acriku]

But it isn't blind loyalty, the soldiers will be trained to carry out orders but to an extent, for example if it goes against Geneva Treaty the soldier can take the command away from the officer and dismiss the order. I'm gonna add stuff to this post, can't think of any more.

[TMA_1]

From your posts in the past ordos, you have said yourself to be a christian. such as in the religion section. Dont you know that we follow christ blindly like dumb sheep? dont think it isnt a military blind faith. We are the warriors of God on earth. Paul said the mind is the battle field. You serve christ blindly. We should serve any of our leaders with blind faith just the same. That is my opinion. Its hard not to be dependent. In the eyes of man it is good to be independant. Just because man says its right though doesnt mean it is truly right.

But to physical military. It is good to have solders that wont go against orders. but, a big but by the way. Its good for those solders to have a good head on their shoulders. They need to know how to manipulate their environment. They need to know how to kill, and evade being killed as long as the solder doesnt break orders.

Thats all my opinion.

[gryphon]

Oh god, here we go again . .. .

To start with, there is a differance in loyalty and blind loyalty. You can be loyal to a couse, persone etc with good reasons and have carefullt thought about it and are capable of adjusting it or not.

Let's start with loyalty towards yourself. You can be loyal to your own goals. Your own needs.

"I want to become an astronaut."

"I want that girl."

"I will always be loyal and true to other people."

Those things can be considerd as loyalty. But there is a second question to them. "Why do I want that ?" And "Is it ethnically [ from your point ] right to want and do that ?"

So you have "blind loyalty" towards yourself, unquestionable, undoubtable and you are always right. Blind faith in your own causes. And as you might have made the link by now, I think a lot of people have this in one way or another about there own lives, their own world. [ the frase "their own world" has it in itself in a way ]

Then there is "blind loyalty" towards certain goals in your live. Things you cherrish and uphold. To fight fore your country, your religious believes, the moral value of your [girl] friend. They seem unimportant, but in one of the Dune books stand the words "when you are fighting a religion be shure that your miracles are even better and can't be brought down by the other believe" [ or something like that ]. In a way you believe and are convinced that your actions towards and with respect towards a certain idea are good. [ and nessesary ] Therefor you made those actions and will continue to make them. Now can this be considerd "blind loyalty" in respect to those believs and actions ?

Now the more obvious form of loyalty. Let's say that towards another persone and his or her believes. Being a follower of some one and his belives is usually loyalty, but it doesn't have to be

[ordos45]

TMA_1 good point, blind loyalty/faith to God.  It is one case where blind loyalty is good.  Gryphon, too deep for those of us who need to debat philosophy bit by bit to understand, but really good.  I especially like and agree with the brainwashing.

[Gunseng_Harkonnen]

Blind loyality among soldiers is nothing good if they don`t see their part in whole thing, they do everything what leader says and don`t even think that its something bad, like in Germany 1939-45. Its not right when soldier desn`t listen orders at all and there isn`t discipline but soldier should has his own brain, his own point of view. He don`t must even show it to leaders but he shouldn`t take leaders words as only right.

It doesn`t shows anything if leader is good and you know that most of things he do are correct.

You should be loyal, becouse you have duty to be loyal, if you aren`t you are just person who you can`t rely on. But you should have your own personality and opinions.

[Anathema]

Loyalty can be good, as in loyal to your country. But suppose you're a soldier, and your commanding officer orders you to shoot civilians because they "might" be terrorists, is that loyalty to your country? I'd say no.

[Gunseng_Harkonnen]

In this case, they show blindness not only becouse they listen such orders, they show they haven`t the feel of good and evil. They just go and kill becouse somebody wants they go and kill. This is not loyality at all.

If there are civilians, maybe women and children, what leaders thought about it? They think that all they are terrorists? Or they think that all whos are in "terrorist country should be punnished? They think they are loyal to country? If they think hat, they are blind too. If they just "do their job", without patriotism, they are just brainless. The tools of policy.

[Anathema]

It can be described as loyalty because those soldiers actually believe they serve their country by killing civilians. They are loyal in that respect, but also ignorant and ruthless. It is repulsive that some nations (Israel) trains that kind of soldiers.

[jacobdouds]

Greetings. I'm Jacob Douds. And I will representing be the nuetral party in this debate.

It really does depend on the situation.

But, blind loyalty or blind faith must never exist when it comes to religion. You must have some proof to yourself that God exists in some way. Even if it's just. "He looked after my family during our depression" or something. Never just "because the bible said so"

[Anathema]

This topic is not about religion. It's about wheter or not certain things are justified if it's supposed to serve your country or whatever it is you're loyal to.

[Caid Ivik]

Germans didn't killed millions of Jews because of "blind loyalty". Holocaust was a product of jealous mood of non-jewish people. Jews had big part of economix under control, other people wanted it too so it was just question of time, when comes one demagogic fanatic, which show the "solvement of jewish question". And it wasn't just thing of Germany. Victorious states were those, were won humanity over jealousity.

[Edric O]

Noooooooooooooo! Not another of Ordos45's debate threads! His last one had over 1500 replies when Gob locked it. :O

Sorry Ordos45, but I'm not getting involved in another one of these. ;)

[Gunseng_Harkonnen]

If talk about Hitler reasons and anti-jewish campaign, it wasn`t loyality for country, Hitler wanted be dictator of main part of europe, he didn`t tolerate someone different in part becouse what you said in part becouse he wasn`t quite normal. He was in prison before.

But those young soldiers that wanted be in victorous army, boys in hitlerjugend didn`t think about economic benefits, they believe in what Hitler did, even if it wasn`t correct.

[Caid Ivik]

Yes, Hitler's campaign was based on solvement of jewish question.

[TMA_1]

yes the jews were the prime target. along with ever otehr race other than white's. Also he wanted many religions desolved as well.

[Acriku]

Ok, it doesn't matter if the order is good or bad. If it is bad and you follow it, you are loyal. If it is good and you follow it, you are loyal. But that is blind loyalty. In U.S.M.C. they ask for loyalty, but they do not mean do whatever they say. They train soldiers to know what's better for the country, and act upon it.

In the Nimdemburg (spell?) Trials to prosecute Nazis, they hardly prosecuted the enlisted soldiers that followed, they mostly prosecuted the leaders, the officers and high-ranking enlisted. So to them blind loyalty is justified.

[gryphon]

Hmm, Hitler wanted to controle Europe, Probbely the entire continent including Russia.

But in a address to the nation and to Kuba the United States president said that "Kuba had to change there political system to a "American Democracy". Now if that speatch he gave wasn't a show of dictatorship . ... . ::)

And about a that soldier, do you think a soldier in a battle has any idea of the big picture. Knows all the information and why he is at the place he is ?

Isn't it in the training of soldier these days that they recieve precise [ well not exactly it has flaws ] indoctrination in there training. That training makes it impossible for a "lower class" soldier to have any insight in the information the higher ranks have. Not to mention the govermental services that direct the actions of that soldier.

And a soldier killing a woman becuase she is a "possible terrorist". Isn't that dirscimination, you do kill man but not wonam. Whow, I'lll start the dutch invasion of the world with just womans in my army, no one will have the outradius idea to shoot at any of them . . ..

Children I can emagine, but when you have reatched a certain age [ not important in the debate now ] arn't we all humans ?

[TMA_1]

Ohh they killed women as little in the past as the vietnam war. Men, women and children would hold explosives in bags (sappers) or whatever and would try to "peacefully" enter the camp. It often resulted in the men,women,children being shot outside the camp.

We are all human but men are usually the warriors. no offence but true.lol

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Let me guess. Your a sexist? :)

We are all human but men are usually the warriors. no offence but true.lol

Females and males are equal. Every woman can be trained and transformed into a warrior.

If you think that Women are weak fighters, then take a look at the Amazon warriors.

Even in Russia they train Female generals and Drill sergeants.

[Acriku]

Before this gets to a huge argument, it isn't sexist to think that. It is a scientific fact that most women create less testosterone, and thus would be overpowered in combat in the front lines and such, which is why in U.S. women cannot go into certain combat areas. Yes some create more than some men, but usually men create more. There is no way women and men are equal, not physically. You may want that in the political correctness area of your mind, but it just isn't it. Sure with some women this isn't so, but I am talking with the majority.