No Loyalty to Potter

Loyalty, 'eh? Oh, loyalty... what a pain in the ass. You see, loyalty is nothing but one big problem... it hinders us from just being able to do whatever the hell we want to do without feeling bad about it. It's always a struggle in life to find the middle ground; to decifer between what is right and wrong, what's ethical or immoral, and where our boundaries and loyalties lie.

One of the hardest parts of being loyal is that your loyalties change based on the situation you're in. I think this was a main point the book was trying to hit on, especially in the area where it discussed the problems with having loyalty as a single ethical guide. You can have your loyalties, but that loyalty can and often will be taken advantage of, and at that point in time it is your ethics, standards, and morals that matter... not your loyalty. Loyalty is just the fog that makes ethical decisions so tricky.

"A spirit of democratic cooperation is needed for Royce's view of loyalty to result in ethical action." In order for loyalty to help in making the right decision, by Royce's standards, we must be sheep. Sheep. Blind, majority-following sheep. As annoying as this is, it is even more annoying that Royce gives "no way to balance among conflicting loyalties." So, Royce has layed out a map of loyalty... be a sheep, and if you have a problem, well, I'm not really sure about what to do then... Thanks Royce, that's just what we rebel college kids wanted to hear. Screw a revolution, let's float around with the majority! Who cares if "the majority" wants to bring back seperate-but-equal for homosexuals, our loyalty is to the community and therefore the majority; so if the majority hates the gays and gives a shit less about real civil rights, that's what the majority wants, then so be it! ...

WHAT?!?!?!?! Sorry Royce, I disagree. Loyalty is not always to the majority, or to who you think it should be to, or to who you would have thought you'd be loyal to. Loyalty plays a role up and until ethics have to take over. So I guess the real issue is that hopefully people are only loyal to trying to make an ethical decision based on the given situation.

I think the Potter Box tries to make this ethical-decision-making-based-on-loyalties stuff a little easier, but it may be making a simple process a bit too complicated. Instead of a near "12-step program" for journalists needing to make decisions, why not just weigh over the pros and cons? What happened to the good 'ol two column list of good vs. bad? Maybe that was a simpler day in age, back before loyalties were taken advantage of and manipulated. There is always a gray zone though, I will give the Potter Box credit for taking that into account, but I don't think I will think to go through the Potter Box next time I'm stuck trying to figure out who's side I'm really on or where my loyalty really lies...