Loyalty John Duska Analysis

1082 Words 5 Pages
Duska uses John Ladd’s definition of loyalty to best define loyalty. He quoted “Granted that loyalty is the whole-hearted devotion to an object of some kind, what kind of thing is the object”. Loyalty can be a person or a group of persons. You can have a whole-hearted devotion to an either. Two examples would in my life would be I have loyalty to my father. I would never betray him nor would he ever betray me. A form of loyalty within a group is me playing on the football team. I devote a large quantity of my time to football. Practice, meetings, and games all are both mentally and physically exhausting, this proves whole-hearted devotion to not only the team, but everyone within it. In Duska’s terms this would be an example of “the ties that …show more content…
A business’ main priority is to make money. You have no meaning to a business, merely a way to get to its end goal, maximized profit. Duska makes a clear argument for what you should be loyal too and not loyal too. He describes that a business is a different type of group, with weak, insignificant, relationships. Businesses like to make the false argument of working as a team, but Duska states “loyalty to a team is loyalty within the context of sport or a competition. The business world is not a sport though. You have any obligation to your company, you are there for the sole purpose to make money and provide for yourself or your family. It is too easy to leave your company or for them to let you go to be loyal to them. Whistleblowing is a necessity if it is for the benefit of others or yourself. For example if a refinery was pumping its waste into a local reservoir or lake then you have a moral obligation to blow the whistle for the greater good. Duska tells the Bok says that the whistleblower is a violator of loyalty because he blows the whistle on his own team. In my opinion the whistleblower does not have a team. A company is not a team as I previously stated. A team is in context of sport or competition and a company’s objective is not to achieve victory, like a team, but to achieve maximum profit. Duska is correct in his statement that he works because it provides him pay. People are wired to do what is best for them, you don’t work because you want to. You work in order to get paid and make money to provide for yourself. If money was irrelevant than nobody would work. Why waste your time to better someone else’s company if there is no incentive for you? Duska ends his paper by saying “If my analysis is correct, the issue of the permissibility of whistleblowing is not a real issue since there is no obligation of loyalty to a company. He is correct in this statement and his paper give an accurate argument of why loyalty

Related Documents