essay about loyalty and love

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Loyalty is usually seen as a virtue, albeit a problematic one. It is constituted centrally by perseverance in an association to which a person has become intrinsically committed as a matter of his or her identity. Its paradigmatic expression is found in close friendship, to which loyalty is integral, but many other relationships and associations seek to encourage it as an aspect of affiliation or membership: families expect it, organizations often demand it, and countries do what they can to foster it. May one also have loyalty to principles or other abstractions? Derivatively, two key issues in the discussion of loyalty concern its status as a virtue and, if that status is granted, the limits to which loyalty ought to be subject.

1.1 Background

2.1 a practical disposition or only a sentiment, 3.1 loyalty and loyalties, 3.2 is loyalty inherently exclusionary, 3.3 universalism and particularism, 3.4 the subjects of loyalty, 3.5 the objects of loyalty, 4. loyalty as a virtue, 5. justifying loyalty, 6.1 whistle blowing, other internet resources, related entries, 1. introduction.

Most of the detailed engagement with loyalty has come from creative writers (Aeschylus, 2003; Galsworthy, 1922; Conrad, 1899, 1907, 1913), business and marketing scholars (Goman, 1990; Jacoby & Chestnut, 1978), psychologists (Zdaniuk & Levine, 2001), psychiatrists (Böszörményi-Nagy, 1973), sociologists (Connor, 2007), scholars of religion (Sakenfeld, 1985; Spiegel, 1965), political economists (Hirschman, 1970, 1974), and—pre-eminently—political theorists who took a particular interest in nationalism, patriotism and loyalty oaths (Grodzins, 1956; Schaar, 1957; Guetzkow, 1955). Because of its focus on familial relations, Confucian thought has long been interested in loyalty (Goldin, 2008; see also the section on Filiality and Care in the entry on Chinese Ethics for more on loyalty and related debates in Confucian and Mohist ethics). The grand Western philosophical exception has been Josiah Royce (1908, 1913), who, influenced by eastern philosophy (Foust, 2012b, 2015), created an ethical theory centering on “loyalty to loyalty.” Royce has generated a steady but specialized interest (see, esp. Foust, 2012a, 2011, forthcoming). Since the 1980s, though, some independent philosophical discussion has begun to emerge (Baron, 1984; Fletcher, 1993; Oldenquist, 1982; MacIntyre, 1984; Nuyen, 1999; Keller, 2007; Jollimore, 2012; Felten, 2012; Kleinig, 2014), not only generally and in the context of political theory, but also in the areas of occupational and professional ethics (McChrystal, 1992, 1998; Trotter, 1997; Hajdin, 2005; Hart & Thompson, 2007; Schrag, 2001; Coleman, 2009; Foust, 2018), whistleblowing (Martin, 1992; Varelius, 2009), friendship (Bennett, 2004), and virtue theory (Ewin, 1992).

Although the term “loyalty” has its immediate philological origins in Old French, its older and mostly abandoned linguistic roots are in the Latin lex (law). Nevertheless, dimensions of the phenomenon that we now recognize as loyalty are as ancient as human association, albeit often manifested in its breaches (disloyalty, betrayal). The Old Testament writers were often occupied with the fickleness of human commitments, whether to God or to each other. To characterize such fickleness they tended to use the language of (un)faithfulness, though nowadays we might be inclined to use the more restricted language of (in)fidelity, which has regard to specific commitments. In medieval to early modern uses of the term, loyalty came to be affirmed primarily in the oath or pledge of fealty or allegiance sworn by a vassal to his lord. That had an interesting offshoot as monarchical feudalism lost sway: loyal subjects who were distressed by the venality of sitting sovereigns found it necessary—as part of their effort to avoid charges of treason—to distinguish their ongoing loyalty to the institution of kingship from their loyalty to a particular king.

2. The nature of loyalty

As a working definition, loyalty can be characterized as a practical disposition to persist in an intrinsically valued (though not necessarily valuable) associational attachment, where that involves a potentially costly commitment to secure or at least not to jeopardize the interests or well-being of the object of loyalty. For the most part, an association that we come to value for its own sake is also one with which we come to identify (as mine or ours ).

The nature of loyal attachment is a matter of debate. The strong feelings and devotion often associated with loyalty have led some to assert that loyalty is only or primarily a feeling or sentiment—an affective bondedness that may express itself in deeds, the latter more as an epiphenomenon than as its core. As Ewin put it, loyalty is an “instinct to sociability” (Ewin, 1990, 4; cf. Connor, 2007). But feelings of loyalty are probably not constitutive of loyalty, even if it is unusual to find loyalties that are affectless. Arguably, the test of loyalty is conduct rather than intensity of feeling, primarily a certain “stickingness” or perseverance—the loyal person acts for or stays with or remains committed to the object of loyalty even when it is likely to be disadvantageous or costly to the loyal person to remain so.

Those who focus on loyalty as a sentiment often intend to deny that loyalty might be rationally motivated. But even though expressions of loyalty may not be maximizing (in cost-benefit terms), the decision to commit oneself loyally may be rational, for one need not (indeed, ought not to) enter into associations blindly, or—even when they are initially unavoidable (as with familial or national ones)—accept their demands unthinkingly. Moreover, once made, such commitments may be forfeited by the objects of loyalty should there be serious failure on their part, or they may be overridden in the face of significantly greater claims. One loyalty may trump another; other values may trump loyalty.

Unsentimental loyalties, such as the zealous but unsentimental professional loyalty of a lawyer to a client, are not unthinking, but have their rationale in professional or associational tele , such as that of the adversarial system (however, see McChrystal, 1992, 1998). It is to this shared professional commitment that the lawyer is ultimately committed, not as a matter of mere sentiment but of deliberative choice.

Posing the issue as one of either “practical disposition” or “sentiment” is probably too stark. Some evolutionary biologists/psychologists see loyalty as a genetically transmitted adaptive mechanism, a felt attachment to others that has survival value (Wilson, 1993, 23). Given what is often seen as the self-sacrificial character of individual loyalty, such loyalty is taken to be directed primarily to group survival (West, 1945, 218). But it is not clear what any such explanatory account shows. What “loyalty” may have begun as (defense of the group against threat) and what it has come to be for reflective beings need not be the same. Nor would it impugn what loyalty has come to be that it began as a survival mechanism (presuming an adaptive account to be correct).

3. The structure of loyalty

Sometimes we use “loyalty” to refer to the practical disposition to persevere in affiliational attachments. More commonly we speak of loyalties to specific associations. Our generic disposition to be loyal is expressed in loyalties to certain kinds of natural or conventional associations, such as friendships, families, organizations, professions, countries, and religions. There is a reason for this. Associations that evoke and exact our loyalty tend to be those with which we have become deeply involved or identified . This is implicit in the working definition’s reference to “intrinsically valued associational attachments.” Intrinsically valued associational attachments are usually those with which we have developed some form of social identification. We have come to value the associational bond for its own sake (whatever may have originally motivated it). Our loyalties are not just to any groups that may exist, or even to any group with which we have some association, but only to those to which we are sufficiently closely bound to call ours . My loyalties are to my friends, my family, my profession, or our country, not yours, unless yours are also mine. In such identifications, the fate or well-being of the objects of loyalty become bound up with one’s own. We feel shame or pride in their doings. We will take extra risks or bear special burdens for them.

Although our primary loyalties tend to be to associations or groupings that are socially valued, such that loyalty may seem to be an important practical disposition, this need not be the case. For in theory, any association can become intrinsically important to us, whether or not it is generally valued, and it may do so even if it is socially despised. Gangs and crime families, may become objects of loyalty no less than professional associations and siblings.

It has sometimes been suggested that “ A can be loyal to B only if there is a third party C … who stands as a potential competitor to B ” (Fletcher, 1993, 8). It is true that many, if not most, expressions of loyalty occur against the background of some challenge to B ’s interests whose protection by A will be at some cost to A . Failures of loyalty often result in betrayal ( of B , sometimes to C ). Thus, defending one’s spouse in the face of criticism may also subject oneself to vilification (by C ); refusing to leave one’s university for another ( C ) may involve a sacrifice of pay and other opportunities; and patriotic loyalty may involve volunteering for military service when one’s country is attacked (by C ). Sometimes, however, the loyal friend will simply manifest the loyalty by being responsive to B ’s need at some inconvenience. The loyal A will get up at 2.00am to fetch B when B ’s car has broken down or will agree to be best man at B ’s wedding even though it will involve a long flight and great expense. No third party is involved, but there will be a cost to A . The incentive to disloyalty is more likely to be found in the blandishments of self-interest or self-maximization than in external temptations to side with a competitor’s interests (Kleinig, forthcoming).

Some defenders as well as critics of loyalty take the frequent presence of C as a reason for seeing loyalty as inherently unfriendly. To put it in the words of the political consultant, James Carville, “sticking with” B requires “sticking it to” C (Carville, 2000). No doubt some loyalties—especially political ones—frequently express themselves in such terms. But jingoism is not necessary to patriotic loyalty ( pace Tolstoy, 1894), and in most contexts the privileging of an object of loyalty ( B ) does not require treating others ( C ) badly. Loyalty to one’s own children need not involve the disparagement of others’ children.

Loyalty is generally seen as involving particularistic, or special, obligations to the individual or groups to whom one is loyal and thus as a particularistic virtue (as contrasted with, say, the virtue of honesty, which is to be exercized toward all). Although Royce elevated “loyalty to loyalty” into a universalistic principle, there has been much debate concerning the relation between particularistic obligations, such as those associated with loyalty and gratitude (McConnell, 1983), and universalistic, or general, obligations owed to all by virtue of their humanity. Are particularistic obligations subsumable under universalistic ones or are they independently derived? If the latter, do they stand in permanent tension (obligations to the poor vs. obligations to one’s children)? How, if at all, are conflicts to be resolved? The discussion has its modern roots in Enlightenment ideas of equal respect and of what is therefore owed to all by virtue of their common humanity. Both consequentialism and Kantian universalism have some difficulty in accommodating virtues such as loyalty, and on occasion have eschewed the latter. As the consequentialist William Godwin notoriously asked: “What magic is there in the pronoun ‘my,’ that should justify us in overturning the decisions of impartial truth?” (Godwin, 1946, vol. 1, 127).

Although most classical theorists have tended to accord moral priority to universalistic obligations, there have been important exceptions. Andrew Oldenquist has argued for the primacy of certain communal domains defined by our loyalties (“all morality is tribal morality”), within which considerations of impartiality may operate: “our wide and narrow loyalties define moral communities or domains within which we are willing to universalize moral judgments, treat equals equally, protect the common good, and in other ways adopt the familiar machinery of impersonal morality” (Oldenquist, 1982, 178, 177; cf. MacIntyre, 1984). Although Oldenquist denies that there is a nontribal, universalist morality, thus seeking to deprive the universalist of any independent traction, he does not do much to establish the primacy of the tribal apart, perhaps, from a certain temporal developmental priority.

Bernard Williams argued that if the claims of universalism (whether of the consequentialist or Kantian kind) are given pre-eminence, they will alienate people from their “ground projects,” where the latter include the deep attachments associated with loyalties. Williams obviously has a point, though even he conceded that such projects are not impervious to universalistic challenges (Williams, 1981, 17–18).

Many systematic moral theorists attempt to subsume particularistic obligations such as loyalty under larger universalistic obligations. R.M. Hare, for example, adopted a two-tiered consequentialist position that seeks to justify the particularistic obligations of loyalty within a broader consequentialist schema: we contribute more effectively to overall well-being if we foster particularistic obligations. Reflecting on the particularism of mother love and loyalty, he writes: “If mothers had the propensity to care equally for all the children in the world, it is unlikely that children would be as well provided for even as they are. The dilution of the responsibility would weaken it out of existence” (Hare, 1981, 137). Unfortunately, simply being aware of the general obligation may be sufficient to evacuate the particularistic obligation of much of its power—and, indeed, to call it into question. Moreover, it may overlook the distinctive source of the particularistic obligation—not in the needs of children so much as in their being one’s own.

Peter Railton has attempted to find a place for loyalties within a broadly consequentialist framework that avoids both alienation and the problems confronting Hare’s two-tiered system. According to Railton, there are good consequentialist reasons for acting on particularistic preferences, consequentialist reasons that do not undercut but honor the particularism of those preferences. Railton’s defense trades on a distinction between subjective and objective consequentialism, the objective consequentialist (whom he supports) being committed to the course of action available to an agent that would maximize the good (Railton, 1984, 152). That, he believes, does not require that the agent consciously decide to maximize the good—indeed, it may require that the agent not make such calculations. Overall, then, a loyalty to friends and family, and commitment to ground projects may maximize good, even though, were one to make a subjective calculation, it would undermine the loyalty or commitment. Although there is some debate about the success of this strategy (Wilcox, 1987; Conee, 2001), it goes some way to countering the common perception that universalistic (or impersonal) theories can find no place for particularist obligations.

Another two-tiered system, but of a nonconsequentialist variety, is suggested by Alan Gewirth (1988), who accords primacy to the principle that it is a necessary condition for human agency that all be accorded equal rights to freedom and well-being. That commitment, he believes, will also be sufficient to ground special obligations such as those finding expression in personal, familial, and national loyalties. It serves as such a ground because the commitment to individual freedom permits the formation of voluntary associations, including “exclusive” ones, as long as they do not interfere with others’ basic freedom. Such voluntary associations are formed not merely for instrumental purposes, as contributions to our freedom, but are expressive of it. A persisting problem for this account concerns the resolution of conflicts between obligations that arise out of our associational commitments (say, to our families) and those that arise directly out of the general principle (say, to assist the world’s needy). This is of course a general problem, and not just one for Gewirth; but it raises a question about the success of Gewirth’s distinctive project, which was to develop a systematic alternative to the moral pluralism that he associates with Isaiah Berlin, Michael Walzer, and Thomas Nagel.

It may be that particularistic obligations such as those of loyalty have to be considered as sui generis, products not simply of our common humanity but of our sociality, of the self-realizing significance of associational bonds—most particularly friendships, but also various other associational connections that come to be constitutive of our identity and ingredients in our flourishing. That leaves, of course, the problem of resolving conflicts with universalistic obligations when they occur. We may, with Scheffler, wish to argue that the reasons generated by particularistic associations are “presumptively decisive” in cases in which conflict arises (Scheffler, 1997, 196), though that would need to be integrated in some way with judgments about the value to be attributed to particular associations.

Individual persons are typically the one’s who are loyal (i.e., the subjects of loyalty), but being loyal is not restricted to individual persons. Mutuality is a feature of many loyalties, and it is often a normative expectation of the loyal individual that the collectivity to which the individual is loyal will also be loyal in return (Ogunyemi, 2014). Just as we personify organizations, regarding them as in some sense responsible actors, so we can attribute loyalty to them or—more often— bemoan their lack of loyalty to those who have been loyal to them.

May animals be loyal? Tales of canine loyalty are legion, and even among wild animals, especially those that move in social groups, loyalty is often said to be shown. To the extent that loyalty is seen as an adaptive sentiment, we may think that animals are capable of loyalty. That may be a convenient way of characterizing animal behavior (what Aristotle refers to as a “natural” virtue), though, as Fletcher observes, the kind of loyalty shown is limited because such loyalty cannot be betrayed. The dog who is distracted by the burglar’s steak does not betray its owner; its training has simply been inadequate. It is also limited because it is the kind of loyalty that, if displayed by humans, would be characterized as “blind” and therefore likely to expose one to moral peril (Blamires, 1963, 24).

As noted, the primary objects of loyalty tend to be persons, personal collectivities (such as families), or quasi-persons such as organizations (the company for which one works) or social groups (one’s church congregation). Some argue that it is only to such that we can be loyal (Ladd, 1967; Baron, 1984). But that is at odds with the view that almost “anything to which one’s heart can become attached or devoted” may also become an object of loyalty—principles, causes, brands, ideas, ideals, and ideologies (Konvitz, 1973, 108). Royce himself argued that loyalty is the “willing and practical and thoroughgoing devotion of a person to a cause” (Royce, 1908, 16–17). In response, those who personalize the objects of loyalty point out that we have equally available to us the language of commitment or devotion and, in the case of what is spoken of as “loyalty to one’s principles,” we have the language of integrity.

There is some reason to favor the more restrictive focus for loyalty. Our core loyalties, which also happen to be those that are psychologically more powerful (Walzer, 1970, 5), tend to secure the viability and sometimes the integrity of our particular human associations. To the extent that our moral obligations encompass not only our relations with other human beings in general but also our relationships with particular others—our friends, families, fellow citizens, and so on—loyalty will be partially constitutive and sustaining of these particular others in contexts in which narrow or short-term self-interest is likely to be better served by abandoning them. If we further argue that the core of morality is concerned with the quality of relationships that people have with each other, both as fellow humans and in the various associative groups that they form, then loyalty will constitute an important dimension of that relational network. Even the “cause” with which Royce associates loyalty is ultimately articulated in terms of devotion to a community (Royce, 1908, 20; 1913, vol. 1, xvii).

In theory, nothing prevents the “personal” object of loyalty being the whole human race ( pace Ladd, 1967). A universalist particularism can be found in some environmental contexts, when the future of humanity is up for consideration, or—as it was nicely illustrated in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein —when Victor Frankenstein decided not to jeopardize the human race by creating a companion for his monster (Shelley, 1831 [1957, 187]). In contexts in which the human race can itself be viewed as a collectivity, loyalty to it may be attributed—though that may sometimes generate charges of speciesism (Bernstein, 1991).

Mark Twain (1935) and Graham Greene (“the virtue of disloyalty,” 1973) notwithstanding, there is greater agreement that disloyalty is a vice than that loyalty is a virtue (Kleinig, forthcoming). Perhaps the frequency with which the demand for loyalty is used to “justify” engagement in unethical conduct has led to cynicism about its value. There is a certain resonance to the saying that “when an organization wants you to do right, it asks for your integrity; when it wants you to do wrong, it demands your loyalty.” What might it be about loyalty that makes it vulnerable to such uses?

There are those who, on the basis of their particular theory of virtue, deny that loyalty could be a virtue. R.E. Ewin, for example, argued that because loyalty can be badly placed (as in the case of the loyal Nazi) and because, once formed, it requires us not merely to suspend our own judgment about its object but even to set aside good judgment (Ewin, 1992, 403, 411), its pretensions to the status of a virtue are undermined, for the virtues are, he argued, internally linked to some idea of good judgment. The worth of any particular loyalty is thus reducible to judgments about the worth of the associations to which loyalty is given or the legitimacy of what is done as a result of them and is not due to loyalty in general being a virtue.

There are two problems with this account. First, the understanding of the virtues may be thought too restrictive. As with loyalty, conscientiousness and sincerity can be directed to unworthy objects, but conscientiousness and sincerity do not for that reason fail as virtues. It is arguable that had Ewin given consideration to the view that virtues operate, as Philippa Foot puts it, “at a point at which there is some temptation to be resisted or deficiency of motivation to be made good” (Foot, 1978, 8)—he might have been able to accommodate them within a catalogue of virtues. Perseverance in human associations often requires individuals to make sacrifices for the good of the individual or group with whom the individual associates, sacrifices that self-interest naturally tempts us not to make.

The second problem has to do with the idea that loyalty requires us to set aside good judgment. No doubt something of that kind is attempted by those who seek to exploit loyalty (and other virtues such as generosity and kindness). But the well-established idea of a “loyal opposition” should give pause to the suggestion that loyalty requires complaisance or servility (see section 6, Limiting Loyalty). Further, if the setting aside of good judgment is sought, there is nothing to stop a person—albeit with a heavy heart—from questioning whether the object of loyalty may have forfeited claims to it. The trust that tends to accompany loyalty need not encompass gullibility and credulity. In the ordinary course of events, the trust that accompanies loyalty has a judgment of trustworthiness as its background.

Ewin’s challenge does, nevertheless, raise the important question whether judgments about the worth of loyalty are reducible to judgments about the worth of the associations to which loyalty is given or the legitimacy of what is done as a result of them. Does loyalty have any value independent of the particular associational object with which it is connected or is its value bound up exclusively with the object of loyalty? There is disagreement on this (paralleling disagreements about the obligatoriness of promise keeping). Some argue that loyalty is virtuous or vicious depending on what is done out of loyalty. Others argue that loyalty is always virtuous, albeit overridden when associated with immoral conduct. In the case of a loyal Nazi whose loyalty expresses itself in anti-semitic forms, we could respond in one of two ways. On the one hand, we could point to the fact that the loyalty is likely to aggravate the harm caused. On the other hand, were such a Nazi to act disloyally by allowing Jews who bribed him to escape, we could argue that he is doubly deficient—self-serving and defective in his capacity to form close bonds. Certainly the value of particular associations is of importance to how we value loyalty to those associations; but it is doubtful whether the value of loyalty is simply reducible to the value of the association in question. A person without loyalty or incapable of forming loyalties would seem to be defective as a person.

If loyalty is a virtue, what kind of virtue is it? The virtues are a mixed bag, conceptually and normatively. There are, for example, moral and intellectual virtues, Christian and pagan virtues. In the instant case, there is a distinction between substantive and executive virtues. The substantive virtues include compassion, fellow-feeling, kindness, and generosity, whereas the executive virtues include sincerity, courage, industriousness, and conscientiousness. Substantive virtues motivate us to act well, that is, to do good, and are critical to our moral relations with others (and, in the case of prudence, to our own interests as well). The executive virtues, or, as they are sometimes known, virtues of the will, are important to the implementation of what the substantive virtues require of us—sincerity in our compassion, courage in our kindness, conscientiousness in our generosity. They help us to surmount obstacles to our doing good. Loyalty, like sincerity, is an executive virtue, and its worth in a particular case is especially sensitive to the value of its object. Like other executive virtues, it can become attached to unworthy objects—one may be a loyal Nazi or sincere racist. But that does not make their virtuousness merely contingent or optional. A world or person without sincerity or conscientiousness or loyalty would be a seriously deficient one. The capacity and ability to persevere in human associations that may require sacrifices from us are important to develop and exercise, and are what the virtue of loyalty consists in. Thus, insofar as we express loyalty in particular loyalties, we should distinguish the assessment of whether someone has the virtue of loyalty from assessments of the worth of particular loyalties.

The executive virtues are an important ingredient in human excellence, but, like all virtues, they should not be cultivated in isolation from the substantive ones. When Aristotle discussed the virtues, he argued for the importance of phronesis or practical wisdom in the application of the virtues so that they would not be deficient, excessive, or misplaced. In the fully virtuous person, the virtues were never meant to be possessed in isolation but as an integrated cluster—one of the things the ancients were plausibly getting at when they spoke of the unity of the virtues.

There is sometimes a further question about whether loyalty, even if a virtue, should be seen as a moral virtue. Loyalty may be thought excellent to have—even a component of a good life—but is it essentially a moral disposition? The divisions among virtues (say, intellectual, moral, personal, and social) are, however, at best unclear and probably overlapping. Kindness is almost always morally commendable, but imaginativeness (often said to be an intellectual virtue), courage (usually categorized as a personal virtue) and reliability (sometimes called a social virtue) may be shown on the sports field or by enemy soldiers as well as in contexts that render them morally commendable. There may be no great value in attempts to differentiate loyalty (and other virtues) into rigid and exclusive categories. What is almost certainly arguable is that a person who is completely devoid of loyalties would be deficient as a person understood inter alia as a moral agent.

There is a great deal of contingency to the development of loyalties. The loyalties we develop to family, tribe, country, and religion often emerge almost naturally as we become increasingly aware of the social relations that have formed us. Our identifications can be very deep and are often unquestioning. For some writers, this unchosenness is what distinguishes loyalty from other commitments such as fidelity (Allen, 1989). But loyalty also extends to consciously acquired relational commitments, as we choose to associate with particular people, groups, and institutions. Whether those latter loyalties develop depends on the extent to which the associations we choose to be involved in acquire some intrinsic significance for us beyond any instrumental value that may have first attracted us to them. Such explanatory accounts, however, do not justify the loyalties we form or may be inclined to form. Yet, because loyalties privilege their objects, the provision of a justification is important.

For some writers, the distinction between chosen and unchosen loyalties is critical. Simon Keller, for example, considers that our general unwillingness to question unchosen loyalties exhibits the lack of integrity often referred to as bad faith. Once we have such loyalties—he focuses on patriotic loyalties—we are resistant to their scrutiny and self-defensively discount challenges to them (Keller, 2005; 2007). There may be some truth to the view that we are more likely to show bad faith as far as our unchosen loyalties are concerned, but it may be difficult to offer that as a general comment on unchosen loyalties. There may be no more reason not to call our patriotism into question when we see how our country is behaving than there is not to call a friendship into question when we see how our friend is behaving. It may be psychologically harder (and a moral hazard associated with loyalties) to challenge unchosen loyalties, but that does not sustain a general judgment about them.

Some have treated arguments for associational loyalty as though they were cut from the same cloth as general arguments for associational obligations. They have, therefore, embedded claims for loyalty in “fair-play” or “natural-duty-to-support-just-institutions” arguments for associational obligations. But whatever the merits of such arguments as grounds for general institutional obligations, they do not provide grounds for the particularistic obligations that we connect with loyalty. They do not capture the particularity of such obligations. Even consent-based arguments are insufficiently particularistic. Leaving aside the possibility that our basic political or parental or other associational obligations may also include an obligation to be loyal, we can usually fulfill what we take those obligations to be without any sense of loyalty to their objects. Obligations of loyalty presuppose an associational identification that more general institutional or membership obligations do not.

Of the various instrumental justifications of loyalty, the most credible is probably that developed by A.O. Hirschman (1970; 1974). Hirschman assumes, along with many other institutional theorists, that valued social relationships and institutions have an endemic tendency to decline. He claims, however, that social life would be seriously impoverished were we self-advantageously to transfer or relinquish our associational affiliations whenever a particular social institution failed to deliver the goods associated with our connection to it, or whenever a more successful provider of that good came along. On this account, loyalty can be seen as a mechanism whereby we (at least temporarily) persist in our association with the institution (or affiliation) while efforts are made (through giving voice) to bring it back on track. Loyalty commits us to securing or restoring the productivity of socially valued institutions or affiliations. To the extent, then, that an institution or affiliation provides highly desired or needed goods for people, they have reason to be loyal to it and, ceteris paribus, their loyalty should be given to the point at which it becomes clear that the institution is no longer capable of being recuperated or that one’s loyal efforts will be in vain.

But as valuable as loyalty may be for associational recuperation, it is not clear that we can link its justification only to its recuperative potential. For even within a generally consequentialist framework loyalty may play a more positive role. The loyal alumnus who donates $100 million to an already healthy endowment fund is contributing to institutional advancement rather than stemming institutional decline. In such a case the loyalty expresses a desire to further institutional interests rather than restore or even preserve them. The donation is seen as an expression of loyalty because it expresses a commitment to the institution in the face of the alternatives available to the donor. An outside philanthropist might, however, choose to donate the same amount, albeit not out of loyalty to the institution.

More critically, if loyalty is viewed simply in terms of the goods that the associative object is able to secure or produce, the intrinsic value that the association has come to have for the loyal person is overlooked, along with the sense of identification that it expresses. It is out of that sense of identification that loyalty arises.

An alternative account is that loyalty is owed to various associations as a debt of gratitude. Although gratitude as a ground of obligation also stands in need of justification (McConnell, 1983), it tends to be more widely acceptable as a justifying reason than loyalty. The fact that we are the nonvoluntary beneficiaries of some of the associative relations to which we are said to owe some of our primary loyalties—say, familial, ethnic, or political—has provided some writers with a reason to think that gratitude grounds such loyalties (cf. Walker, 1988; Jecker, 1989).

But obligations of gratitude are not ipso facto obligations of loyalty: the brutalized Jew who was rescued by the Good Samaritan may have had a debt of gratitude but he had no debt of loyalty (Luke 10:25–37). Loyalty, moreover, may be owed where there is no reason for gratitude: as may be the case between friends. Obligations of gratitude are recompensive, whereas obligations of loyalty sustain associations.

There may be a deeper reason for thinking that—in some associative relations—loyalty ought to be fostered and shown. It resides in the conception of ourselves as social beings. We do not develop into the persons we are and aspire to be in the same fashion as a tree develops from a seedling into its mature form. Our genetic substratum is not as determinative of our final form as a tree’s. Nor do we (generally) flourish as the persons we become and aspire to remain in the manner of a tree. We are social creatures who are what we are because of our embeddedness in and ongoing involvement with relations and groups and communities of various kinds. Though these evolve over time, such social affiliations (or at least some of them) become part of who we are; and, moreover, our association with such individuals, groups, and communities (though often instrumentally valued) becomes part of what we conceive a good life to be for us. Our loyal obligation to them arises out of the value that our association with them has for us.

A broad justification such as this leaves unstated what associations might be constitutive of human flourishing. Perhaps there is no definitive list. But most would include friendships, familial relationships, and some of the social institutions that foster, sustain, and secure the social life in which we engage as part of our flourishing. To the extent that we accept that engagement with or in a particular form of association or relation is constitutive of our flourishing, to that extent we will consider loyalty to it to be justified—even required.

The arguments that justify loyalty do not ipso facto justify unlimited sacrifice in the name of loyalty, though they do not rule out the possibility that, for example, a person might legitimately be willing, as an expression of loyalty, to lay down his life for another. That is often the case in wartime and may also be true of some friendships. The strength of the claims of loyalty will depend on the importance of the association to the person who has the association and, of course, on the legitimacy of the association in question. Not only may some associative relations be illegitimate, but the expectations of one association may come into conflict with those of another: we may have conflicts of loyalty. If the conflict is resolved by giving one loyalty precedence over another, it does not necessarily follow that loyalty to the one is disloyalty to the other. It is no disloyalty to a friend who is counting on me if instead I attend to my dying mother’s needs. Sometimes such priorities will be straightforward, at other times not. Prioritization may, nevertheless, call for an apology and compensation in respect of the disappointed party. Even if we decide unwisely, our decision will not ipso facto count as disloyalty. Disloyalty is more often associated with the self-serving or hypocritical abandonment of loyalty.

6. Limiting loyalty

It has already been noted that it is not part of loyalty to be complaisant or servile, though loyalty may be corrupted into such. In any plausible account of loyalty as a virtue there must be openness to corrective criticism on the part of both the subject and object of loyalty. The “corrective” qualification is important. Not any opposition is permissible. A loyal opponent is not just an opponent, but one who remains loyal. What that entails is that the opposition stays within bounds that are compatible with the well-being or best interests or flourishing of the object of loyalty. Generally speaking, a loyal opposition will not advocate (the equivalent of) rebellion or revolution for the latter would jeopardize the object of loyalty (and perhaps lead to its replacement by an alternative object of loyalty).

It is the commitment to opposition within (what are judged to be) the prevailing structures that has led some radical critics of loyalty (e.g., Agassi, 1974; Greene, 1973) to see it as—at bottom—a conservative virtue. It is conservative, though in a positive sense of that word: it involves a commitment to securing or preserving the interests of an associational object, an object that is, or has come to be, valued for its own sake (whatever else it may be valued for). Nevertheless, the existence of a loyal opposition need not preclude the possibility that a more radical opposition might and indeed should subsequently be mounted. If the loyal opposition proves incapable of “reforming” the object of loyalty, the exit option (or something stronger) might be taken. In such cases it could be argued that the object of loyalty was no longer worthy of loyalty or had forfeited its claim to it. It is only if we mistakenly or misguidedly think of loyalty as making an unconditional claim on us that a derogatory charge of conservatism against a loyal opposition will have traction (see Kleinig, 2019).

For heuristic purposes, we can probably distinguish loyalty to a type of association (such as a state) or a particular instantiation of the type (such as the United States). Strictly, loyalty will be only to the latter, though it assists in understanding the limits of loyalty if we make the distinction. If the type of institution is thought to be critical to human flourishing, then loyalty to it will be expected. But if the institution is of relatively minor significance, the development of instantiations of it, along with loyalty to them, will be relatively unimportant (though not necessarily to those who develop such loyalties). Whether, for example, patriotism (that is, patriotic loyalty) is justified will depend in part on the importance to be accorded to a state or country. If we are social contractarians, then the state (broadly conceived) offers a significant solution to some of the problems of human association as well as an arena for social identification. We might think that both the state in general and loyalty to it are important. The state in general, however, needs to be embodied in a particular state, and that state may be such that the loyalty it should garner is forfeited by how it acts.

Loyalty to a particular object is forfeited—that is, its claims for the protection and reinforcement of associative identity and commitment run out—when the object shows itself to be no longer worthy or capable of being a source of associational satisfaction or identity-giving significance. That is, the claims run out for the once-loyal associate. (Others, of course, may dispute this.) But whether or not loyalty is thought to be justifiably forfeited, the breakpoint may differ for different people. Consider the case of infidelity. For one woman, a husband’s infidelity challenges the future of the relationship but does not automatically destroy it. The relationship will be considered reparable. The issues of trust that are involved may be addressed and the relationship repaired. But for another, such infidelity may collapse the structure in which the relationship has been housed.

Is there a right and a wrong in such cases? Does the first woman lack an appreciation of the “sanctity” of marriage/intimacy? Does the second fail to appreciate our shared frailty and the possibilities for redemption and renewal? We should probably not acquiesce in the relativistic view that what is right for one is wrong for the other. At the same time, however, there may be no easy answer. The two positions constitute the beginnings of a consideration of the nature of intimacy, what it reasonably demands of us, and how we should respond to transgressions of its expectations.

The same may be true of other loyalties. Our approach may be assisted by utilizing the earlier heuristic distinction between the general form of an association and its particular instantiation. We may be able to reach some general consensus on what a state might reasonably expect of us. However, in any actual association with a particular state the content of the bond may be individualized.

The issue of loyalty’s limits is usefully illustrated by the phenomenon of what is sometimes distinguished as external “whistle blowing.” Although there is some debate about its scope, whistle blowing can be helpfully (if not fully) characterized as the activity of an employee within an organization—public or private—who alerts a wider group to setbacks to their interests as a result of waste, corruption, fraud, or profit-seeking (Westin, 1981; Bowman, 1990; Miethe, 1999). Because such employees are generally considered disloyal, it has been common to characterize them as traitors, snitches, weasels, squealers, or rats. “Whistle blower” offers a more neutral way of referring to such people, and permits an inquiry into the proper limits of employee loyalty.

The normative background to whistle blowing is a belief that employees owe loyalty to their employing organizations. Such loyalty will include an expectation that employees not jeopardize their organization’s interests by revealing certain kinds of information to people outside it. If employees have grievances, they should be dealt with within the organization (“we wash our own laundry”). The case for whistle blowing, then, is driven by the recognition, first of all, that internal mechanisms often fail to deal adequately with an organization’s failures, and second, that because the interests jeopardized by those failures often include those outside the organization, a wider group has a prima facie right to know of the costs that it faces or that have been imposed on it.

Blowing the whistle frequently creates significant disruption within an organization—it may lose control of its affairs as it is subjected to external inquiries and constraints; it may find itself crippled by costs or other restrictions; and many within it who are little more than innocent bystanders may suffer from the repercussions of an externally mounted investigation. Because whistle blowing jeopardizes the organization’s interests (at least as they are understood within the organization), whistle blowing is therefore seen as a significant act of disloyalty. Whistle blowers themselves will often argue that owed loyalty has been forfeited (or at least overridden), so that no (condemnable) disloyalty has been perpetrated. Occasionally they will argue that whistle blowing can be an act of loyalty.

A resolution to such conflicting assessments must address the issue of loyalty’s limits and, in the case of whistle blowing, it must take cognizance of several considerations: (i) Because of the disruption it threatens, the whistle should be blown only as a matter of last resort. (ii) For the same reason the organizational wrongdoing should be sufficiently serious . (iii) The public complaint should be well-grounded —the reasons that support it should be strong enough to be publicly defensible. (iv) A potential whistleblower should consider whether he or she has a special role-related obligation to take some action. Although any member of an organization might have some responsibility for what is done in its name, some members will be better placed to make appropriate assessments of seriousness and may be more responsible for the way in which the organization conducts its activities. (v) Because the purpose of blowing the whistle is to bring about change, the potential for the whistle blowing to be effective ought to be considered. (vi) It is sometimes argued that the act of whistle blowing needs to be appropriately motivated —it must at least be done out of concern for those whose interests are being jeopardized. This last consideration, however, may have more to do with the whistle blower’s praiseworthiness than with the justifiability of blowing the whistle. A morally compromised whistleblower, however, may find his or her credibility undermined and the exposé rendered ineffective.

Even if the foregoing considerations are satisfactorily addressed, there remains a question whether blowing the whistle is obligatory or merely permissible. As omissions, failures to blow the whistle must engage with debates about the moral obligatoriness of our acting to prevent harm. Even if it is morally obligatory, though, there may be reasons for not making whistle blowing legally mandatory. In addition, the potential costs to a whistleblower may excuse even legally mandated reporting of organizational wrongdoing (Glazer & Glazer, 1989; Martin, 1992). Although legal protections for whistle blowers have been instituted in some jurisdictions, they have often proved inadequate (Glazer & Glazer, 1989).

Anonymous whistle blowing represents a possible solution; it opens the door, however, to disruptive whistles being blown for the wrong reasons or after careless investigation (cf. Elliston, 1982; Coulson, 1982).

In sum, the case of whistle blowing illustrates not only the importance of loyalty to many organizations but also the care that needs to be exercised when it is claimed that obligations of loyalty are justifiably overridden or forfeited.

Aeschylus, 2003 [485BCE], Oresteia , trans., intro., and notes Christopher Collard, New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Agassi, Joseph, 1974, “The Last Refuge of the Scoundrel,” Philosophia , 4(2/3): 315–17.
Allen, R.T., 1989, “When Loyalty No Harm Meant,” Review of Metaphysics , 43: 281–94.
Baron, Marcia, 1984, The Moral Status of Loyalty , Dubuque, IO: Kendall/Hunt.
Bennett, William J., 2004, Virtues of Friendship and Loyalty , Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Bernstein, Mark, 1991, “Speciesism and Loyalty,” Behavior and Philosophy , 19(1): 43–59.
Blamires, Harry, 1963, The Christian Mind , London: S.P.C.K.
Bloch, Herbert A., 1934, The Concept of our Changing Loyalties: An Introductory Study into the Nature of the Social Individual , New York: Columbia University Press.
Böszörményi-Nagy, Iván & Spark, Geraldine M., 1973, Invisible Loyalties: Reciprocity in Intergenerational Family Therapy , second edition, New York: Brunner-Mazel.
Bowman, J.S., 1990, “Whistle Blowing in the Public Sector: an Overview of the Issues,” in Combating Corruption/Encouraging Ethics: a Sourcebook for Public Service Ethics , W.W. Richter, F. Burke, and J.W. Doig (eds.), Washington, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration.
Carville, James, 2000, Stickin’: The Case for Loyalty , New York: Simon & Schuster.
Coleman, Stephen, 2009, “The Problems of Duty and Loyalty,” Journal of Military Ethics , 8(2): 105–15.
Conee, Earl, 2001, “Friendship and Consequentialism,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 79(2): 161–79.
Connor, James, 2007, The Sociology of Loyalty , Dordrecht: Springer.
Conrad, Joseph, 1899/1902, Heart of Darkness , Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine. [ Conrad 1899 available online ]
–––, 1907, The Secret Agent , London: J. M. Dent. [ Conrad 1907 available online ]
–––, 1913, Chance , New York: Alfred Knopf. [ Conrad 1913 available online ]
Coulson, Robert, 1982, “Commentary on Elliston’s ‘Anonymous Whistleblowing: An Ethical Analysis,’” Business and Professional Ethics Journal , 1: 59–60.
Elliston, Frederick, 1982, “Anonymous Whistleblowing: An Ethical Analysis,” Business and Professional Ethics Journal , 1: 39–58.
Ewin, R.E., 1990, “Loyalty: The Police,” Criminal Justice Ethics , 9(2): 3–15.
–––, 1992, “Loyalty and Virtues,” Philosophical Quarterly , 42(169): 403–19.
–––, 1993, “Loyalties, and Why Loyalty Should be Ignored,” Criminal Justice Ethics , 12(1): 36–42.
–––, 1993, “Corporate Loyalty: Its Objects and its Grounds,” Journal of Business Ethics , 12(5): 387–96.
Felten, Eric, 2012, Loyalty: The Vexing Virtue , New York: Simon & Schuster.
Fletcher, George P., 1993, Loyalty: An Essay on the Morality of Relationships , New York: Oxford University Press.
Foot, Philippa, 1978, Virtues and Vices , Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Foust, Mathew A., 2011, “‘What Can I Do for the Cause Today Which I Never did Before?’: Situating Josiah Royce’s Pittsburgh Lectures on Loyalty,” Transactions of the Charles S. Pierce Society , 47(1): 87–108.
–––, 2012a, Loyalty to Loyalty: Josiah Royce and the Genuine Moral Life , New York: Fordham University Press.
–––, 2012b, “Loyalty in the Teachings of Confucius and Josiah Royce,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy , 39(2): 192–206.
–––, 2015, “Nitobe and Royce: Bushido and the Philosophy of Loyalty,” Philosophy East and West , 65(4): 1174–93.
––, 2018, “Loyalty, Justice, and Rights: Royce and Police Ethics in Twenty-First-Century America, ” Criminal Justice Ethics , 37(1): 1–19.
––, forthcoming, “Josiah Royce’s Philosophy of Loyalty as Exemplarist Moral Theory,” in Troy Jollimore (ed.), Loyalty , New York: Oxford University Press.
Galsworthy, John, 1922 [2006], Loyalties , Hardpress Publishing/Book Depository.
Gewirth, Alan, 1988, “Ethical Universalism and Particularism,” Journal of Philosophy , 85(6): 283–302.
Glazer, M.P. & Glazer, P.M., 1989, The Whistleblowers: Exposing Corruption in Government and Industry , New York: Basic Books.
Godwin, William, 1946 [1798], Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and its Influence on Morals and Happiness (third ed.), photographic facsimile, ed. F.E.L. Priestley, Toronto: Toronto University Press, vol. 1.
Goldin, Paul R., 2008, “When ‘Zhong’ Does Not Mean ‘Loyalty’,” Dao , 7(2): 165–74.
Goman, Carol K., 1990, The Loyalty Factor , Berkeley: KCS Publishing.
Greene, Graham, 1973, The Portable Graham Greene , New York: Viking.
Grodzins, Morton, 1956, The Loyal and the Disloyal: Social Boundaries of Patriotism and Treason , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Guetzkow, Harold, 1955, Multiple Loyalties , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hajdin, Mane, 2005, “Employee Loyalty: An Examination,” Journal of Business Ethics , 59: 259–80.
Hare, R.M., 1981, Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method and Point , Oxford: Clarendon.
Hart, David W. and Thompson, Jeffery A., 2007, “Untangling Employee Loyalty: A Psychological Contract Perspective,” Business Ethics Quarterly , 17(2): 279–323.
Hirschman, Albert O., 1970, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Response to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
–––, 1974, “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Further Reflections and a Survey of Recent Contributions,” Social Science Information , 13(1): 7–26.
Jacoby J. and Chestnut, R.W., 1978, Brand Loyalty: Measurement and Management , New York: John Wiley.
Jecker, Nancy S., 1989, “Are Filial Duties Unfounded?” American Philosophical Quarterly , 26(1): 73–80.
Jollimore, Troy, 2012, On Loyalty , London: Routledge.
Keller, Simon, 2007, The Limits of Loyalty , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
–––, 2005, “Patriotism as Bad Faith,” Ethics , 115: 563–92.
Kleinig, John, (2014), Loyalty and Loyalties: The Contours of a Problematic Virtue , New York: Oxford University Press.
––, 2019,“Loyalty and the Limits of Patriotism,” in Mitya Sardoc (ed.), Handbook of Patriotism , Cham: Springer, 485–498.
––, forthcoming,“Betrayal,” in Troy Jollimore (ed), Loyalty , New York: Oxford University Press.
Konvitz, Milton, 1973, “Loyalty,” in Philip P. Wiener (ed), Encyclopedia of the History of Ideas (Volume III), New York: Scribner’s, pp. 108–16.
Ladd, John, 1967, “Loyalty,” in Paul Edwards (ed), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Volume V), New York: Macmillan & The Free Press, pp. 97–98.
MacIntyre, Alasdair, 1984, Is Patriotism a Virtue? (Lindley Lecture 1984), Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
Martin, M.W., 1992, “Whistleblowing: Professionalism, Personal Life, and Shared Responsibility for Safety in Engineering,” Business & Professional Ethics Journal , 11(2): 21–40.
McChrystal, Michael K., 1992, “Lawyers and Loyalty,” William and Mary Law Review , 33(2): 367–427.
–––, 1998, “Professional Loyalties: A Response to John Kleinig’s Account,” American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Law , 98(1): 83–90.
McConnell, Terrance, 1983, Gratitude , Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Miethe, Terance D., 1999, Whistleblowing at Work : Tough Choices in Exposing Fraud, Waste, and Abuse on the Job , Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Mullin, Richard P., 2005, “Josiah Royce’s Philosophy of Loyalty As a Basis for Democratic Ethics,” in Democracy and the Post-Totalitarian Experience , Leszek Koczanowicz (ed.), New York: Rodopi, pp. 183–91.
Nuyen, A.T., 1999, “The Value of Loyalty,” Philosophical Papers , 28(1): 25–36.
Ogunyemi, Kemi, 2014, “Employer Loyalty: The Need for Reciprocity,” Philosophy of Management , 13(3): 21–32.
Oldenquist, Andrew, 1982, “Loyalties,” Journal of Philosophy , 79(4): 173–93.
Railton, Peter, 1984, “Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality,” Philosophy & Public Affairs , 13(2): 134–71.
Royce, Josiah, 1908, The Philosophy of Loyalty , New York: Macmillan.
–––, 1913, The Problem of Christianity New York: Macmillan, 2 volumes.
Sakenfeld, Katharine Doob, 1985, Faithfulness in Action: Loyalty in Biblical Perspective , Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Schaar, John H., 1957, Loyalty in America , Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Scheffler, Samuel, 1997, “Relationships and Responsibilities,” Philosophy & Public Affairs , 26(3): 189–209.
Schrag, Brian, 2001, “The Moral significance of Employee Loyalty,” Business Ethics Quarterly , 11(1): 41–66.
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, 1831 [1957], Frankenstein , third edition, New York: Pyramid Books.
Spiegel, Shalom, 1965, The Last Trial. On the Legends and Lore of the Command to Abraham to Offer Isaac as a Sacrifice: The Akedah , trans. and intro. Judah Goldin, New York: Pantheon Books.
Tolstoy, Leo, 1968 [1894], “On Patriotism,” in Tolstoy’s Writings on Civil Disobedience and Non-Violence , New York: New American Library.
Trotter, Griffin, 1997, The Loyal Physician: Roycean Ethics and the Practice of Medicine , Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Twain, Mark (Samuel Clemens), 1935, Notebook , ed. Albert Bigelow Paine, New York: Harper.
Varelius, Jukka, 2009, “Is Whistle-Blowing Compatible with Employee Loyalty?” Journal of Business Ethics , 85(2): 263–75.
Walker, A.D.M., 1988, “Political Obligation and the Argument from Gratitude,” Philosophy & Public Affairs , 17(3): 191–211.
Walzer, Michael, 1970, Obligations: Essays on Disobedience, War, and Citizenship , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
West, Ranyard, 1945, Conscience and Society , New York: Emerson Books.
Westin, A. ed., 1981, Whistle Blowing! Loyalty and Dissent in the Corporation , New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wilcox, William H., 1987, “Egoists, Consequentialists, and Their Friends,” Philosophy & Public Affairs , 16(1): 73–84.
Williams, Bernard, 1981, “Persons, Character, and Morality,” reprinted in Moral Luck , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–19.
Wilson, James Q., 1993, The Moral Sense , New York: The Free Press.
Zdaniuk, Bozena and Levine, John M., 2001, “Group Loyalty: Impact of Members’ Identification and Contributions,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 37(6): 502–09.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Josiah Royce, The Philosophy of Loyalty , New York: Macmillan, 1908.
Whistleblowing—International Bibliography , a substantial, though not complete, web-based bibliography on whistle blowing compiled by William De Maria, of the University of Queensland (Australia)

Acknowledgments

I thank Julia Driver and Thomas Pogge for their comments on the original draft of this essay and Cheshire Calhoun for comments on the 2022 draft.

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

Browse content in Arts and Humanities
Browse content in Archaeology
Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
Archaeology by Region
Archaeology of Religion
Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
Biblical Archaeology
Contemporary and Public Archaeology
Environmental Archaeology
Historical Archaeology
History and Theory of Archaeology
Industrial Archaeology
Landscape Archaeology
Mortuary Archaeology
Prehistoric Archaeology
Underwater Archaeology
Urban Archaeology
Zooarchaeology
Browse content in Architecture
Architectural Structure and Design
History of Architecture
Residential and Domestic Buildings
Theory of Architecture
Browse content in Art
Art Subjects and Themes
History of Art
Industrial and Commercial Art
Theory of Art
Biographical Studies
Byzantine Studies
Browse content in Classical Studies
Classical History
Classical Philosophy
Classical Mythology
Classical Literature
Classical Reception
Classical Art and Architecture
Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
Greek and Roman Epigraphy
Greek and Roman Law
Greek and Roman Papyrology
Greek and Roman Archaeology
Late Antiquity
Religion in the Ancient World
Social History
Digital Humanities
Browse content in History
Colonialism and Imperialism
Diplomatic History
Environmental History
Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
Historical Geography
History by Period
History of Emotions
History of Agriculture
History of Education
History of Gender and Sexuality
Industrial History
Intellectual History
International History
Labour History
Legal and Constitutional History
Local and Family History
Maritime History
Military History
National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
Oral History
Political History
Public History
Regional and National History
Revolutions and Rebellions
Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
Social and Cultural History
Theory, Methods, and Historiography
Urban History
World History
Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
Language Learning (Specific Skills)
Language Teaching Theory and Methods
Browse content in Linguistics
Applied Linguistics
Cognitive Linguistics
Computational Linguistics
Forensic Linguistics
Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
History of English
Language Acquisition
Language Evolution
Language Reference
Language Variation
Language Families
Lexicography
Linguistic Anthropology
Linguistic Theories
Linguistic Typology
Phonetics and Phonology
Psycholinguistics
Sociolinguistics
Translation and Interpretation
Writing Systems
Browse content in Literature
Bibliography
Children's Literature Studies
Literary Studies (Asian)
Literary Studies (European)
Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
Literary Studies (Romanticism)
Literary Studies (American)
Literary Studies (Modernism)
Literary Studies - World
Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
Literary Studies (19th Century)
Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
Literary Studies (African American Literature)
Literary Studies (British and Irish)
Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
Literary Studies (History of the Book)
Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
Literary Studies (War Literature)
Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
Mythology and Folklore
Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
Browse content in Media Studies
Browse content in Music
Applied Music
Dance and Music
Ethics in Music
Ethnomusicology
Gender and Sexuality in Music
Medicine and Music
Music Cultures
Music and Religion
Music and Media
Music and Culture
Music Education and Pedagogy
Music Theory and Analysis
Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
Musicology and Music History
Performance Practice and Studies
Race and Ethnicity in Music
Sound Studies
Browse content in Performing Arts
Browse content in Philosophy
Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
Epistemology
Feminist Philosophy
History of Western Philosophy
Metaphysics
Moral Philosophy
Non-Western Philosophy
Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Mind
Philosophy of Perception
Philosophy of Action
Philosophy of Law
Philosophy of Religion
Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
Practical Ethics
Social and Political Philosophy
Browse content in Religion
Biblical Studies
Christianity
East Asian Religions
History of Religion
Judaism and Jewish Studies
Qumran Studies
Religion and Education
Religion and Health
Religion and Politics
Religion and Science
Religion and Law
Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
Religious Studies
Browse content in Society and Culture
Cookery, Food, and Drink
Cultural Studies
Customs and Traditions
Ethical Issues and Debates
Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
Sports and Outdoor Recreation
Technology and Society
Travel and Holiday
Visual Culture
Browse content in Law
Arbitration
Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
Commercial Law
Company Law
Browse content in Comparative Law
Systems of Law
Competition Law
Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
Government Powers
Judicial Review
Local Government Law
Military and Defence Law
Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
Construction Law
Contract Law
Browse content in Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Criminal Evidence Law
Sentencing and Punishment
Employment and Labour Law
Environment and Energy Law
Browse content in Financial Law
Banking Law
Insolvency Law
History of Law
Human Rights and Immigration
Intellectual Property Law
Browse content in International Law
Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
Public International Law
IT and Communications Law
Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
Law and Politics
Law and Society
Browse content in Legal System and Practice
Courts and Procedure
Legal Skills and Practice
Primary Sources of Law
Regulation of Legal Profession
Medical and Healthcare Law
Browse content in Policing
Criminal Investigation and Detection
Police and Security Services
Police Procedure and Law
Police Regional Planning
Browse content in Property Law
Personal Property Law
Study and Revision
Terrorism and National Security Law
Browse content in Trusts Law
Wills and Probate or Succession
Browse content in Medicine and Health
Browse content in Allied Health Professions
Arts Therapies
Clinical Science
Dietetics and Nutrition
Occupational Therapy
Operating Department Practice
Physiotherapy
Radiography
Speech and Language Therapy
Browse content in Anaesthetics
General Anaesthesia
Neuroanaesthesia
Browse content in Clinical Medicine
Acute Medicine
Cardiovascular Medicine
Clinical Genetics
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
Dermatology
Endocrinology and Diabetes
Gastroenterology
Genito-urinary Medicine
Geriatric Medicine
Infectious Diseases
Medical Toxicology
Medical Oncology
Pain Medicine
Palliative Medicine
Rehabilitation Medicine
Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
Rheumatology
Sleep Medicine
Sports and Exercise Medicine
Clinical Neuroscience
Community Medical Services
Critical Care
Emergency Medicine
Forensic Medicine
Haematology
History of Medicine
Browse content in Medical Dentistry
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Paediatric Dentistry
Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
Surgical Dentistry
Browse content in Medical Skills
Clinical Skills
Communication Skills
Nursing Skills
Surgical Skills
Medical Ethics
Medical Statistics and Methodology
Browse content in Neurology
Clinical Neurophysiology
Neuropathology
Nursing Studies
Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Gynaecology
Occupational Medicine
Ophthalmology
Otolaryngology (ENT)
Browse content in Paediatrics
Neonatology
Browse content in Pathology
Chemical Pathology
Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
Histopathology
Medical Microbiology and Virology
Patient Education and Information
Browse content in Pharmacology
Psychopharmacology
Browse content in Popular Health
Caring for Others
Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Self-help and Personal Development
Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
Cell Biology
Molecular Biology and Genetics
Reproduction, Growth and Development
Primary Care
Professional Development in Medicine
Browse content in Psychiatry
Addiction Medicine
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Forensic Psychiatry
Learning Disabilities
Old Age Psychiatry
Psychotherapy
Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
Epidemiology
Public Health
Browse content in Radiology
Clinical Radiology
Interventional Radiology
Nuclear Medicine
Radiation Oncology
Reproductive Medicine
Browse content in Surgery
Cardiothoracic Surgery
Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
General Surgery
Neurosurgery
Paediatric Surgery
Peri-operative Care
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Surgical Oncology
Transplant Surgery
Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
Vascular Surgery
Browse content in Science and Mathematics
Browse content in Biological Sciences
Aquatic Biology
Biochemistry
Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
Developmental Biology
Ecology and Conservation
Evolutionary Biology
Genetics and Genomics
Microbiology
Molecular and Cell Biology
Natural History
Plant Sciences and Forestry
Research Methods in Life Sciences
Structural Biology
Systems Biology
Zoology and Animal Sciences
Browse content in Chemistry
Analytical Chemistry
Computational Chemistry
Crystallography
Environmental Chemistry
Industrial Chemistry
Inorganic Chemistry
Materials Chemistry
Medicinal Chemistry
Mineralogy and Gems
Organic Chemistry
Physical Chemistry
Polymer Chemistry
Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
Theoretical Chemistry
Browse content in Computer Science
Artificial Intelligence
Computer Architecture and Logic Design
Game Studies
Human-Computer Interaction
Mathematical Theory of Computation
Programming Languages
Software Engineering
Systems Analysis and Design
Virtual Reality
Browse content in Computing
Business Applications
Computer Security
Computer Games
Computer Networking and Communications
Digital Lifestyle
Graphical and Digital Media Applications
Operating Systems
Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
Atmospheric Sciences
Environmental Geography
Geology and the Lithosphere
Maps and Map-making
Meteorology and Climatology
Oceanography and Hydrology
Palaeontology
Physical Geography and Topography
Regional Geography
Soil Science
Urban Geography
Browse content in Engineering and Technology
Agriculture and Farming
Biological Engineering
Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
Electronics and Communications Engineering
Energy Technology
Engineering (General)
Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
History of Engineering and Technology
Mechanical Engineering and Materials
Technology of Industrial Chemistry
Transport Technology and Trades
Browse content in Environmental Science
Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
Environmental Sustainability
Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
History of Science and Technology
Browse content in Materials Science
Ceramics and Glasses
Composite Materials
Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
Nanotechnology
Browse content in Mathematics
Applied Mathematics
Biomathematics and Statistics
History of Mathematics
Mathematical Education
Mathematical Finance
Mathematical Analysis
Numerical and Computational Mathematics
Probability and Statistics
Pure Mathematics
Browse content in Neuroscience
Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
Development of the Nervous System
Disorders of the Nervous System
History of Neuroscience
Invertebrate Neurobiology
Molecular and Cellular Systems
Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
Neuroscientific Techniques
Sensory and Motor Systems
Browse content in Physics
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
Biological and Medical Physics
Classical Mechanics
Computational Physics
Condensed Matter Physics
Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
History of Physics
Mathematical and Statistical Physics
Measurement Science
Nuclear Physics
Particles and Fields
Plasma Physics
Quantum Physics
Relativity and Gravitation
Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
Browse content in Psychology
Affective Sciences
Clinical Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Cognitive Neuroscience
Criminal and Forensic Psychology
Developmental Psychology
Educational Psychology
Evolutionary Psychology
Health Psychology
History and Systems in Psychology
Music Psychology
Neuropsychology
Organizational Psychology
Psychological Assessment and Testing
Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
Psychology Professional Development and Training
Research Methods in Psychology
Social Psychology
Browse content in Social Sciences
Browse content in Anthropology
Anthropology of Religion
Human Evolution
Medical Anthropology
Physical Anthropology
Regional Anthropology
Social and Cultural Anthropology
Theory and Practice of Anthropology
Browse content in Business and Management
Business Strategy
Business Ethics
Business History
Business and Government
Business and Technology
Business and the Environment
Comparative Management
Corporate Governance
Corporate Social Responsibility
Entrepreneurship
Health Management
Human Resource Management
Industrial and Employment Relations
Industry Studies
Information and Communication Technologies
International Business
Knowledge Management
Management and Management Techniques
Operations Management
Organizational Theory and Behaviour
Pensions and Pension Management
Public and Nonprofit Management
Strategic Management
Supply Chain Management
Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
Criminal Justice
Criminology
Forms of Crime
International and Comparative Criminology
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
Development Studies
Browse content in Economics
Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
Asian Economics
Behavioural Finance
Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
Economic Systems
Economic History
Economic Methodology
Economic Development and Growth
Financial Markets
Financial Institutions and Services
General Economics and Teaching
Health, Education, and Welfare
History of Economic Thought
International Economics
Labour and Demographic Economics
Law and Economics
Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
Microeconomics
Public Economics
Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
Welfare Economics
Browse content in Education
Adult Education and Continuous Learning
Care and Counselling of Students
Early Childhood and Elementary Education
Educational Equipment and Technology
Educational Strategies and Policy
Higher and Further Education
Organization and Management of Education
Philosophy and Theory of Education
Schools Studies
Secondary Education
Teaching of a Specific Subject
Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
Teaching Skills and Techniques
Browse content in Environment
Applied Ecology (Social Science)
Climate Change
Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
Natural Disasters (Environment)
Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
Browse content in Human Geography
Cultural Geography
Economic Geography
Political Geography
Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
Communication Studies
Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
Browse content in Politics
African Politics
Asian Politics
Chinese Politics
Comparative Politics
Conflict Politics
Elections and Electoral Studies
Environmental Politics
Ethnic Politics
European Union
Foreign Policy
Gender and Politics
Human Rights and Politics
Indian Politics
International Relations
International Organization (Politics)
International Political Economy
Irish Politics
Latin American Politics
Middle Eastern Politics
Political Methodology
Political Communication
Political Philosophy
Political Sociology
Political Behaviour
Political Economy
Political Institutions
Political Theory
Politics and Law
Politics of Development
Public Administration
Public Policy
Quantitative Political Methodology
Regional Political Studies
Russian Politics
Security Studies
State and Local Government
UK Politics
US Politics
Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
African Studies
Asian Studies
East Asian Studies
Japanese Studies
Latin American Studies
Middle Eastern Studies
Native American Studies
Scottish Studies
Browse content in Research and Information
Research Methods
Browse content in Social Work
Addictions and Substance Misuse
Adoption and Fostering
Care of the Elderly
Child and Adolescent Social Work
Couple and Family Social Work
Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
Emergency Services
Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
International and Global Issues in Social Work
Mental and Behavioural Health
Social Justice and Human Rights
Social Policy and Advocacy
Social Work and Crime and Justice
Social Work Macro Practice
Social Work Practice Settings
Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
Welfare and Benefit Systems
Browse content in Sociology
Childhood Studies
Community Development
Comparative and Historical Sociology
Economic Sociology
Gender and Sexuality
Gerontology and Ageing
Health, Illness, and Medicine
Marriage and the Family
Migration Studies
Occupations, Professions, and Work
Organizations
Population and Demography
Race and Ethnicity
Social Theory
Social Movements and Social Change
Social Research and Statistics
Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
Sociology of Religion
Sociology of Education
Sport and Leisure
Urban and Rural Studies
Browse content in Warfare and Defence
Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
Land Forces and Warfare
Military Administration
Military Life and Institutions
Naval Forces and Warfare
Other Warfare and Defence Issues
Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
Weapons and Equipment

Loyalty: An Essay on the Morality of Relationships

Beekman Professor of Law

Author Webpage

Cite Icon Cite
Permissions Icon Permissions

This book offers an account of loyalty that illuminates its role in our relationships with family and friends, our ties to country, and the commitment of the religious to God and their community. The book opposes the traditional view of the moral self as detached from context and history. It argues instead that loyalty, not impartial detachment, should be the central feature of our moral and political lives. It claims that a commitment to country is necessary to improve the lot of the poor and disadvantaged. This commitment to country may well require greater reliance on patriotic rituals in education and a reconsideration of the Supreme Court's extending the First Amendment to protect flag burning. Given the worldwide currents of parochialism and political decentralization, the task for us, the book argues, is to renew our commitment to a single nation united in its diversity. The book reasons that the legal systems should defer to existing relationships of loyalty. Familial, professional, and religious loyalties should be respected as relationships beyond the limits of the law. Yet the question remains: Aren't loyalty, and particularly patriotism, dangerously one-sided? Indeed, they are, but no more than are love and friendship. The challenge, the book maintains, is to overcome the distorting effects of impartial morality and to develop a morality of loyalty properly suited to our emotional and spiritual lives. Justice has its sphere, as do loyalties.

Personal account

Sign in with email/username & password
Get email alerts
Save searches
Purchase content
Activate your purchase/trial code
Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with username/password
Recommend to your librarian
Institutional account management
Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institutionâ€™s website and Oxford Academic.

Click Sign in through your institution.
Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institutionâ€™s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see â€˜Sign in through society siteâ€™ in the sign in pane within a journal:

Click Sign in through society site.
When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

Month:	Total Views:
October 2022	6
October 2022	5
October 2022	6
October 2022	3
October 2022	4
October 2022	6
October 2022	1
October 2022	2
October 2022	2
October 2022	3
November 2022	1
November 2022	2
November 2022	3
November 2022	1
November 2022	1
November 2022	1
November 2022	3
November 2022	2
December 2022	1
December 2022	5
December 2022	1
December 2022	1
December 2022	2
December 2022	4
December 2022	1
December 2022	2
December 2022	5
January 2023	1
January 2023	4
January 2023	1
February 2023	1
February 2023	3
March 2023	3
March 2023	2
March 2023	1
March 2023	3
March 2023	1
April 2023	2
April 2023	3
April 2023	1
April 2023	1
April 2023	1
April 2023	6
April 2023	8
May 2023	9
May 2023	2
May 2023	3
May 2023	5
May 2023	2
May 2023	6
May 2023	5
May 2023	5
June 2023	2
June 2023	4
June 2023	2
July 2023	1
July 2023	2
August 2023	4
August 2023	4
August 2023	4
August 2023	6
August 2023	1
August 2023	6
August 2023	6
August 2023	5
August 2023	10
August 2023	14
August 2023	4
August 2023	2
September 2023	4
September 2023	5
September 2023	1
September 2023	1
September 2023	1
September 2023	7
September 2023	4
October 2023	6
October 2023	5
October 2023	6
October 2023	4
October 2023	4
October 2023	4
October 2023	4
October 2023	7
October 2023	10
November 2023	2
November 2023	3
December 2023	2
December 2023	2
December 2023	2
December 2023	2
December 2023	2
December 2023	2
December 2023	4
December 2023	2
January 2024	4
February 2024	4
February 2024	4
February 2024	2
February 2024	5
February 2024	4
February 2024	2
February 2024	2
February 2024	2
March 2024	1
March 2024	4
March 2024	7
March 2024	1
March 2024	2
April 2024	1
April 2024	2
April 2024	2
April 2024	3
April 2024	2
May 2024	2
June 2024	9
June 2024	4
June 2024	2
June 2024	3
June 2024	3
June 2024	10
June 2024	4
June 2024	10
June 2024	2
June 2024	1
June 2024	4
June 2024	1

About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Rights and permissions
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Remember me Not recommended on shared computers

Forgot your password?

Or sign in with one of these services

Relationships

By Liz Fischer

By Liz Fischer • October 29, 2023

What Is Loyalty Over Love?

Defining loyalty and love.

We've all heard phrases like "Love conquers all," and yet, the term "loyalty over love" has started to surface more frequently in discussions about relationships. So, what exactly are we talking about when we use the words "loyalty" and "love"? Love, generally, is an emotional and often romantic attachment to someone or something. It's that palpable feeling of connection, affection, and care. Loyalty, on the other hand, is a sense of allegiance or fidelity. It's a commitment to standing by someone or something, come what may.

In the context of relationships, both qualities are highly sought-after. However, they are not always congruent or compatible. Love can be fleeting and fickle, while loyalty might endure long after the flame of love has been extinguished. It's vital to understand what each term implies and their inherent complexities to delve into the provocative topic of "loyalty over love."

In this article, we'll explore the increasing inclination towards prioritizing loyalty over love, examining it through various lenses including psychology, culture, and personal values. Along the way, we'll provide expert opinions, scientific research, and practical tips to help you navigate this intricate debate.

This topic is not black and white. The variables are many: personal psychology, past experiences, cultural influences, and even the specific nuances of a relationship can play roles in shaping our views. So, fasten your seat belts as we take a fascinating journey through the compelling world of love and loyalty.

The concept of "loyalty over love" has far-reaching implications not only for romantic relationships but also friendships, family dynamics, and even workplace relationships. Therefore, understanding this topic can have broad applications in your life.

So, let's jump in and dissect this complex issue, shall we?

Why is the Concept of 'Loyalty Over Love' Gaining Traction?

It's essential to address the elephant in the room: why has the phrase "loyalty over love" become such a buzzword recently? One reason could be that society is evolving, and so are our perspectives on relationships. Gone are the days when love was the sole foundation of a successful partnership; people are increasingly recognizing the value of loyalty as a more enduring force.

Another reason could be the influence of social media and popular culture. Phrases like "ride or die" and "loyalty is everything" frequently make the rounds on platforms like Instagram and Twitter, reinforcing the idea that loyalty holds precedence over love. This could be indicative of a larger social shift, where people are growing wary of the transient nature of emotions and are seeking more stable grounds for their relationships.

The rise in discussions around mental health also plays a part. As we become more aware of our emotional needs and boundaries, loyalty—being a cornerstone of emotional security—gains prominence. People are now more conscious of the psychological implications of their relationships and are, thus, leaning towards relationships that provide not just love, but a secure foundation of loyalty.

Research supports this shift too. A study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family found that couples who rated high on scales of loyalty had more enduring relationships compared to those who solely relied on love. This lends scientific credence to the concept.

Another noteworthy point is the increase in divorce rates and relationship breakdowns. People are now more cautious and skeptical about jumping head-first into love-based relationships. Instead, they are exploring the idea that maybe loyalty is a more reliable cornerstone.

The concept of "loyalty over love" is gaining traction due to a combination of societal evolution, cultural shifts, increased mental health awareness, and even the uncertainty created by rising divorce rates. It's a topic that's capturing the collective imagination, and rightly so, given its complexity and relevance in today's world.

The Traditional Views on Loyalty and Love

Traditionally, love has often been touted as the be-all and end-all of relationships. It's the stuff of fairytales and romantic comedies where love triumphs over adversity, solves all problems, and leads to a 'happily ever after.' Loyalty, although highly regarded, typically played second fiddle in the grand orchestra of romantic notions. It was often assumed that where there is love, loyalty will naturally follow.

This conventional wisdom has shaped our expectations and ideals about relationships for centuries. The idea has been so pervasive that questioning it feels almost like heresy. However, time and experience have shown that love doesn't necessarily guarantee loyalty. In fact, love can sometimes be a volatile emotion, susceptible to change due to various factors such as time, distance, or circumstances.

The traditional view also often upheld a gendered perspective, where loyalty was expected more from one gender over the other. This viewpoint is increasingly being questioned as antiquated and limiting, as it boxes people into stereotypical roles and overlooks the nuances that each individual brings to a relationship.

Moreover, the emphasis on love as the ultimate ideal also had the unintended consequence of romanticizing relationships to the point where the practical aspects, like loyalty, were sometimes overlooked. It created an expectation that love alone could conquer any obstacle, an idea which many find to be unrealistic in the long term.

The shifting views on loyalty over love can be seen as a response to the limitations of these traditional ideas. People are now more open to recognizing the practical, everyday importance of loyalty, which, unlike the highs and lows of love, offers a more stable foundation.

So, in a sense, the concept of "loyalty over love" serves as a corrective lens, allowing us to refocus and reconsider the values that genuinely sustain a relationship over the long haul. While love provides the initial spark and excitement, loyalty acts as the constant, slow-burning ember that keeps the relationship alive.

The Psychological Underpinnings of Loyalty Over Love

Psychologically speaking, the notion of prioritizing loyalty over love is fascinating. Loyalty taps into our fundamental need for security and belonging. It correlates with the psychological concept of 'attachment,' which is crucial for human survival and emotional well-being. When we say we value loyalty, what we're often expressing is a need for a secure emotional base.

According to attachment theory, developed by psychologists John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth, the type of attachment we form in our early relationships with caregivers can influence our preferences and expectations in adult relationships. For those with a secure attachment style, the balance between love and loyalty might come naturally. However, for those with anxious or avoidant attachments, loyalty could be an avenue to seek the stability that love alone might not provide.

Emphasizing loyalty also aligns with the concept of 'emotional intelligence,' which includes skills like empathy, understanding, and long-term commitment. High emotional intelligence can contribute to higher levels of loyalty, as individuals with this trait are generally better at managing emotions and understanding the needs and feelings of their partners.

Interestingly, neuroscientific research shows that different areas of the brain are activated when we experience love versus when we experience loyalty. Love often triggers the reward centers of the brain, associated with pleasure and passion. Loyalty, however, is more associated with the brain's logic and judgment centers. This could mean that while love often starts as an emotional reaction, loyalty is a more considered choice.

A study in the journal 'Personality and Social Psychology Review' indicated that loyalty is closely linked with the idea of moral integrity and ethical behavior. This suggests that our inclination towards loyalty over love could be rooted in a deeper, ethical framework, which gives us a sense of righteousness and fulfillment.

So, psychologically, it makes sense why the stability and security offered by loyalty are gaining emphasis. It satisfies our innate needs and aligns with our moral compass, making it a vital aspect to consider in the dynamics of modern relationships.

How Does Culture Influence Our Understanding?

Culture plays an undeniable role in shaping our attitudes towards love and loyalty. Different cultures have their unique sets of beliefs, traditions, and social constructs that influence how these two concepts are understood and valued. For instance, in some Eastern cultures, loyalty, especially to one's family, is often considered more critical than romantic love.

Western cultures, heavily influenced by Romanticism, have generally prioritized love as the primary motive for forming and maintaining relationships. This focus on love has been so pronounced that it sometimes overshadows other important factors like loyalty, compatibility, and shared life goals.

It's worth noting that media and literature from different cultural backgrounds often reflect these priorities. While Hollywood rom-coms may emphasize love at first sight or the idea of 'the one,' literature and cinema from other cultures may prioritize themes like familial duty, commitment, and long-lasting devotion.

In some cultures, arranged marriages, which often emphasize compatibility and long-term commitment over immediate love, are still prevalent. And guess what? These marriages often work, and many even evolve into loving relationships. This indicates that when loyalty and commitment are the initial focus, love can indeed follow.

With globalization, there is a mixing and blending of cultural viewpoints, making the dialogue surrounding "loyalty over love" a truly international debate. Younger generations are exposed to multiple perspectives and are, thus, more equipped to challenge the conventional wisdom of their native cultures.

The increasing interest in this subject reflects a broader, cross-cultural awakening to the importance of a balanced view. In essence, the impact of culture on our understanding of love and loyalty is both complex and evolving, adding another layer to this already intricate subject.

Comparing Love and Loyalty in Romantic Relationships

When it comes to romantic relationships, the roles of love and loyalty can sometimes seem at odds, but they are more like two sides of the same coin. Love is the emotion that draws you to your partner, the magnetic pull that makes you want to be with them. It's the source of the affection, attraction, and deep emotional connection you feel.

Loyalty, on the other hand, is the choice to stick by your partner through thick and thin. It's the act of standing up for your partner when they're not around, keeping their secrets safe, and consistently putting in the effort to make the relationship work. While love can be fleeting, waxing and waning with your emotional state, loyalty provides the structural integrity that keeps the relationship standing.

A 2018 study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships showed that relationship satisfaction was highly correlated with acts of loyalty. These acts were not necessarily grand gestures but the day-to-day commitment to the well-being of the partner and the relationship.

Love and loyalty need not be mutually exclusive; in fact, the strongest relationships usually have a healthy dose of both. However, love without loyalty can feel insecure and unstable, like a house built on sand. It may survive mild disturbances but is likely to crumble when faced with real challenges.

Loyalty without love, though, can also have its pitfalls. It can lead to relationships that are more of an obligation than a partnership, where the emotional connection and affection are lacking. These relationships may last, but they often lack the spark and vitality that make romantic relationships so rewarding.

So, in comparing love and loyalty in romantic relationships, it's not a matter of one being inherently better than the other. Rather, they are different elements that contribute in unique ways to the relationship's overall health. The key is finding the right balance between these two aspects, understanding that neither can fully replace the other.

Is Loyalty Always Better?

Now, you might be asking, "Is loyalty always better than love?" The short answer is no, not always. Prioritizing loyalty over love can be beneficial in some circumstances, but it's not a one-size-fits-all solution. There are situations where loyalty can actually be detrimental.

Consider relationships where one partner is loyal to the point of enabling harmful behaviors like addiction or abuse. In such cases, loyalty isn't helping anyone; it's merely perpetuating a destructive cycle. Blind loyalty can sometimes be as damaging as love without commitment.

Another point to consider is that loyalty can sometimes be rooted in fear—fear of being alone, fear of change, or fear of social judgment. In these situations, loyalty becomes less of a virtue and more of a crutch, providing an excuse to stay in a relationship that isn't truly fulfilling.

Additionally, loyalty should not be confused with dependency or complacency. It should not be the thing that keeps you in a relationship that is fundamentally flawed or one that doesn't serve your growth and well-being. Loyalty should be a conscious choice, made freely, rather than an obligation enforced by social norms or individual insecurities.

Experts like Dr. John Gottman, renowned for his work on marital stability and divorce prediction, argue that for a relationship to be healthy, it must have a strong foundation of friendship, mutual respect, and yes, loyalty. But these must exist in tandem with love, affection, and emotional support.

So while loyalty is undoubtedly important, it is not an absolute good that should be pursued at all costs. It should be balanced with other factors, including love, to create a holistic, fulfilling relationship.

The Downfalls of Prioritizing Loyalty Over Love

The idea of putting loyalty over love is compelling, but it comes with its own set of challenges and pitfalls. One of the biggest issues is the potential for complacency. When loyalty is the primary focus, there's a risk of neglecting the emotional and romantic aspects of the relationship, leading to a partnership that's more functional than fulfilling.

Another drawback is the possibility of remaining in a relationship long past its expiration date, so to speak. Loyalty might keep you committed to a relationship that's no longer serving you or your partner well. The inertia of loyalty can make it hard to recognize when it's time to move on.

Furthermore, overemphasizing loyalty can lead to a lack of personal growth and self-improvement. A relationship should be a platform for both partners to grow, learn, and become better versions of themselves. If loyalty leads you to turn a blind eye to your partner's—or your own—flaws and areas that need improvement, it's doing more harm than good.

Some people might use the guise of loyalty to control or manipulate their partners. By putting the onus of loyalty on them, they create an environment where questioning the relationship or considering other options becomes a taboo, stifling open communication and mutual respect.

It's also worth noting that misplaced loyalty can sometimes be unfair to the other person. If you're staying out of loyalty but lacking in love and emotional engagement, you're not giving your partner the chance to find a relationship that offers them the complete package.

While the idea of prioritizing "loyalty over love" has its merits, it's not without its drawbacks. Like any other aspect of human relationships, it's complicated, nuanced, and highly dependent on the individual circumstances.

The Virtues of Prioritizing Love Over Loyalty

While much has been said about the merits of loyalty, let's flip the coin and discuss the benefits of prioritizing love over loyalty. One obvious benefit is the emotional richness that love brings into a relationship. Love provides the zest, the joy, and the deep emotional connection that makes life worth living.

Loving relationships are often more flexible and open to change. When love is the driving force, both partners are usually more willing to adapt, compromise, and grow together. This dynamism is often missing in relationships where loyalty is the sole focus, leading to a stagnant partnership that lacks evolution.

Love also promotes empathy and understanding. In a love-driven relationship, each partner tends to be more attuned to the other's needs, emotions, and aspirations. This mutual understanding often leads to a more satisfying and rewarding partnership, as opposed to a loyalty-based relationship that can sometimes feel more like an obligation.

It's worth mentioning that love, when it's genuine and deep, often brings about loyalty as a byproduct. You want to be loyal to someone you truly love. In this sense, love can be seen as the seed, and loyalty as the fruit. One often naturally leads to the other, enriching the relationship in a holistic way.

From a psychological standpoint, prioritizing love can lead to higher levels of happiness and mental well-being. Various studies, such as the famous Harvard Study of Adult Development, have shown that loving relationships are key predictors of long-term health and happiness.

However, it's important to clarify that love is not a catch-all solution. Like loyalty, it has its limitations and shouldn't be idealized to the point of ignoring its complexities and potential pitfalls. Nonetheless, the virtues of love are significant and can offer a different yet equally valid approach to building a strong relationship.

Finding a Balance Between Love and Loyalty

The question shouldn't necessarily be about choosing loyalty over love or vice versa; rather, the ideal scenario in most cases is finding a healthy balance between the two. After all, these are not mutually exclusive concepts but facets of a multi-dimensional emotional landscape that makes up human relationships.

Finding a balance starts with self-awareness. Understand what you value more in a relationship and why. Are you leaning towards loyalty because of past experiences, or is love more critical for you because of your personality traits? Self-reflection can offer invaluable insights.

Communication is another essential component. Open dialogue about your needs, fears, and expectations can illuminate the path to a balanced relationship. Discuss with your partner how you both perceive love and loyalty, and how these perceptions shape your actions and reactions.

Also consider seeking advice from trusted friends, family, or even professionals. Sometimes an outside perspective can provide the objectivity needed to see where the balance between love and loyalty should lie.

Adaptability is crucial. Relationships aren't static; they evolve. What worked at one stage may not be suitable for another. Being willing to recalibrate the love-loyalty equation over time can keep the relationship fresh and resilient.

Ultimately, the aim is to build a relationship where love nourishes loyalty and loyalty fortifies love. Striking this balance isn't easy and requires ongoing effort from both partners. However, the rewards—a fulfilling, lasting relationship—are well worth the work.

Expert Opinions on the Debate

Given the intricacy of this topic, it's beneficial to look at what relationship experts have to say. Dr. Brene Brown, a research professor at the University of Houston, suggests that love and loyalty are two pillars that hold up the structure of a relationship. Neglecting one can cause the whole thing to wobble.

Another viewpoint comes from Dr. Gary Chapman, author of the renowned book "The Five Love Languages." He believes that love is the starting point, the initial attraction, while loyalty is what keeps the relationship going in the long run. According to Chapman, love provides the spark, and loyalty is the fuel that keeps the fire burning.

Esther Perel, a psychotherapist and author, offers an interesting perspective. She argues that too much loyalty can lead to complacency and take the excitement out of a relationship. In contrast, love has the power to continuously renew and revitalize a partnership.

Scientific research also backs the importance of balancing love and loyalty. A study published in the "Journal of Marriage and Family" found that couples who reported high levels of both love and commitment—another form of loyalty—were more likely to have long-lasting relationships.

These expert opinions underscore the complex interplay between love and loyalty. No single approach works for everyone; rather, each relationship is a unique intermingling of emotional and rational decisions, of love and loyalty, each contributing to the partnership in its own way.

So when it comes to the debate on loyalty over love, there's no one-size-fits-all answer. What's clear is that both are integral components of a strong, healthy relationship, each with its own role and importance.

How to Evaluate Your Own Relationship

Now that we've delved deep into the nuances of loyalty and love, it's time to turn the lens towards your own relationship. How do you know which of these pillars is more predominant in your partnership? Well, self-examination is the first step.

Ask yourself a series of questions like, "Do I stay in this relationship out of love or loyalty?" "Am I afraid to leave because of societal expectations or emotional dependency?" Your answers to these questions will give you an idea of what's steering your relationship—love, loyalty, or a blend of both.

Another effective way is to observe your behavior and feelings over a specific period. Are you excited about spending time with your partner, or do you see it as a duty? Do you make sacrifices because you want to, or because you feel obliged to? These patterns can tell you a lot.

Thirdly, consider your reactions during conflicts or stressful times. Do you stick around because you're deeply in love, or is it loyalty compelling you? Paying attention to your behavior during these times can be incredibly revealing.

It may also be beneficial to compare your current relationship to your past relationships. Have your perceptions of love and loyalty evolved? If so, what led to this change? Understanding your emotional history can provide invaluable insights into your current stance.

You can also consider professional counseling. Sometimes it's challenging to be objective about your own relationship. A therapist can provide you with a neutral perspective and tools to help you understand the love-loyalty dynamic in your relationship.

Conclusion: Which Should You Choose?

It's tempting to seek a definitive answer, a silver bullet that solves the "loyalty over love" conundrum once and for all. However, as we've explored, it's far more complicated and nuanced. Ultimately, the choice between love and loyalty is personal and varies from relationship to relationship.

If you crave deep emotional connection, maybe love should be your North Star. If you value stability and commitment, perhaps loyalty takes precedence. But remember, these aren't either-or choices. The most fulfilling relationships often have a well-calibrated balance of both love and loyalty.

Take time to understand what each of these values means to you and your partner. Then work together to create a relationship that honors both. It's an ongoing process, one that requires communication, compromise, and yes, a lot of love and loyalty.

So if you find yourself torn between loyalty and love, consider this: why not both? After all, a relationship built on both love and loyalty is likely to stand the test of time, overcome obstacles, and provide a fulfilling, enriching experience for both partners.

The question isn't necessarily which you should choose, but how you can integrate both to create a relationship that's meaningful, satisfying, and durable.

In closing, here's food for thought: love and loyalty are not static. They're ever-evolving elements that grow and change just like human beings do. Navigating their interplay is not a one-time decision but a continuous journey—one well worth taking.

1. "The Five Love Languages" by Gary Chapman - An excellent resource for understanding how love manifests in different ways and how to communicate love effectively.

2. "Daring Greatly" by Brene Brown - This book delves into the power of vulnerability, which is closely tied to both love and loyalty.

3. "Mating in Captivity" by Esther Perel - A thought-provoking look at the complexities of maintaining passion and intimacy in long-term relationships, examining the role of both love and loyalty.

User Feedback

Recommended comments.

There are no comments to display.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Notice: Some articles on enotalone.com are a collaboration between our human editors and generative AI. We prioritize accuracy and authenticity in our content.

7 Steps to Successfully Separate (And Find Peace)

By Steven Robinson , in Relationships , 18 hours ago

10 Ways to Navigate Teenage Love

By Olivia Sanders , in Relationships , 20 hours ago

11 Reasons We Fall in Love (And How to Nurture Them)

By Olivia Sanders , in Relationships , Yesterday at 02:56 AM

8 Points About Lost Loves (and How to Cope)

By Paula Thompson , in Relationships , Tuesday at 11:24 PM

10 Signs You're in a Controlling Relationship (And How to Cope)

By Matthew Frank , in Relationships , Tuesday at 03:22 PM

7 Tips for Managing Projection Identification (and Improve Your Relationships)

By Matthew Frank , in Relationships , Sunday at 09:23 AM

I need help 1 2

By Bora , Friday at 08:17 PM in Relationship Advice

14 minutes ago

I am offended and need some wisdom/perspective

By caraviolin , 18 minutes ago in Relationship Advice

18 minutes ago

Looking for advice, wisdom 1 2

By takefiveely , Tuesday at 02:04 PM in Relationship Advice

Tagged with:

relationship

2 hours ago

Loosing Trust in Wife

By Gatguy , 10 hours ago in Relationship Advice

shouldhavelearned
3 hours ago

Bf's ex died, questions arising 1 2

By somechick99 , 22 hours ago in Relationship Advice

somechick99
4 hours ago

7 Expert Tips on Playing Hard to Get (That Actually Work!)

Friday at 07:02 PM

7 Ways to Transform Your Relationship by Asking Questions

Saturday at 07:05 AM

MissButterfly · Started Friday at 06:01 PM

Enya77 · Started Monday at 08:37 PM

Octo1757 · Started Friday at 04:23 PM

Bora · Started Friday at 08:17 PM

Existing user? Sign In
Online Users
Leaderboard
All Activity
Career & Money
Mental Health
Personal Growth
Create New...

Student Essays

Essay on Loyalty | Meaning, Value & Importance

Loyalty is a positive feeling of commitment, devotion and allegiance to someone or something. The loyalty in relations between people is essential to the healthy functioning of your society. It boosts cooperation, makes people feel safe and secure, provides social stability and ensures that they can trust others.

Essay on Loyalty | Meaning, Value & Importance of Loyalty in Life Essay for Students

The loyalty means the deep devotion to an individual, business or nation. It’s a strong and long-lasting support for someone or something.

Loyalty exists in all living things which is not limited up to human beings. This can be seen in dog who is loyal to his master. Loyalty in relationship is when both the partners are completely devoted to each other. Loyalty works by focusing on the good aspects of the relationship and trying to find a way to overcome the difficulties. It focuses on preserving and building the relationship.

>>>>>> Related Post: Speech on Youth & Leadership

Importance of Loyalty in Life

Loyalty plays a very important role in everyone’s life. It is necessary for all relationships because without loyalty, you would simply not be able to trust the other person. It is also necessary for your society as a whole because without it, you would not be able to trust anyone and society would not function.

Benefits of Loyalty

There are several major benefits of loyalty. Some of the most important benefits of loyalty in human relationship is given below:

It is very difficult to trust someone or something if there is no loyalty. You will not be able to put your faith and hope in the person if you do not know if he is loyal to you.

Success and achievements

Loyalty is essential for the success and achievements because you will not be able to fulfil your goals without it.

Stability in relationships

Without loyalty, the relationship would simply break and it would not be able to stand the test of time.

Improvement in relationships

Loyalty can help improve a relationship by making you focus on its good parts and ways to overcome the problems.

Lasting happiness

Loyalty provides you with lasting happiness. It makes you feel safe and secure, boosts cooperation and provides social stability

Loyalty and trust among students:

It is very important that students are loyal to each other, their institution and the nation. As students are the future of any country, it is very important that they are loyal to their country. It is important for students to be loyal towards their institution because the institution provides them with several facilities that are important for their growth.

Loyalty is necessary for working environment and growth:

It is important for the employees to develop loyalty towards their organization because their institute gives them stability and security. It should be the responsibility of the employees to be loyal towards their organization and work for its betterment. It is important that the managers and employers develop loyalty among their employees, as it is very important for the organization and its growth.

How to Develop Loyalty & Trust in Life

The following are some of the most important ways through which loyalty and trust can be built in relationships:

Get to know your partner better

It is important that you get to know your partner well. The more you know about him, the more you will be able to trust him.

Show your support for your partner

You should always show unconditional support to your partner and be there in difficult times.

Be open about your feelings

You should be open to your partner and talk to him about everything. It will help you to build up your relationship.

Be loyal to your partner

Loyalty is very important in any kind of relationship, whether it be romantic or friendship. You should always be there for your partner and never show any kind of disloyalty.

Be approachable

You should always be approachable for your partner and show that you are ready to listen.

Be open about your problems

If you are facing any kind of problem, do not hesitate to talk about it to your partner. It will help your relationship grow even stronger.

Loyalty and trust are two of the most important virtues that you can have. They play a very important role in everyone’s life, whether it be in the relationship or the society. They provide a person with a sense of security and help him to grow both emotionally and mentally.

Short Essay on Loyalty

The loyalty means the deep devotion to an individual, business or nation. It’s a strong and long-lasting support for someone or something. Loyalty exists in all living things which is not limited up to human beings. This can be seen in dog who is loyal to his master. Loyalty in relationship is when both the partners are completely devoted to each other.

Loyalty works by focusing on the good aspects of the relationship and trying to find a way to overcome the difficulties. It focuses on preserving and building the relationship. The importance of loyalty in human life is evident from the fact that every society needs it. It is very important in all relationships and without it, you would simply not be able to trust the other person.

>>>>>>> Related Post: Paragraph on Adventure & its Importance

Loyalty helps maintain stability in relationships and improves them by making you focus on their good parts and ways to overcome the problems. Loyalty provides lasting happiness in life and makes you feel safe and secure, boosts cooperation and provides social stability.

Essay on Meaning & Importance of Loyalty:

Loyalty is a concept that has been valued throughout human history. It refers to the quality or state of being faithful and devoted to someone or something. Loyalty can be towards an individual, an organization, a group of people, a country, or even oneself. In this essay, we will explore the meaning, value, and importance of loyalty in our lives.

Meaning of Loyalty

The word loyalty is derived from the Latin word lex meaning “law.” It can be defined as a strong feeling of commitment and support to someone or something. Loyalty goes beyond mere words, it is a sincere expression of dedication towards an individual or cause.

It involves standing by someone through thick and thin, being there for them in times of joy and sorrow, and remaining faithful to them even when it is not convenient. Loyalty is often associated with trustworthiness, reliability, and dependability.

Value of Loyalty

Loyalty holds great value in our personal relationships, professional life, and society as a whole. In personal relationships, loyalty plays a crucial role in building and maintaining trust between individuals. It is the foundation of strong friendships, romantic relationships, and family bonds. When we are loyal to our loved ones, we show them that they can count on us no matter what. This creates a sense of security and strengthens the relationship.

In our professional life, loyalty is highly valued by employers. Employees who are loyal to their organizations are committed to their work, show dedication, and take ownership of their responsibilities. They are also more likely to stay with the company for a longer period, reducing turnover rates and creating a stable work environment. Loyalty in the workplace can also lead to promotions and career advancements.

In society, loyalty is essential for building a strong and united community. When individuals are loyal to their country, they care about its well-being and work towards its progress. Loyalty towards one’s community also encourages people to help each other during times of crisis, creating a sense of unity and support.

Importance of Loyalty

The importance of loyalty cannot be overstated. It is a crucial factor in maintaining healthy relationships, whether it is with family, friends, or colleagues. It creates a sense of belonging and promotes emotional stability. When we know that someone is loyal to us, we feel safe and secure in their presence, which strengthens the bond between individuals.

Loyalty also plays a vital role in decision-making. We are more likely to trust someone who has proven their loyalty to us in the past. This can be especially helpful in situations where we need to seek advice or guidance. We turn to those who have been loyal to us because we know that they have our best interests at heart.

Furthermore, loyalty is also essential for personal growth and development. When we remain faithful to ourselves, we stay true to our values and beliefs. This helps us build a strong sense of self and be confident in our decisions. Loyalty to oneself also encourages personal responsibility and accountability.

In conclusion, loyalty is a valuable quality that has been cherished since ancient times. It is the glue that holds relationships together, promotes trust and stability, and contributes to personal growth and societal progress. In today’s world where people are constantly faced with challenges and distractions, it is crucial to remember the meaning, value, and importance of loyalty in our lives.

Let us strive to be loyal to those who are important to us and remain faithful to ourselves, for it is through loyalty that we can build strong and meaningful relationships and achieve personal fulfillment.

Essay on Loyalty in Friendship:

Friendship is one of the most beautiful and precious relationships in our lives. It is a bond that we form with someone who understands us, supports us, and stands by us through thick and thin. And at the core of this relationship lies loyalty. Loyalty in friendship is something that cannot be replaced by anything else.

Loyalty means being faithful and committed to someone or something. In friendship, loyalty means being there for your friend no matter what. It means having their back and standing up for them when they need it the most. A loyal friend is someone who will never betray you, even in the toughest of times.

One of the key reasons why loyalty is important in friendship is because it builds trust and strengthens the bond between friends . When we know that our friends are loyal to us, we feel secure and comfortable sharing our deepest thoughts and feelings with them. We know that they will never judge us or use our vulnerabilities against us.

Moreover, loyalty also plays a crucial role in maintaining the longevity of a friendship. In today’s fast-paced world, relationships often come and go. But a loyal friend is someone who will always be there for you, no matter how much time has passed or how many miles separate you. They are the ones who continue to show up when others have long forgotten about us.

However, loyalty is a two-way street. Just as we expect our friends to be loyal to us, we must also reciprocate that loyalty. In fact, being a loyal friend is equally important as having a loyal friend. It means being honest, reliable, and dependable in our actions towards our friends. It also means being there for them when they need us the most.

In conclusion, loyalty is the foundation of a strong and lasting friendship. It not only strengthens the bond between friends but also creates a sense of security and trust in the relationship. As they say, “a loyal friend is worth more than a thousand acquaintances”. So let us all strive to be loyal friends and cherish this beautiful relationship for a lifetime.

Essay Samples on Loyalty

The importance of loyalty over love: my perspective.

In this essay, I will discuss the importance of loyalty by its luxury, how it provides emotional stability and security that all can be found through human character. At the age of 5, I learned that sharing my toys and playing with other kids was...

The Importance of Brand Loyalty in Business Success

Brand loyalty reflects the connection between a product and a customer's willingness to repeatedly purchase it. A customer is considered loyal when they show commitment to a specific brand, indicating positive sentiments towards the product or company. Loyalty is demonstrated through consistent support for a...

Brand Management
Consumer Behavior

The Depiction of Loyalty in "Beowulf", “Count on Me”, and "The Death of General Warren"

Introduction In any prosperous relationship or community, whether it be King Hrothgar’s kingdom or United States citizens under the President, there is one quality that all of its people must have to prevent the collapse of harmony: Loyalty. Three examples include Beowulf, an Old English...

Complete Brand Loyalty Is Important

Brand loyalty is that the tendency of shoppers to endlessly purchase one brand’s merchandise over another. shopper behavior patterns demonstrate obtainers|that customers} can still buy merchandise from an organization that has fostered a trusting relationship. Loyalty is extraordinarily helpful to businesses because it ends up...

Consumer Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty

Consumer satisfaction is basic to long pull trade achievement, and one of the most every now and research into subjects in marketing. Since consumer satisfaction has been respected a crucial determinant of long haul business achievement, a great part of the examination on consumer satisfaction...

Stressed out with your paper?

Consider using writing assistance:

100% unique papers
3 hrs deadline option

Definition Of The Concept Of Loyalty

Loyalty is a vastly interwoven aspect of society and is expected in most situations. Loyalty is the act of being loyal; showing constant support or allegiance to a person or an institution. This word was derived in the mid-13th century from the Middle English term...

Loyalty And Disloyalty In Relationship

Loyalty, a simple word, that holds an incomparable, powerful meaning. According to the dictionary, loyalty is the quality or state of being loyal. However, it really means being faithful and devoted to someone or something. It means creating a bond and forming a relationship that...

Relationship

Loyalty And Family In The Outsiders By S. E. Hinton

«The Outsiders» is a novel written by Susan Eloise Hinton in 1967. Hinton wrote the novel when she was only 17 years old. In an interview with the “New Yorker” in 2014 she said she had grown bored with the trite plots of books written...

The Outsiders

Individualism And Collectivism: Two Branches Of Philosophy

The dimension of Individualism and Collectivism, plays an important role in the movie, “Outsourced”. The societies of individualism (USA), only concerns about their own attainments and likes to keep self-space. For instance, Todd despises the boy in the train sit on him and he was...

Individualism

The Importance of Holding Army Values for US Cadets

An individual is often driven by a myriad of different inspirations and motivations, each aiming to lead to the path of who he or she desires to be. A goal is a statement of what an individual hopes to achieve or accomplish. Goal setting gives...

Army Values

Analysis of The Issues and Themes in Khalid Hosseini's Novel The Kite Runner

In 1965, Khalid Hosseini born in Kabul the city of Afghanistan. He is the Afghan-American novelist. He also worked as a doctor in California. The Kite Runner was his first novel. Later on he published number of fictions. He moved to US in 1980. He...

The Kite Runner

The True Loyalty and Features of the Leader in the Hero, Beowulf

What is loyalty? Loyalty can be defined in many different ways and is shown all throughout life.In the heroic poem Beowulf: A verse Translation translated by Seamus Heaney, Beowulf shows many examples of generosity, hospitality, envy, revenge, and loyalty. Although a righteous leader, Beowulf is...

Beowulf Hero

The Concept of Loyalty Affects Our Lives Daily

While it is good to be loyal, there are limitations to that loyalty. Loyalty should be upheld until it becomes immoral or harmful to anyone involved. There are two types of loyalty. Simplified, they amount to the idea of basic and absolute loyalty. Basic loyalty...

Loyalty Bonus - The Amount of Money That is Received as a Reward

What are Loyalty Bonuses? One of the most workable methods of marketing your products and appreciating your customers is by offering different types of rewards to them. That is why you will encounter a whole lot of bonuses exchanging hands between businesses and their clients....

Marketing Plan

Loyalty is an Aspect of Society

That is interwoven in ways we never think about. From small ways to major ways, it is all around us. Loyalty is the act of being loyal; showing constant support or allegiance to a person or an institution. This word was derived in the mid-13th...

Personal Philosophy

Best topics on Loyalty

1. The Importance of Loyalty Over Love: My Perspective

2. The Importance of Brand Loyalty in Business Success

3. The Depiction of Loyalty in “Beowulf”, “Count on Me”, and “The Death of General Warren”

4. Complete Brand Loyalty Is Important

5. Consumer Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty

6. Definition Of The Concept Of Loyalty

7. Loyalty And Disloyalty In Relationship

8. Loyalty And Family In The Outsiders By S. E. Hinton

9. Individualism And Collectivism: Two Branches Of Philosophy

10. The Importance of Holding Army Values for US Cadets

11. Analysis of The Issues and Themes in Khalid Hosseini’s Novel The Kite Runner

12. The True Loyalty and Features of the Leader in the Hero, Beowulf

13. The Concept of Loyalty Affects Our Lives Daily

14. Loyalty Bonus – The Amount of Money That is Received as a Reward

15. Loyalty is an Aspect of Society

Personal Experience
Career Goals
Clinical Experience

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — Antony and Cleopatra — Shakespeare’s Depiction of True Loyalty in Antony and Cleopatra

Shakespeare’s Depiction of True Loyalty in Antony and Cleopatra

Categories: Antony and Cleopatra

About this sample

Words: 2271 |

12 min read

Published: Jun 29, 2018

Words: 2271 | Pages: 5 | 12 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

Expert in: Literature

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3.5 pages / 1692 words

1.5 pages / 763 words

3.5 pages / 1677 words

4 pages / 1712 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

In Antony and Cleopatra, Shakespeare uses grand evocative imagery for a variety of reasons such as juxtaposing Rome against Egypt, and to add different dimensions to the main characters. Moreover, there are a few overriding [...]

The love shared between Antony and Cleopatra serves as the central theme in Shakespeare's play. Despite their claims of an unparalleled affection, their actions often cast doubt on the sincerity of their emotions, leading the [...]

In William Shakespeare's "Antony and Cleopatra," the character Enobarbus plays a multifaceted and crucial role. As a trusted follower and close friend of Antony, he serves as a confidant to the protagonist, offering a unique [...]

Military prowess is a quality attributed to many of Shakespeare's male characters. Great military men such as Hotspur, Lear, Hal and Julius Caesar share a proclivity for the military arts with Othello and Marc Antony. As a [...]

Expressionism was key in many of Williams’s plays – so much so that it was he who came up with the term ‘Plastic Theatre’. Throughout his plays, and particularly in A Streetcar Named Desire, Williams uses expressionism to show [...]

The shape of American drama has been molded throughout the years by the advances of numerous craftsmen. Many contemporary playwrights herald the work of Anton Chekhov as some of the most influential to modern drama. Tennessee [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

IMAGES

What Loyalty Means and What it Means to Me? Free Essay Example
Love Loyalty
CUSTOMER LOYALTY
Why is Loyalty Important: [Essay Example], 535 words GradesFixer
CUSTOMER LOYALTY
CUSTOMER LOYALTY

COMMENTS

Why is Loyalty Important: [Essay Example], 535 words
Importance of Loyalty in Relationships: Business, Love and Friendship. One of the most important ideologies to me is loyalty. Any successful relationship, whether it be business, love, or friendship, involves loyalty. A business builds loyalty with its customers by continuously providing good product and services to its customers so that they ...
Loyalty in Romeo and Juliet: a Tale of Love and Devotion
Introduction. Love, loyalty, and devotion are central themes in William Shakespeare's tragic play, Romeo and Juliet. Set in Verona, the story depicts a young couple from feuding families who defy societal expectations to pursue their love. Loyalty plays a crucial role in shaping the events of the play, as characters navigate conflicting loyalties to their families, friends, and love interests.
The Importance of Loyalty Over Love: My Perspective
In conclusion, loyalty is a lot more important than love because an atmosphere of trust is more reliable than an atmosphere of extreme feelings that go beyond time, space and reality. It must be earned and nurtured over time. You can force love but you cannot force loyalty.
Essays on Loyalty
Hook Examples for Loyalty Essays. Anecdotal Hook "Imagine a friend who has stood by your side through thick and thin, never wavering in their support. ... Lotus of Chastity is a captivating and thought-provoking piece of literature that delves deep into the complexities of love, loyalty, and sacrifice. Written by esteemed Chinese author Peng ...
Loyalty
Reflecting on the particularism of mother love and loyalty, he writes: "If mothers had the propensity to care equally for all the children in the world, it is unlikely that children would be as well provided for even as they are. ... Fletcher, George P., 1993, Loyalty: An Essay on the Morality of Relationships, New York: Oxford University ...
Loyalty: An Essay on the Morality of Relationships
Abstract. This book offers an account of loyalty that illuminates its role in our relationships with family and friends, our ties to country, and the commitment of the religious to God and their community. The book opposes the traditional view of the moral self as detached from context and history. It argues instead that loyalty, not impartial ...
Loyalty in a Relationship: Examples, Importance and More
There are so many ways that loyalty can appear in a committed relationship. Example 1: Sara hears her family talking about her partner Mikako behind her back. A family member makes a joke at ...
Thematic Essay : Loyalty And Love Of Love, By William...
William Shakespeare's play King Lear exhibits many forms of loyalty, but one that shines particularly is loyalty to ones selfish needs. However there is a limit to loyalty which most over look. The characters Cordelia, the emotional King Lear, and the vile Edmund all manifest their loyalty to their own self, and all meet their demise.
The Concepts Of Love And Hate With Loyalty In "Romeo And Juliet"
The essay explores the theme of loyalty in Shakespeare's play "The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet," delving into the impact of loyalty on the characters' actions and the unfolding of the tragic events. The writer examines how loyalty to lovers and loyalty to family influence the characters' decisions, using quotes and examples to support their points.
Essay on Love and Loyalty in William Shakespeare's Romeo ...
Open Document. Love and Loyalty in William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet In the play Romeo and Juliet (by William Shakespeare), I will be staging the fifth Scene of Act 1. Arguably, this scene is the most crucial point in the play, as this is where they both meet, and their love and loyalties divide between them and their families.
Definition Essay On Loyalty
Loyalty is a type of love that has to do with trust for a person or group. Shakespeare shows loyalty for the Capulets when he wrote,"Here comes two/ of the house of Montagues./ My naked weapon is out. Quarrel! I will back thee."(1.1.30-32). This quote shows the loyalty the Capulets have for their household. This scene displays
What Is Loyalty Over Love?
Love, generally, is an emotional and often romantic attachment to someone or something. It's that palpable feeling of connection, affection, and care. Loyalty, on the other hand, is a sense of allegiance or fidelity. It's a commitment to standing by someone or something, come what may. In the context of relationships, both qualities are highly ...
The Significance of Loyalty in Relationships and Society: [Essay
In the context of familial relationships, loyalty creates a sense of security and trust. Family members who are loyal to one another remain steadfast through thick and thin, supporting and protecting each other. This loyalty fosters a deep bond, encouraging a safe and nurturing environment. Similarly, loyalty in friendships is crucial as it ...
Essay on Loyalty
Loyalty is a concept that has been valued throughout human history. It refers to the quality or state of being faithful and devoted to someone or something. Loyalty can be towards an individual, an organization, a group of people, a country, or even oneself. In this essay, we will explore the meaning, value, and importance of loyalty in our lives.
What themes of love and loyalty are presented in Othello
Othello, on the other hand, is corrupted in his love and loyalty. This is the work of Iago, to be sure, but it is also the result of Othello's own jealousy. He is insecure in his relationship ...
Loyalty Essays: Samples & Topics
The Importance of Loyalty Over Love: My Perspective. 2. The Importance of Brand Loyalty in Business Success. 3. The Depiction of Loyalty in "Beowulf", "Count on Me", and "The Death of General Warren" 4. Complete Brand Loyalty Is Important. 5. Consumer Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty. 6. Definition Of The Concept Of Loyalty. 7.
Loyalty In Romeo And Juliet
In the play, two lovers love each other although the family they each belongs to were quarreling. Through the death scene of Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare highlights that loyalty to family is more important than love. He uses a lot of literary devices and characterizations to describe how love can affect others.
Where does the theme of love and loyalty appear in Julius Caesar
Quick answer: The theme of love and loyalty appears in Julius Caesar when Brutus and then Antony enter the pulpit to speak about the assassination of Caesar. The audience sees the conflict between ...
Free Essay: Love and Loyality
Love empowered her to have this kind of loyalty to him. The following quote shows Penelopeia's love for Odysseus, "So dear is he that I long for and never forget - my husband." (p.19, Homer, The Odyssey) Another aspect of love and loyalty that is constantly that is constantly shown in The Odyssey is the relationship between father and son.
Shakespeare's Depiction of True Loyalty in Antony and Cleopatra: [Essay
Regular loyalty is not reliable. Under regular loyalty, the servant will only be loyal if the benefits exceed the cost of such loyalty. This makes it very possible for temptations to sway such loyalty, as is exhibited by Cleopatra. True loyalty, on the other hand, is absolute. It is a loyalty grounded in love and thus cannot be diminished.
PDF Love
The theme of love is a major component of the play, as Othello and Desdemona's relationship is a central point of conflict, struggle, and subsequent murder. The concept of romantic love is expressed in different forms by Shakespeare. Romantic love can be defined as the attraction of two individuals to one another, with the expectation that ...
Loyalty in Romeo and Juliet Essay example
Loyalty in Romeo and Juliet Essay example. Romeo and Juliet- Loyalty Loyalty plays a big part in Romeo and Juliet. Ties of loyalty are woven throughout the play, binding certain characters together. The main theme is the feuding families of Romeo and Juliet that holds an "ancient grudge" against each other: the Montague's and the Capulet's.
Love and Loyalty Essay Loyalty
Loyalty Essay Loyalty is a complicated concept, which can be interpreted in many points of views. It is related to many other terms such as love, friendships, family relationships and many others. Loyalty is most of the time the basis of these other concepts. Without the presence of loyalty a strong relativity can never be built.