essay about loyalty in a relationship

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Loyalty — Why is Loyalty Important

Importance of Loyalty in Relationships: Business, Love and Friendship

• Categories: Loyalty Relationship

About this sample

Words: 535 |

Published: Jan 15, 2019

Words: 535 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Hook Example about Love for Essay

• Building Bridges: Loyalty forms the very bedrock of trust in any relationship. Whether it’s a bond of love, friendship, or business, it’s the glue that holds connections together, and without it, these connections risk crumbling.
• The Rock in Troubled Waters: In the tempestuous seas of life, loyalty is the lighthouse that guides you safely through the darkest nights. It’s the unwavering support system that keeps you afloat when the tides turn against you.
• Beyond Words: True loyalty isn’t a mere declaration; it’s a daily demonstration. It’s not about what you say but what you do, consistently. It’s the quiet commitment that speaks volumes.
• Recognizing True Friends: Loyalty often shines brightest in the shadows. It’s not just about being there in tough times; it’s also about sharing in the joy of success. A loyal friend doesn’t just applaud your victories; they stand by your side throughout the journey.
• More Than Numbers: In a world filled with fleeting connections, loyalty is the thread that weaves lasting relationships. While you may meet countless people, a genuinely loyal friend is a rare gem, a connection that transcends the ordinary.

Works Cited

• Graham, J., & Lijffijt, J. (2018). The importance of loyalty in business-to-business relationships. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 33(2), 177-186.
• Griffin, J., & DeCarlo, T. E. (2018). Loyalty in interpersonal relationships: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(6), 903-933.
• Johnson, K. E. (2016). Loyalty and the law: A reassessment of the common law’s role in determining the scope of loyalty obligations in agency law. Journal of Legal Studies, 45(S2), S205-S231.
• Lakhani, R., & Zenger, T. R. (2019). How to retain your best people: Keep the human touch. Harvard Business Review, 97(1), 82-89.
• Lee, C. (2020). Relationship between customer loyalty and service quality: Mediating effect of customer satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 29(2), 131-148.
• MacNeil, I. R. (2016). Loyalty in fiduciary relationships. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 36(1), 87-110.
• Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20-52.
• Pollock, T. G., & Rindova, V. P. (2003). Media legitimation effects in the market for initial public offerings. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 631-642.
• Riketta, M. (2004). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 358-384.
• Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M. (2015). A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization Science, 26(2), 399-419.

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

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Life

+ 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

8 pages / 3838 words

1 pages / 595 words

4 pages / 1937 words

5 pages / 2479 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

Related Essays on Loyalty

Friendship is a concept that has been explored and celebrated throughout the ages, both in literature and in society. It is a bond that goes beyond mere acquaintance, encompassing loyalty, trust, support, and growth. The themes [...]

In conclusion, my dog has been an invaluable teacher, imparting profound life lessons that extend far beyond pet ownership. Through their unwavering loyalty, resilience, ability to live in the present moment, unconditional [...]

Johnny Cade is a pivotal character in S.E. Hinton's novel "The Outsiders." He is a shy and sensitive boy who is constantly overshadowed by the more outgoing and rebellious members of his gang, the Greasers. Despite his quiet [...]

In conclusion, the Red Lotus of Chastity is a powerful and thought-provoking novel that delves into the complexities of love, loyalty, and sacrifice. Through its exploration of the characters' lives and choices, it challenges [...]

In Gwen Wilde’s essay titled “Why the Pledge Should Be Revised”, the author uses a critical tone to persuade the audience that the pledge should not include the words “under God”. Wilde begins with the argument that the words [...]

The definition of loyalty is a strong feeling of support or allegiance. In The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare, dependability, integrity, honesty, and faithfulness are key character traits that exhibit the true meaning [...]

Related Topics

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

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

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

• Parenting & Family Parenting Family Pregnancy
• Courses Marriage Save My Marriage Pre Marriage
• Quizzes Relationship Quizzes Love Quizzes Couples Quiz
• Find a Therapist

What is Loyalty & Its Importance in a Relationship?

Maggie enthusiastically works with people to foster self-determination and encourages them to grow in a safe therapeutic environment. She has a background in psychology and... Read More

The Marriage.com Editorial Team is a group of experienced relationship writers, experts, and mental health professionals. We provide practical and research-backed advice on relationships. Our content is thoroughly reviewed by experts to ensure that we offer high-quality and reliable relationship advice.

In This Article

Most people would probably say that they value loyalty in a relationship, but it may be unclear what loyalty in a relationship looks like. Being loyal to someone can mean various things, so it is important to understand the various aspects of faithful relationships.

Before we understand how to be loyal in a relationship, let’s first understand the definition of loyalty in a relationship. 

What is loyalty in a relationship?

When people think of loyalty, they probably most often define loyalty in a relationship as being fully committed to your partner and not cheating. While this is undoubtedly an important aspect of being loyal, there are other facets of loyalty.

Being loyal to someone in a faithful relationship requires avoiding cheating and being loyal in the way you speak about your partner to others.

Speaking positively about your partner to others demonstrates loyalty, just as being faithful to the relationship does. There are other aspects of loyalty in relationships, and it is necessary to consider all of them since loyalty is paramount.

How important is loyalty in a relationship?

Most people value loyalty in relationships, and it’s for a good reason. Here are some points that explain how important trust is in a relationship and why you should be loyal to your partner. 

Loyalty is central to having a healthy relationship

The Gottmans, who are psychology experts for couples, have explained that trust and commitment in relationships lead to happiness and promote wellbeing— couples who have loyalty can. Therefore, please expect to be more satisfied in their relationships and lives.

Loyalty is central to a successful, lasting relationship

Everyone wants to have a partner who chooses them above everyone else and is their lifelong companion. As humans, we ultimately want to feel like our partners love us unconditionally and will always make us a priority. Having loyalty in a relationship helps to cultivate these positive feelings. 

It is also important to remember that you deserve loyalty in relationships. Having a partner who truly loves you, cares for you, and is committed to making the relationship work will make you happier and healthier. 

Not having loyalty in your relationship can set you up for disappointment and leave you feeling stressed, leading to emotional and even physical health problems. 

8 Ways to build loyalty in a relationship?

Since loyalty is so important, it is essential to take steps to build it in your relationship. 

As stated previously, loyalty in a relationship means staying faithful in the relationship and speaking positively about your partner. 

1. Speak kindly about your partner

So, aside from staying away from cheating, which is critical, an important part of being loyal to someone in a romantic partnership is speaking kindly about them to others.

For instance, you should avoid talking badly about your partner behind their back. If someone says something negative about your partner, you should defend them. This is among the top things that represent loyalty because if you talk negatively about your partner to others, you aren’t truly being loyal to them. 

Maggie Martinez , LCSW, says

It can also undermine your relationship if others are seeing that you are not defending your partner or sticking up for them.

2. Keep your promises

Another key method of building loyalty is to follow through or remain loyal to your promises . This is pretty simple. If you tell your partner, you are going to do something. You should follow through with this commitment. This builds trust and shows that you are committed. 

3. Be supportive of your partner

Other strategies for building loyalty in a relationship include being supportive of your partner through life’s challenges and being prepared to face obstacles together. 

4. Discuss before making decisions

Loyalty also involves discussing big decisions with your partner. 

If you make important decisions without including your partner, they can feel left out. On the other hand, discussing life’s decisions with your partner and deciding things together shows that you are faithful to them and want them always to be included in your life choices. 

Maggie Martinez further adds,

You and your partner should be a team. When one partner starts making decisions without the other, trust can quickly erode.

5. Be forgiving

Forgiveness is one of the most important parts of building loyalty in a relationship. It would be best for you to understand that we all make mistakes, and it is essential to forgive and move past those as quickly as possible. 

If you keep grudges, it will only damage your relationship. Let go and accept the apology. Only by accepting that humans make mistakes will you truly be able to build trust and loyalty. 

Watch this video to learn how to practice forgiveness :

6. Be vulnerable 

Loyalty is correlated to honesty and vulnerability. If you want to build trust in your relationship, you have to be entirely honest and vulnerable. Many people think that being vulnerable is a sign of weakness which is not the case. 

The vulnerability allows you to be stronger. If you are vulnerable and honest, your partner will feel more comfortable, and they will be more open with you about things. 

Maggie states,

Vulnerability shows a high level of emotional intelligence.

7. Respect each other’s differences

It is crucial to accept and respect differences to maintain loyalty in a relationship. Leave no room for judgments. 

You may not relate or understand some things about your partner, but try to understand where they are coming from and accept that they might have a different perspective. 

How to be loyal in a relationship?

Most people don’t understand what loyalty is and how it affects a relationship. Here are some points that can help you to be loyal in your relationship. 

• Understanding that relationship requires consistent efforts . Relationship is always a choice, not an option, and you have to stay loyal to your partner because you promised and have to fulfill that promise. 
• Appreciate and understand the value of your partner. Realize that you have a person who has always got your back and how amazing this is. Be grateful to them for always being by your side. 
• All the issues you face should be discussed personally first, and if only you can’t find a solution, you should share it with others. 
• Treat your relationship as the top priority. There may be other things in your mind but make sure to give time to your relationship first. Find the right balance between your work and personal life. 
• Never try to look for happiness in someone other than your partner. If you think there is a problem with your relationship. Communicate, as it is the key to all the solutions. 
• Ask your partner how they are doing. Does your partner seem tired? Distracted? Irritable? Ask them what is going on; this shows that you are supportive.
• If you know your partner is dealing with stress or a difficult situation at work, ask how you can be supportive. Offer your help.
• Ask for your partner’s opinions and share your thoughts and feelings with them.
• Keep your partner’s secrets. If they share something with you in confidence, you should not break this trust.
• Be willing to compromise and adjust with your partner. Sometimes, being loyal means that you need to put some of your partner’s wishes or needs first or be willing to accept that you will not always have things 100% your way. 

10 qualities of loyalty in a relationship

The signs of a loyal relationship listed above are closely linked to the qualities of a loyal relationship. Based upon the things that represent loyalty, it seems that the following ten things are the main qualities of loyalty in a relationship:

• Open Communication  
• Partnership
• Authenticity
• Lasting Companionship
• Commitment to the Relationship 
• Strong Conflict Resolution Skills 
• Mutual Support
• Having each other’s backs

6 things that represent trust and loyalty in relationships

The above strategies can help build trust and loyalty in your relationship. When you have achieved this goal, you may notice some things that represent loyalty within your relationship. 

These can include the following:

1. Patience

No one is perfect, so we all make mistakes. If you and your partner are loyal to each other, you will be patient with each other as you grow and you learn from mistakes. Patience shows that you are willing to remain faithful, even despite imperfections.

Your relationship is about companionship , a genuinely loyal relationship. You and your partner should be best friends and have a strong companionship. In a loyal relationship, your partner becomes your lifelong companion. This requires lasting friendship.

2. You are a team

Just as teammates are loyal to each other, those in a loyal partnership should view each other as being on the same team. 

This means having shared goals and a sense of fighting all of life’s battles together. Being on the same team also means cheering for each other and always wanting your partner to succeed.

3. You are open and honest 

Open, honest communication is another feature of loyalty in relationships.  

Sometimes, this requires you to share information your partner may not want to hear, such as constructive criticism. If you are loyal to your partner’s wellbeing and success, you will always be truthful with them because you ultimately know this is in their best interests.

4. You are yourself around your partner

In a loyal relationship, you will not feel the need to hide aspects of who you are from your partner. Trust and loyalty in a relationship mean sharing your authentic self with your partner, including your hobbies, quirks, and flaws. A loyal partner will accept you for all of who you are, imperfections and all.

5. You work conflicts out between yourselves

While we all vent to our friends or family members from time to time, we should resolve conflicts with our partner in a loyal relationship. This means that we address it directly with our partner if we have a concern instead of gossiping or complaining to others. 

Running to a friend or family member to complain every time you disagree with your significant other can be seen as badmouthing your partner, which is the opposite of loyalty. 

6. Commitment towards working on yourself 

Improving and growing as a person benefits you individually but it also has a positive impact on your relationship. When two people learn to grow together, they feel they can take on the world. If your partner is someone who needs the push to get into a self-care routine, provide them.

Make sure that your partner understands that you are there to help and get help from them. 

It is pretty clear what being loyal to someone means, and it is important to be a loyal person if you want a happy, healthy relationship. If you and your partner have issues surrounding loyalty, it may be helpful to have a conversation about what loyalty means to you. Being on the same page about what you expect can help you be faithful to each other.

Taking steps such as including your partner in big decisions, viewing each other as best friends and teammates, and supporting each other through ups and downs can go a long way. It is also important to speak positively about your partner to other people, practice patience, and openly communicate.

Healthy relationships should be based on trust and loyalty. If you find your partner has not been a loyal person, seeking the help of a couple’s counselor may help you to develop more trust and loyalty in your relationship. 

Ultimately, a relationship that involves repeated instances of disloyalty is unhealthy, and you may have to put an end to it, but this only opens the door for a relationship with true loyalty down the road.

Share this article on

The Marriage.com Editorial Team is a group of experienced relationship writers, experts, and mental health professionals. We provide practical and research-backed advice on relationships. Our content is thoroughly reviewed by experts Read more to ensure that we offer high-quality and reliable relationship advice. Read less

Want to have a happier, healthier marriage?

If you feel disconnected or frustrated about the state of your marriage but want to avoid separation and/or divorce, the marriage.com course meant for married couples is an excellent resource to help you overcome the most challenging aspects of being married.

Take Course

Learn More On This Topic

Relationship

By marriage.com editorial team, relationship & marriage advice.

Forgiveness

Approved By Mert Şeker, Psychologist

Marriage Preparation

By shellie r. warren.

Pre Marriage

You may also like.

Emotional Intimacy

Approved by angela welch, marriage & family therapist.

Approved By Dionne Eleanor, Coach

Zodiac Signs

By Kelli H, Licensed Clinical Social Worker

Approved By Christiana Njoku, Licensed Professional Counselor

By Draven Porter

Recent articles.

By Calantha Quinlan

By Kaida Hollister

Popular topics on married life.

How to Ask for (and Get) What You Need From a Relationship

"we remind ourselves never to say anything we can't take back.".

By Hara Estroff Marano published November 7, 2023 - last reviewed on May 15, 2024

Eoin Moore and Eve Sanoussi

Eoin, a professor of mathematics, and Eve, a photo editor for a book publisher, had been dating for five months when they braved their first serious conversation about race. “He was really humble and admitted that he couldn’t possibly understand my lived experience but wanted to better understand and be there for me,” recalls Eve. “It made me feel supported, seen, and cared about.” Eoin aimed “to inhabit this relationship with intentionality and care and be true to myself.” Meditation taught him how to manage difficult conversations: “I’ve learned that the waves of the mind are not that big a deal. If I feel a rise in my chest—maybe anger , maybe fear—I can just let it come and go. I don’t personalize it or blame others.” “We’re both introverts ,” confides Eve. “We talk about everything under the sun, from spirituality to gender , from what it would be like if the earth melted away to video games.” But even when they’re dealing with difficult feelings, says Eoin, neither is worried about being right or wrong. “We have a way of speaking plainly, always with compassion. The secret ingredient is holding hands; we remain connected. Just being in the relationship is the ultimate point.”

On a sunny Sunday last spring, Kara and her husband Leo arrived at her parents’ house for a few days’ stay. Their son Jake, 5, jumped into the arms of his beaming grandfather, waiting on the lawn. Kara held the baby, 9 months, as Leo wrangled the kids’ gear. “Don’t mind him,” Kara said of the infant’s growing fussiness, “he’s demanding to be fed.” “Why don’t you let your mother have the pleasure,” her father suggested. “Not yet, Dad,” said Kara, “I’m still nursing him.” “Isn’t it time to let him grow up,” her father admonished as he led Jake inside.

Irritated as she was at the casual rebuke of her mothering and struck by a flash a shame for enjoying beautiful moments with her baby, Kara grew furious at Leo. He knew how overbearing her father could sometimes be and how small and worthless it could make her feel, so why wasn’t he stepping up to defend her? Disappointment overstayed the visit; the lapse in emotional support at a moment of need was still rankling Kara months later. “In front of my son, in front of my husband, I was totally invalidated. And then I was abandoned. It didn’t feel good then. It doesn’t feel good now.”

That’s how relationships begin a slide into the sea. Loyalty is like that. An alloy of emotional support, protection, and respect, it’s foundational to partnerships of any kind, but especially to love. It is the pillar of trust, the source of feeling safe in the world, a security so profoundly liberating it enables people to reveal their fullest selves, which just might be the wellspring of passion. It buffers against challenges, and it fosters well-being.

Of all the psychological strands of interpersonal connectedness, loyalty is unique in acting as a moral principle. It is not, however, an unmitigated virtue; it is subject to corruption. But when harnessed to mutual goodwill, it is a powerful positive binding force.

In a culture where romantic ambitions are high yet societal supports for couples have eroded and all the holding power must be generated (and regenerated) from within, loyalty acts as a form of superglue. It is doubly so for people of color and others in marginalized groups whose private relationships typically bear the added burden of salving regular insults from the wider world.

“Disloyalty is extremely painful,” says John Gottman, dean of relationship researchers. “It leads to insecurity and distancing in the relationship.” It’s a sin of omission—your partner isn’t there for you when you need them. In their hurt, one partner turns away from the other. Moments of connection are missed. Goodwill erodes. Fault-finding takes hold. Partners begin to keep score. Negativity shades every action, and any stress can take the whole thing down.

Who Do You Belong To? Loyalty begins with the very structure of relationships. There must be a boundary of primacy set up around a couple, says Massachusetts family therapist Terry Real, the author of the New York Times bestseller Us: Getting Past You and Me to Build a More Loving Relationship. “The couple is the primary relationship. People can gain access to the couple—parents, in-laws, children—but they have to be allowed in. Loyalty to each other means that you privilege each other over everybody else.”

It can take time to firmly establish that boundary. In studying 130 newlywed couples for seven years, John Gottman found that all the arguments in the first few years are about trust. Do I come first? Will you be there for me? Are your friends more important than I am? Is your mother more important than I am? “They need to establish that sense of being a team, in which they put one another first,” he reports.

“If they can’t do that, they’re unlikely to go the next step and really forge a commitment. Every argument is then: Can I get the best for me regardless of the cost for you? Who needs this crap! They can’t resolve conflicts as a team, where I care as much about my wife’s thriving as I do my own.” In fact, Gottman’s definition of trust is behaving so as to maximize benefits for one’s partner as well as for oneself.

Loyalty conflicts related to structure are common in inter-ethnic couples where one partner comes from a culture that honors sons over daughters and the mother-son relationship is highly prized. “The wife is really on the outside of a coalition,” says Julie Gottman. “But if she doesn’t come first, the marriage will have flaws.” The wife will have little influence on decision-making , perhaps even about her own kids. “We often have to help the husband find ways to honor his parents while privileging his wife,” Gottman notes.

Given the individualistic bias of American culture, Real advises clients to “school their friends” about the primacy of the couple partnership. He suggests they tell others, “If you want to be a friend to me, be a friend of my relationship. If I come to you with a complaint about my partner, be empathetic , but I don’t want to hear ‘I wouldn’t put up with that’; tell me to consider my part in the problem and what I might do differently.” Otherwise, complaining about a partner to a parent, a friend, even a therapist—anyone outside the relationship—before discussing it with your partner is a significant betrayal, and it sets up a coalition against the partner.

For some people, especially those raised in families with a high degree of dysfunction—a parent who has paranoia or is chronically unhappy or addicted to alcohol , for example—entering into a good partnership can create a loyalty bind. “Growing up, one way to get close to a parent who is routinely unavailable is to be like them,” says Real. Having a happy relationship of one’s own is like moving to a new world. “You leave the old country behind and it kicks up all the feelings of emigrating—disloyalty, survivor guilt . Opening up to happiness feels like abandoning a parent.” Allowing people that insight, by making the implicit tie explicit, Real finds, can foster the realignment of loyalty, paving the way for movement into health, connection, and happiness.

Raymond Verrey and Randall Tucker

They met two weeks into college and had no idea they’d spend their lives together—neither thought it possible. Raymond was hoping to meet a nice woman and “live the life that is projected onto you.” Randall aimed to be a less muted version of a small-town Southern kid. Career -focused—both are now executives in major organizations—they moved to Washington, D.C., then New York. It wasn’t until Randall came out to his religious family that he could dedicate himself to his own happiness and to the relationship, that the two could prod each other into realizing that they belonged most to each other, and that they could build the relationship they needed. Thus was born their annual meeting. Although they are married and own a home, each year they arrive (and later leave) separately at a restaurant they choose specifically because it is not one of their favorites. Everything is on the table, says Raymond: “What do we want for our lives? What are the things annoying us? What could we do differently? Do we want a child? A dog?” “We’re also changing—our likes, our dislikes,” says Randall. “The meeting guarantees that we connect around what that change looks like.” He adds: “The intentionality is important to make sure that you’re getting to the topics that can potentially break you.”

“I’ve Got Your Back” Then there’s emotional loyalty, the sense of having each other’s back. Partners expect airtight emotional loyalty of each other, and it is most visible in the way one partner treats the other in front of other people: Is it respectful? Warm? Does it show affection? Or does one partner recount an event that the other ignores or, worse, dismisses? For the Gottmans, that is one of the most telltale indicators not just of loyalty—or, more precisely, its absence—but of the viability of the whole relationship.

It’s the mundane moments of life together that are the basis of romance in long-term relationships, John Gottman has famously found in his decades of monitoring couples. Because negative exchanges have a disproportionately destructive effect on relationships, it is necessary for partners to replenish fondness and admiration, and they do it by turning toward each other in countless everyday moments, recognizing any bid for connection (“Hey, look at that crazy car!”) and responding in an interested or affirming way. A partner who ignores such a bid is turning away; worse yet is actually turning against a bid (“Stop interrupting me, I’m reading”). “That turning-towards element,” Gottman says, “is fundamental to building loyalty. Loyalty underpins both trust and commitment, two weight-bearing walls of the relationship house.”

Often enough in social situations, one partner will have a conflict with others. Defending the partner is critical—for their own well-being and for the relationship’s—and articulating that support is a necessary demonstration of loyalty. That doesn’t mean your partner is always right.

“What people get wrong all the time,” says Real, “is that they turn such a situation into a teachable moment: ‘I understand why people have that issue with you because I have that issue with you, too.’” Loyalty is owed to a partner not just in public but in private, Real insists. “First, start with empathy and compassion, then ask if they want problem-solving. Turning an upsetting incident into a teachable moment is generally a bad idea.”

There are, of course, some expectations of loyalty that are unrealistic. “What a lot of people think of as loyalty is really unconditional love,” Real finds, “and that’s just a childish vision of love.” Loyalty, for example, is not lockstep agreement.” Say you have a fight with a colleague. What’s warranted first from your partner is a measure of empathy. Then, if they have a suggestion about something you could have done differently, what’s needed is a delicate negotiation to offer information while letting you know they’re on your side. “The communication of cherishing is a key element of loyalty when there’s disagreement,” says Real.

Couple loyalty encodes the expectation that your partner will act in your best interest and regularly meet your needs because it is the right thing to do. However core the expectation, it can be a setup for disappointment—unless partners are explicit about things they’re not normally explicit about. “Needs are highly individualized, and each partner has to define for themselves what is important to them,” says New York family therapist Susan Birne-Stone. “It takes a degree of self-awareness—and then articulating that need to their partner.” Her therapy practice, she says, is living proof of how difficult the task can be. “The trick is to express the need to your partner at the time you’re feeling it, to do so without anger at the need not being met, and to say it in a way that your partner can take in.”

That’s how it goes when adults shape their relationship. What more often happens, Real laments, is that people wait for their partner to fail—and then react to the failure. “Schooling your partner about what you want is a high-level skull. But it increases the odds that you’ll get what you want.” If asking your partner for what you need and getting it are essential for a loving bond, then getting what you need without asking—invisible support —takes relationships into another dimension.

The highest measure of loyalty—and perhaps the highest high-wire act of all relationship life, experts agree—is voicing complaints and problems directly to a partner when you’re upset with them. The Gottmans find it is a special problem for the conflict-avoidant, and it is a huge challenge for those who, when upset, resort to criticism and contempt, major saboteurs of listening, of solving problems, and of affection. More than ever before, the Gottmans find, avoidance of conflict is epidemic in young people, in part a consequence of texting rather than engaging face-to-face.

Voicing complaints is an art that, science reveals, best begins with what the Gottmans call a “soft start-up,” stating how you feel rather than reciting your partner’s sins. Then you discuss a very specific situation that gave rise to the feelings and suggest an action that could resolve the feelings. But what diffuses any tension that builds is some expression of respect and cherishing.

For Blacks and other people of color in the U.S., couple loyalty typically must provide not just emotional support but an extra layer of protection against dehumanizing experiences. “When we walk out the door in the morning, it is with the understanding that the day could include an array of threats, not all of them visible. You want a partner who understands that and helps you sort through it,” says Tawanda Turner-Brown, a family therapist in Washington, D.C. “I’m not against interracial relationships at all, but someone white might think her husband was paranoid if he came home and said he was followed around in a store, treated as suspicious just for existing.”

There are slights and dismissals—being passed over yet again for a promotion despite being more qualified than others—that often make Blacks feel invisible. “That has an impact on the psyche that affects self-esteem, sense of relevance, and even ability to participate in the relationship,” says Turner-Brown. Further, each disappointment carries the added weight of so many historical injustices. Given the frequent assaults on Black personhood, she notes, support includes extra measures of validation.

John and Julie Gottman

They literally wrote the book on couple loyalty—and many other aspects of relationships. John developed ways of monitoring partners internally and externally during interactions and told the world much of what is now known about the way each affects the other, what makes marriages thrive, and how they fall apart. Together John and Julie, both psychologists, founded the Gottman Institute, training therapists and helping couples. Trust—having your partner’s back—is one pillar of “the sound relationship house”: Can I trust you to stick around through chemo treatments? Can I trust you to support my goals ? The book on trust arose, however, from their own crisis of loyalty 20 years ago. They had developed a curriculum for couples in poverty at the behest of a think tank, formed a small company, and hired a CEO to run it. Pretty quickly, Julie sensed something was amiss and warned John. Two years in, financial misdeeds surfaced. John, focused on research funding, had listened more to the executive than to his own wife. “We had several deep talks to repair the damage to our relationship,” Julie reports. John spent the next year developing ways to measure trust and betrayal. How to Make Love Last was the result.

Portal to Passion—and Thriving The security loyalty begets that makes people feel absolutely safe and accepted in a relationship encourages them to blossom. “There are many ways to feel unsafe in a relationship,” say the Gottmans, “but psychological safety even has biological consequences. People function better. They’re healthier. There’s less inflammation. Our whole nervous system is oriented around feeling safe.”

The sense of safety gets carried into the bedroom as well, allowing partners to be vulnerable. “You can talk about sex ,” says Julie Gottman. “You can talk about what you want. You can be totally yourself. You don’t have to hold anything back. With nothing held back, passion is unleashed.”

That experience, John Gottman notes, is at odds with a popular view that safety and familiarity kill passion and that to feel sexually connected, couples need a steady supply of mystery and novelty. What the popular view likely underestimates is the power of feeling safe to generate novelty from within. It allows partners to experiment, to be playful, to explore their erotic nature, to share their erotic fantasies . “And when you’re playful sexually,” he says, “you’re at a whole different level of connection.”

The Allure (and Challenge) Of Invisible Loyalty

Sometimes support is most beneficial when a partner is unaware it’s been given.

By Gary W. Lewandowski, Jr., Ph.D.

Imagine you have a particularly stressful week at work with a lot of demands, emails, and meetings. You feel as if you’re drowning. Your partner notices and says, “I know you’re having a really hard time; let me help you. I’ll handle dinners this week and take care of getting the taxes done for you.”

Super helpful, right? Sort of. Receiving this type of conspicuous support is a double-edged sword. On the plus side, we clearly see that our partner cares about us and wants to help. Not surprisingly, research shows that when partners receive visible support like this, they are more satisfied in the relationship.

That same research shows, however, that such acts can have unintended effects. Knowing our partner is helping us can also lower our mood and make us feel anxious. Your partner also helps you in ways you don’t realize. Invisible support occurs when your partner does things for your benefit, often indirectly, but you don’t realize it. There are plenty of things your partner does behind the scenes to help you and the relationship, things that you never see. For example, when talking with your mother, your partner might provide support by taking your side when there is a difference of opinion or by covering for you. (“She hasn’t been able to visit because she is hopelessly overcommitted at work.”) In such cases, your partner silently and loyally works in the background, trying to make your life easier. They don’t mention it and never ask for recognition or benefits in return. They simply do it because it helps you.

Research shows that partners miss half of the sacrifices their partner makes for them. When researchers tracked law students taking the bar exam, they found that despite students having no idea what their partners were doing to help them, test-takers had less depression and anxiety when they received invisible support.

Similarly, when romantic partners receive invisible support, they report higher relationship satisfaction the following day and no decrease in mood. They are also happier with such interactions as the amount of time they spend together, affection toward each other, conversations, and sex life. What we may not notice one day can still benefit us the next. Though a partner may not see their partner’s loyalty, they certainly feel the byproducts and believe that their partner is looking after them. As with love, trust, and respect, partners need not witness tangible proof to have the feelings benefit their relationship.

Why is invisible support so powerful? It preserves people’s sense of self-efficacy . Acknowledging the need for assistance can make us feel inadequate. We may think that if we were a more capable person we could deal with a stressful week and things around the house without needing anyone to step in and save the day.

Such concerns may especially trouble those who need to project unwavering capability (“I don’t need any help”), feel in control, and avoid any sense of perceived weakness. Also, a partner’s help can make us feel guilty or indebted—because they’ve done so much, we now owe them and need to reciprocate. Visible support can come with unintended extra baggage.

On the other hand, invisible support is authentic and generous. The supporter does it purely for their partner’s benefit and does not need acknowledgment or recognition. Invisible support is like an anonymous donation to the relationship partner. They benefit because it makes their life easier. The supporter benefits because they get to identify as someone who is kind, giving, and unselfish. They also get to bask in their partner’s positive reactions. Doing good feels good.

Finally, being able to effectively provide invisible support requires a skilled partner. To do it well, a person needs to do several things behind the scenes to make it work: Notice the partner has a need. Know how to appropriately address the need. And provide support in a subtle or nonobvious way. Of course, they have to be secure enough in themselves to not require acknowledgment or credit. Not every partner will be up to the task, but those who are will experience better relationships.

Julia Mandirola and Michael Arnone

Glamour professions can put their own brand of strain on relationships, but in the five years they have been together, Michael and Julia—he sells high-end New York City real estate, she is a model—have learned the value of “always framing yourself and your partner in a good light as it pertains to others.” That includes, says Michael, “being mindful of what your partner likes and the situations they’re going to feel comfortable in.” Even within a relationship, Julia adds, “it’s important to be mindful and loyal to your partner when you’re facing challenges, because you do love and respect them.” She admits that she likes to vent to others when in a state of frustration, “but I always have to remind myself to not say anything that I can’t take back.”

5 Types of Invisible Support

Because invisible support is hard to see, examples are in short supply. Nevertheless, new research identifies five main types of invisible support for relationships. Anonymous Donor : Giving concrete tangible help without any recognition. Doing household chores that aren’t normally your responsibility. Making your partner’s favorite meal or letting them pick the restaurant. Filling your partner’s gas tank, checking their tire pressure, or getting their car washed.

Rallying the Troops : Reaching out to your partner’s friends and others to encourage them to provide help and support. Texting your partner’s friends and suggesting that your partner could use a night out. Encouraging the kids to give your partner thoughtful cards and gifts.

Maintaining the Status Quo : When life is stressful or hectic, making efforts to create a sense of normalcy by sticking to your typical activities, not adding additional stress, and taking the other person’s lead on whether they want to address or discuss any issues. Carrying on with routine activities like hanging out, going out to eat, or grabbing drinks. Not piling on extra problems when your partner had a stressful day. Avoiding overscheduling extra activities during your partner’s busy weeks.

In This Together : Aligning your interests with your partner’s by suggesting solutions that would help you and, in turn, them. Suggesting that you need to sleep more, eat better, take up meditation, or exercise more regularly and that it would be great to work on it together. Saying that you really need a dinner out or a weekend away to decompress when it’s really for your partner’s benefit. Finding an excuse to take the kids out by yourself to give your partner time to relax or get work done.

Being There : Simply showing up for your partner and listening without offering advice or overtly helping. Giving your partner a hug and saying, “I love you,” seemingly for no reason at all. Resisting the temptation to offer unsolicited advice or solutions to your partner’s problems. Stifling the urge to correct your partner about something they did wrong.

Sometimes invisible support is about silly mundane things like not eating the last piece of cheesecake, even though you really want it, or watching a show you don’t particularly care to see, just because your partner likes it.

When looking for ways to provide invisible support, it’s as simple as finding ways to lighten your partner’s load, decrease their stress and obligations, or increase their enjoyment—all without their knowing you played a role.

One important corollary: Both partners need to participate. If only one partner provides invisible support and the other constantly takes advantage, that’s going to undermine relationship quality. Also, providing invisible support doesn’t mean you should be a doormat or a martyr. It just means you’re looking out for each other. Everyone deserves a great relationship.

The best relationships make our life better, and the best partners help make that happen in ways we never see.

Submit your response to this story to [email protected] .

Pick up a copy of Psychology Today on newsstands now or subscribe to read the rest of this issue.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• International
• New Zealand
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Presentations made painless

• Get Premium

116 Loyalty Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Inside This Article

Loyalty is a valuable and important trait in relationships, whether they be personal or professional. It is the foundation of trust and mutual respect, and it is something that should be cherished and nurtured. However, loyalty is not always easy to maintain, especially in the face of challenges or temptations.

With that in mind, we have compiled a list of 116 loyalty essay topic ideas and examples to help inspire your writing and encourage you to explore the concept of loyalty in depth. Whether you are writing a personal reflection, an academic essay, or a persuasive argument, these topics can help you delve into the complexities and nuances of loyalty and its implications in various contexts.

Some examples of loyalty essay topics include:

• The importance of loyalty in personal relationships
• Loyalty in the workplace: How to build trust and commitment among employees
• Loyalty in politics: How do politicians demonstrate loyalty to their constituents?
• Loyalty in literature: Analyzing the theme of loyalty in classic novels
• Loyalty in sports: How do fans show loyalty to their favorite teams?
• Loyalty in friendships: What does it mean to be a loyal friend?
• Loyalty in business: How do companies build customer loyalty?
• Loyalty in history: Examples of loyalty in historical events
• Loyalty in religion: How does faith influence loyalty?
• Loyalty in marriage: What does it mean to be loyal to your partner?

These are just a few examples of the many loyalty essay topics you could explore. Feel free to use these ideas as a starting point for your own writing, or come up with your own unique topics to delve into the complexities of loyalty in your own way. Remember, loyalty is a multifaceted concept that can be interpreted and analyzed in a variety of ways, so don't be afraid to think outside the box and explore new perspectives on this important trait.

Want to create a presentation now?

Instantly Create A Deck

Let PitchGrade do this for me

Hassle Free

We will create your text and designs for you. Sit back and relax while we do the work.

Explore More Content

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service

© 2023 Pitchgrade

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Why Trust Matters in Your Relationship and How to Build It

The importance of comfort, security, and loyalty can't be overstated

Sanjana is a health writer and editor. Her work spans various health-related topics, including mental health, fitness, nutrition, and wellness.

Ivy Kwong, LMFT, is a psychotherapist specializing in relationships, love and intimacy, trauma and codependency, and AAPI mental health.  

Verywell / Madelyn Goodnight

Are You in a Healthy Relationship? Take the Quiz

Why trust matters, impact of lack of trust, how do you deepen trust in a relationship, how to rebuild trust.

There are few things as comforting as having a strong sense of trust in your relationship, but it takes time and intentionality to develop.

To have trust in a relationship means that you feel a sense of security and loyalty with your partner. According to Sabrina Romanoff , PsyD, a clinical psychologist and professor at Yeshiva University, it's the basis of a solid relationship.

“To trust means to rely on another person because you feel safe with them and have confidence that they will not hurt or violate you. Trust is the foundation of relationships because it allows you to be vulnerable and open up to the person without having to defensively protect yourself,” says Romanoff.

At a Glance

Trust is an important pillar in relationships, and the lack of it can lead to negativity, conflict , insecurity, depression, and anxiety. If your relationship is lacking trust, it’s important to work with your partner to build it, so that you can let your guard down and be vulnerable with each other.

If you are having difficulties resolving your trust issues with your partner, you can seek help from a therapist or a couples counselor .

If you've got questions about your relationship, our fast and free quiz can help you better understand if your partnership is rock solid or if it could use some work.

This healthy relationship quiz was medically reviewed by Sabrina Romanoff, PsyD.

Trust is a vital component in happy and successful relationships. Here's how it can impact your relationship for the better.

Promotes Positivity

Trust is important in relationships because it allows you to be more open and giving. If you trust your partner, you are more likely to be forgiving of their shortcomings or behaviors that irritate you because overall you believe in them and know they have your back.

Reduces Conflict

Trust also allows you to navigate conflict . When you trust your partner, you are more willing to overlook problems or commit to finding solutions to issues because you feel allied in areas that mean the most to you.

Even if your partner does something disappointing, you are more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt and see the good in them if you trust them.

Increases Closeness

Establishing trust creates a strong bond and foundation to build on. Knowing you can trust your partner promotes increased closeness and safety. When you trust one another, you feel safe knowing that your partner has your back and can be relied upon for comfort, care, and support.

Press Play for Advice On Navigating Conflict

Hosted by therapist Amy Morin, LCSW, this episode of  The Verywell Mind Podcast , featuring Purple Heart recipient Craig Rossi and Fred, shares why it's OK to give second chances. Click below to listen now.

Follow Now : Apple Podcasts / Spotify / Google Podcasts

Trust takes time to build, and if your partner consistently fails to follow through on promises or commitments, you will begin to have low expectations of them.

Sabrina Romanoff, PsyD

When your partner’s actions are not aligned with their words, you will begin to learn that they are not trustworthy. Repeated violations or consistent hurtful behaviors erode trust.

Lack of trust can create many problems in your relationship. A lack of trust can also affect your mental health in the following ways:

• Lack of intimacy: When there is little trust in a relationship, intimacy tends to decrease. When your partner is being deceitful, you will likely want to distance yourself from them, both emotionally and physically. 
• Negativity: When you feel wronged by your partner, you may fixate on this feeling, which will not only cause you to withdraw from them, but will also cause you to be filled with anger towards them. This can stifle connection and closeness.
• Insecurity: Lack of trust usually leads to insecurity in the relationship . In turn, you will constantly doubt what your partner tells you and may react by becoming more controlling, which can push them further away. For instance, incessantly calling or texting your partner to keep tabs on them can drive them away.
• Depression and anxiety: If there is little trust in your relationship, you might experience higher levels of depression or anxiety because you will constantly question whether your partner is lying or being deceitful.
• Trouble concentrating : Lack of trust can lead to an inability to concentrate, especially if you are constantly worrying or wondering what the other person is actually thinking, feeling, or doing.
• Distress : Not being able to trust your partner contributes to mental, emotional, and physical distress, including betrayal, trauma, and emotional dysregulation.
• Fear : Low trust can cause feelings of fear and anxiety. You might be afraid of what your partner will do next, or you might worry that they won't be there when you need them.
• Loneliness : When you can't trust the closest person in your life, you are bound to experience feelings of loneliness and isolation.

There are a number of things that you can do to help promote trust in your relationship. Romanoff shares some strategies that can be helpful.

Improve on Mistakes

An important step to build trust is to be honest and forthcoming when you violate expectations or hurt one another. 

Everyone makes mistakes . What is important is that you can learn and grow closer to each other after you repair whatever was damaged as a result of the mistake. The best way to do this is to own them completely and show how you will do better in the future.

Engage in Open Communication

Secrecy tends to erode trust , so when your partner is able to be transparent and allows space to explore topics that might trigger your mistrust, you can begin to feel more at ease and begin to let your guard down. 

The more you are able to get on the same page, the closer you will feel toward your partner. Open communication makes it easier for you to discuss concerns about the relationship. When you can have open communication, you will feel closer to your partner.

If trust has been damaged in a relationship, there are things that you can do to help rebuild your trust, intimacy, and connection. Steps you can take:

• Be open and willing to work on the relationship
• Create new positive experiences together
• Talk to one another
• Find ways to connect
• Say what you mean and mean what you say
• Keep and follow through on commitments you make
• Be consistent
• Listen empathetically, be present with your partner, and ask questions to better understand them and your relationship with them
• Continually deepen your own self-awareness so that you can share your most honest thoughts, emotions, needs, and requests
• Acknowledge and take responsibility for mistakes made, apologize for the harm done, and be clear and specific about how things will be approached differently in the future

Patience is also important. It may take time to rebuild trust, but continuing to work toward improving your relationship can help you eventually mend those damaged connections.

Get Help Now

We've tried, tested, and written unbiased reviews of the best online therapy programs including Talkspace, BetterHelp, and ReGain. Find out which option is the best for you.

Kleinert T, Schiller B, Fischbacher U, et al. The Trust Game for Couples (TGC): A new standardized paradigm to assess trust in romantic relationships .  PLoS One . 2020;15(3):e0230776. Published 2020 Mar 26. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0230776

Arikewuyo AO, Eluwole KK, Özad B. Influence of Lack of Trust on Romantic Relationship Problems: The Mediating Role of Partner Cell Phone Snooping .  Psychol Rep . 2021;124(1):348-365. doi:10.1177/0033294119899902

By Sanjana Gupta Sanjana is a health writer and editor. Her work spans various health-related topics, including mental health, fitness, nutrition, and wellness.

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Education

Relationships Loyalty Essay Samples

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Education , Loyalty , Allegiance , Love , Friendship , Life , Students , Relationships

Published: 02/23/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

There are so many ideas I have been learning from childhood but above all loyalty is something I accept and I want to share my real life experience. Every day, I face situations in which loyalty is necessary. According to me, loyalty is about self satisfaction and inner happiness. Loyalty is like a shadow, something that is with me always. As I study abroad, loyalty to my girlfriend back at home and my friends here in America is important. In my view, loyalty is important in the success of an individual’s relationships in life. In my own life, prior to attending north Gujarat University, I pictured myself living in my country near my family and my roots. I grew up attached to the local way of life, working at my family's shop, handling customer to earn money. During college, I read the some article about oversees study. I have desired to study outside also meet new people and relate with new culture. After college I applied some university in US for my master. I got admission in one university. Being loyal to ones relationships brings friends who are closer than a brother. The loyalty between friends creates a strong bond that unites their hearts. A loyal friend stands by you in every situation and offers moral, social or financial support. They offer an atmosphere that enhances better communication and understanding by devoting their time to the benefit and betterment of their relationship. A loyalty friendship offers companionship and an opportunity to express love to another person in a greater degree by allowing openness and positive constructive criticism that is effective for the betterment of the relationship. Loyalty is a composition of true love that loves and forgives unconditionally. Loyalty seeks to please your partner by keeping confidential information and doing what is best for the relationship. I have been in a relationship with my girlfriend for the last eight years. When studying back in my country, we vowed to live together after completing my education. However, due to lack of employment and recession, I moved to America for further studies. We made agreement with my her that she will once visit me in America when my visa status allow; after its maturity date which would make it possible to welcome visitors. My girlfriend trusts me; I keep the loyalty by not dating any girls here or being in any sexual relationship. I have kept my promises of not smoking, drinking alcohol and maintaining constant communication to make her feel special. Loyalty is an important factor in sustaining a love relationship. Being loyal is being faithful to the taken oaths, engagements or obligations. In my view, a long lasting relationship that is destined to marriage demands loyalty between the partners. Lack of such an important factor may lead to its break up. I do my best in keeping the loyalty and the promises I made to my girlfriend so that I can see our relationship reach its destiny. Despite the initial difficulties in settling in my new home without her, my loyalty has kept me and guilt envelopes me whenever I try to do anything that breaches our promises. In friendship, loyalty is an important factor to me. I perceive helping each other as a sign of loyalty. Being an international student, I mingle with people from different cultures and countries. I therefore have to form friendships based on trust and loyalty. Friends are important in helping us in various situations. When we offer our loyalty and trust to friends, we expect the same and failure to return such loyalty will taint the friendship or lead to the breakage of such friendly ties. It is therefore important to keep the royalty as friendship connection might help you in time of needs. Loyalty is being there for each other in the times of need. As an international student, I have to get my tuition fee from home. However, delivery of the college fee is at times affected by the banking system. In such situation, loyalty is significant. For example, in the last semester, I was unable to receive my fees on time due to banking service technical problems and the payment deadline was a day away. In this critical situation, a friend of mine from Los Angeles showed his loyalty by convincing his parents to pay my fees. This is the kind of benefits that is accrued from friendship founded on loyalty. Loyalty is applicable in all phases of life. Back home, a family friend was undergoing a financial crisis after losing his job. He was living in a mortgage house that he had not completed the installments. Faced with the risk of eviction, he had nowhere to run and his wife was expectant. Life became hard and he was in the verge of giving up in life. However, a friend of his whom he had helped a long time ago; when he was in a better financial position came to him. As a payment of the goodwill done to him in the past, he returned the loyalty by paying the entire mortgage installment for him and offered him a job position in his company. Loyalty is driven by karma. What one does to a friend always comes back to him in greater ratios. Loyalty is two-way traffic; if you are loyal towards someone, you expect the same in return. While growing up, I have come across many life experiences that have taught me the importance of loyalty. I believe in the idea of loyalty and I shall remain loyal in all my relationships forever. I also expect all the people that I am closed to return the same loyalty. Loyalty is everywhere and it may take many more forms than the discussed above.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 2032

This paper is created by writer with

ID 281816148

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Detector theses, iceland theses, lime theses, dagger theses, immune theses, international law theses, inclination theses, pale theses, gastrointestinal tract theses, drinkers argumentative essays, assessing essays, enhancing essays, depending essays, damaging essays, looking essays, name server essays, satanic rituals essays, globules essays, xunzi essays, rachel whiteread essays, armstrong custer essays, jim casy essays, live365 essays, numerical cases associated with ethics cases case studies example, the government agency research paper, free just war theory course work example, example of literature review on enhancing hospital supply chain performance, critique of the through other eyes initiative essays example, my sister is sick case study samples, good coontz and folbre essay example, sample business plan on statement of anticipated objectives, free reaction report essay sample, good example of essay on internet mental health issues, dumping international trade research paper samples, good nervous systems case study example, sample critical thinking on q which strategy to pursue, good example of essay on battle royal birthmark, esl mainstreaming critical thinking, free operational human resource management research paper sample, the effect of media violence on teenagers research paper examples, free research paper about human evolution article review, effects of war and peace in the distribution of foreign aid in pakistan research paper examples, free research paper on employee customer service training.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

• 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)

ethics: virtue | friendship | legal obligation and authority | obligations: special | patriotism | Royce, Josiah

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.

Copyright © 2022 by John Kleinig < jkleinig @ jjay . cuny . edu >

• Accessibility

Loyalty And Disloyalty In Relationship

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• Comfort Zone
• Self Efficacy
• Happy Marriage

Related Essays

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.

• 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
• 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
• 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

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

2 Three Dimensions of Loyalty

Author Webpage

• Published: August 1995
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter uses examples from literature to illustrate the three dimensions of loyalty: loyalty to loved ones (friends, lovers, family members), loyalty to a group (nation, political party) and loyalty to God, an essential component of the Judeo-Christian faith. These loyalties may conflict with each other and with rectitude. These conflicts create both tension and balance within the individual.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• Google Scholar Indexing
• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]

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 a library card.

• 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 institution’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 institution’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 ‘Sign in through society site’ 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.

• 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

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

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

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.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Prosecutor in Hunter Biden case plans to call ex-wife, brother's widow as witnesses

In court papers filed ahead of a June 3 trial, special counsel David Weiss’ office suggested they would call multiple women who had relationships with Hunter Biden to testify in his felony gun case , including his ex-wife, Kathleen Buhle, and the widow of his late brother Beau Biden, Hallie Biden.

The revelations emerged late Monday in a trial brief filed by the government. The 97-page document includes the law and evidence prosecutors plan to use to prove that Hunter Biden committed three felonies when he procured a firearm in 2018 while under the influence of drugs.

Hunter Biden has pleaded not guilty.

The filing does not name Buhle or Hallie Biden. But the descriptions make their identities clear.

“Witness 1 was previously married to the defendant,” prosecutors wrote in the filing. “They divorced in April 2017, but through 2018 she would check his vehicle from time to time because she did not want their children in a vehicle with drugs.”

Prosecutors described Witness 3 as a woman who "was in a romantic relationship with the defendant in October 2018, and before and after."

"Witness 3 will also establish that the defendant possessed the gun and she discarded it in an outdoor trash receptacle at the Janssen’s Market in Wilmington, Delaware after removing it from his vehicle," prosecutors wrote.

ABC News has previously reported that Hallie Biden found the Cobra 38SPL revolver and discarded it in a garbage bin.

A third unidentified woman prosecutors plan to call "was previously in a romantic relationship" with Biden and "observed the defendant using crack cocaine frequently—every 20 minutes except when he slept."

Prosecutors in Weiss’ office also indicated that they intend to draw heavily from passages in Hunter Biden’s 2021 memoir, "Beautiful Things," in which Biden addressed his addiction. They also plan to enter into evidence several messages that demonstrate his addiction at the time of his gun purchase, on Oct. 12, 2018.

The trial is scheduled to begin on June 3 in Wilmington, Delaware, before Judge Maryellen Noreika.

Earlier on Monday, Hunter Biden appealed Noreika’s denial of his motion to dismiss the charges. A panel of federal appellate judges has already turned down a similar effort. Noreika has repeatedly blocked Biden’s efforts to delay the trial.

Prosecutors say Biden lied on a federal form about his drug use when he obtained a Colt Cobra 38SPL revolver in 2018, after he later acknowledged in his memoir, "Beautiful Things," that he was addicted to drugs around that time. He owned the firearm for 11 days and never fired it, his attorneys have said.

Biden was indicted by special counsel Weiss last September.

Jackson Walker Says Judge Tried to Mislead Court on Romance (2)

By James Nani

A Jackson Walker partner was asked by a former Texas bankruptcy judge to file a potentially false court disclosure about his relationship with his secret live-in girlfriend, the firm said in court papers.

The Texas law firm’s filing Wednesday in several bankruptcy cases adds a blockbuster new allegation to the still-unfolding scandal surrounding the resignation of David R. Jones, once the busiest corporate bankruptcy judge in the country, after he admitted to the romance with attorney Elizabeth Freeman last year.

Jones, Freeman, and Jackson Walker are all facing litigation accusing them of improperly keeping the relationship out of the public eye.

Jackson Walker said Jones indicated in late 2022 that he wanted the matter kept under wraps, just as the firm was negotiating with Freeman over whether it should disclose the romance — or if she should leave the firm.

The filings provide new details in the timeline of the scandal, which has rocked the tight-knit bankruptcy community.

Freeman had insisted in 2021 that her relationship with Jones was over. But Jackson Walker found out on Feb. 1, 2022, that Jones and Freeman were still in a romantic relationship: a non-bankruptcy law firm partner heard about it from an acquaintance of Freeman’s ex-husband.

Jackson Walker’s management confronted Freeman on March 29 that year. The next day, she admitted that the two had “rekindled their relationship,” the firm said.

Jackson Walker spokesman Jim Wilkinson and Freeman attorney Tom Kirkendall declined to comment. Jones didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

‘Unprecedented Circumstances’

To be retained as counsel, law firms must disclose any connections to with interested parties in a case as part of standard filings in a suit.

Jackson Walker’s latest filings lay out its defense of how it tried to address the Jones-Freeman situation, why it shouldn’t be held responsible for what it says it Jones’ misconduct, and why the US Trustee’s push to claw back its fees should be rejected.

The “unprecedented circumstances required a thoughtful approach” that led to months of talks between the firm and Freeman’s attorney, Tom Kirkendall, about how to disclose the relationship. The situation was especially sensitive because Jones “was convinced” that the rules didn’t require disclosure of the relationship, Jackson Walker said.

By Oct. 28, 2022, Freeman was given a draft agreement to withdraw from Jackson Walker. The draft included language that Freeman would “confer and cooperate” with the firm when it came to existing clients, and allowed Freeman and the firm to continue to work together after she left.

As negotiations continued, Jones sometime in October or November 2022 invited Freeman’s colleague and Jackson Walker bankruptcy partner Matthew Cavenaugh into his chambers after a hearing, the firm said.

Jones told Cavenaugh that as the judge, he “alone” was required to disclose the relationship with Freeman—not the firm—and “insinuated that he was displeased with JW’s desire for a full disclosure of his romantic relationship with Ms. Freeman,” according to the filing.

Jones at the end of the conversation gave Cavenaugh a proposed disclosure that described Freeman as Jones’ former law clerk, noted they were former law partners, and said they maintained a “close personal relationship.” Jones’ proposal didn’t fully address the romantic element of their relationship, according to the firm.

Jones instructed Jackson Walker to use the proposed disclosure in future cases the firm brought before him in court, saying the firm “needs to make this happen,” according to the filing. The proposed disclosure didn’t mention Jones’ and Freeman’s shared home, either, according to Jackson Walker.

“JW determined that the disclosure was potentially misleading or untruthful because it did not fully disclose the nature of Judge Jones’s relationship with Ms. Freeman,” the firm said. “As a result, JW declined to use Judge Jones’s proposed disclosure, and proceeded with its separation from Ms. Freeman.”

Says ‘Acted Reasonably’

Jackson Walker made the statements about Jones and the timeline of the situation in several bankruptcy cases on Wednesday, including in the Chapter 11 of JCPenney .

The Justice Department’s bankruptcy monitor, the US Trustee’s office, is seeking to claw back at least $13 million in fees Jackson Walker earned in cases in which the firm failed to disclose the romantic relationship, including in JCPenney’s.

In the JCPenney filing, Jackson Walker said it didn’t violate any ethical rules, disclosure obligations, or other duties as alleged by the US Trustee. Jackson Walker “could not disclose information it did not know” and “acted reasonably,” the firm said.

Jackson Walker complained that the US Trustee has been targeting the firm, but so far had failed to impose any consequences on Jones or Freeman.

“It is ironic that the U.S. Trustee alleges JW should have disclosed the nature of the relationship to the same judge who knew of the relationship, allegedly had a duty to disclose or recuse himself, and who knowingly declined to do so,” Jackson Walker said.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on Thursday.

The case is J. C. Penney Direct Marketing Services LLC , Bankr. S.D. Tex., No. 20-20184, response 5/22/24.

To contact the reporter on this story: James Nani in New York at [email protected]

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Maria Chutchian at [email protected]

Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:

Learn about bloomberg law.

AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.

Already a subscriber?

Log in to keep reading or access research tools.