essay definition of loyalty

• 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

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Never Stop Learning

Essay On Loyalty – 1300 Words Essay

The words “loyalty” and “faithfulness” are very closely related, but loyalty is more than just a promise. It’s more like a dedication to something or someone. Loyalty means that you will never betray that which or who you have pledged your allegiance to in the form of commitment, devotion, or support; both as an emotional connection and personal obligation.

When it comes to human relationships, some are born and some are made. This includes the one we make with ourselves. We cannot simply be “born” loyal to something or someone because that doesn’t exist. No one is born loyal, we must earn our loyalty by standing by our decisions and commitments, no matter how hard they may be to do so.

To make a good impression on others and develop a loyal friendship or relationship is the first step toward achieving something outside of oneself – whether that’s a goal or dream – but it is merely the first step towards life itself.

It’s that very first step though that is the most important because it prepares us for the eventual outcome of what we want to accomplish. It’s like planning a party in the future. If you don’t have all of the paperwork and preparations done on time, you’ll never be able to throw your party when the time comes.

Likewise, if we don’t make our first steps in life with a good plan of action, following through with our goals and dreams will be almost impossible. That’s why we say that doing your best or being your “best” is to put forth the greatest effort at something you’re trying to accomplish by making sacrifices along the way – even if those sacrifices are hard to bear.

It is the effort that we put forth to something that tells the materials of our character. This shows us that not everyone can make a promise and keep it. Having a loyal personality means that you’re not only willing to keep your promises once you’ve made them, but also to sacrifice for them by being devoted enough to sacrifice your time, energy, and emotions just to stay on course with what you want.

For example, have you ever had an argument with someone who promised something they didn’t follow through with? Do you remember how it felt after they didn’t follow through on their commitment? That’s one way that damaged was done in the relationship because somebody couldn’t be loyal to their own promise or commitment.

On the same note, remember that just because someone is loyal to you, that does not mean that they’re going to be able to be your friend or even stay friends with you for the rest of your life. Being loyal means staying devoted to what you’ve promised and committed yourself to from the start; it’s an emotional connection – a loyalty bond – between two people or things.

It doesn’t mean that you won’t have disagreements or arguments, but at the root of your relationship, it’s mutual respect and dedication for one another. If you have that type of connection with someone, loyalty will always keep you moving forward even when it’s difficult or painful.

Basically, being loyal means putting forth the effort to do what you’ve promised and committed yourself to. If you can be loyal in your friendships and relationships, then eventually everybody else will follow suit!

In a relationship with others, that means being loyal to one another is essential because it allows both parties to move forward with their lives. They’re able to learn from each other’s efforts and mistakes because they are able to support each other as they grow together as well.

If you’re in a relationship with someone and they are being un-loyal to you, then chances are you have a friendship or relationship with them that’s not going to last for a long time because the person is unreliable in their commitment to you. You will also not be able to trust them because they have proven themselves untrustworthy.

You will never truly know what to expect from them because you’ll never know which mood they’re going to be in that day. You’ll never really know how they feel about you because the one-sided relationship that you have with them means that they can’t even open up to you and tell you about their life when they need something from you.

At the very least, he or she will not be able to tell you how he or she feels personally about your decision. They may just be trying to keep up appearances and put up a front when it’s obvious that nobody is really being loyal to one another.

In some instances, people may want or expect you to be their life support system and never let go of them when times get difficult or when something needs repaired or fixed within the relationship. You may feel that you’re being used in a way that’s not really fair, but this is how it is because loyalty is something that you have to give as long as it’s a valid relationship.

If they’re not committing themselves to you, then they shouldn’t expect you to be committed to them because loyalty isn’t something that happens by chance. It has to be taken seriously when it comes down to relationships and your actions and behaviors towards another person in your life. When people are loyal, it means they’re doing something right for themselves and others around them. They’ve chosen a path of commitment and when people choose loyalty, it shows the world who they really are at heart.

Loyalty in everyday life is different than loyalty in personal relationships. It’s more about doing what you said you were going to do for others or your community.

For example, if you are in charge of the neighborhood watch committee, it would be considered loyalty on your end to make sure that everyone is protecting their own personal property and watch out for one another when they’re out and about. If someone happens to come around with bad intentions, then they’re going to know that somebody is watching them whether they meant it or not.

They might even be a little nervous or hesitant as they perform their act of crime against the community because they know someone is looking out for everyone that lives there.

Loyalty is a way of knowing what someone is thinking or feeling about you or a situation and not being selfish with your feelings. It’s about not being a hypocrite.

When people do things for others, it makes them feel good inside because they’re able to give back and bring joy and happiness into the world for other people. They’re also able to get in touch with their inner self when they are able to do something genuine for another person because that person isn’t going to turn around and frame them in a negative light if they speak up about what’s going on or say something they don’t want out in the open.

Loyalty also means when somebody is able to trust you with information or a specific situation, then it shows that they’re confident in what you can do for them and what your intentions are for being in their life. If they trust you, then they’ll have faith in your honesty and integrity when it comes down to compromising or resolving the situation at hand.

It also means how kind you are and how genuine you are when talking to someone. You don’t have to say something just because you feel like saying it, but rather because it’s the right thing to do. It’s about being honest and sincere. It’s about taking care of yourself as well as others.

Be loyal to yourself and do what you think is best for yourself and to others no matter what.

Read more Essay

Written by Wicky

Hello, My name is Angel Wicky, I'm from Bangalore (India). I am a teacher & I love teaching. Teaching is the best job in the world. Education is the basic and essential part of any human being and teachers are the base of any education system. I'm really happy to be a part of it.

You can reach me via e-mail [email protected]

Regards Wicky

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

Top 10 Fun Facts About Egypt

Essay On Nutrition – 2000 Words Essay

• 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
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Why Is Loyalty So Important?

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

Yolanda Renteria, LPC, is a licensed therapist, somatic practitioner, national certified counselor, adjunct faculty professor, speaker specializing in the treatment of trauma and intergenerational trauma.

Justin Lewis / Getty Images

• Characteristics
• Benefits and Drawbacks

How to Build Loyalty

Loyalty is a virtue we value in relationships with family, friends, romantic partners, workplaces, organizations, religions, and nations. But what is loyalty, and why is it important?

This article explores the characteristics, benefits, and drawbacks of loyalty, as well as some strategies to build loyalty in relationships.

People tend to define loyalty by what it is not (for example, not being betrayed, cheated on, or abandoned), but loyalty is much more than the absence of mistreatment.

Characteristics of Loyalty

Loyalty is faithfulness, dedication, honesty, trust, and support in a relationship, says Sabrina Romanoff, PsyD, clinical psychologist and professor at Yeshiva University in New York City. It requires an emotional commitment and engenders a sense of identity. Below, Dr. Romanoff explains some of the characteristics of loyalty.

Steadfastness and Support

Loyalty means being there for someone through the highs and lows, and staying by their side regardless of the circumstances.

Loyalty involves accepting and loving someone for who they are and not threatening to leave when things become challenging. People display loyalty by weathering storms together, providing support, and sticking them out.

Kitzcorner / Getty Images

Consistency

Loyalty means being consistent in your treatment, behavior, and regard for another—being the person they can always count on. Loyalty also involves consistently treating the other person with kindness, fairness, and generosity of spirit.

Honesty and Transparency

Being vulnerable and not hiding parts of your identity or parts of your life are important aspects of loyalty. People who share their thoughts and feelings display a willingness to be known and to know others in an authentic, open way.

Marko Geber / Getty Images

Benefits and Drawbacks of Loyalty

Loyalty can have both benefits and drawbacks, as Dr. Romanoff explains.

Benefits of Loyalty

Loyalty can strengthen relationships because people are more honest and forthcoming when they know the other person is loyal. It engenders trust and closeness in relationships.

Sabrina Romanoff, PsyD

Relationships with loyalty are stronger because both people can be themselves and share what they’re experiencing without fear that the other person will abandon them.

This is true for romantic, work, family, and social relationships. When we feel others are loyal to us, we can be authentic and take off the socially acceptable filters that we tend to display our behaviors through.

Loyalty helps build support , which is important for mental, emotional, and physical well-being. Knowing you have people who have your back and will be there for you when you need them can help you feel secure.

Drawbacks of Loyalty

Loyalty can be harmful when your allegiance to the other person becomes consistently detrimental to you.

Some people remain in relationships that no longer serve them. In these instances, their sense of loyalty can cause them to become exploited or abused. Although loyalty is an important trait, it should never be used against someone.

Someone who is loyal can have difficulty recognizing when someone they love is manipulating them. An outside perspective from a friend, family member, colleague, or therapist who has their best interests at heart can be helpful.

You can't always sever relationships completely, but setting boundaries with people who are taking advantage of your loyalty is important.

Dr. Romanoff suggests these tips—and some time—to help build loyalty.

• Show appreciation: Show that you value the person. Communicate how important their presence is in your life. Don’t take them for granted . Showing someone your loyalty can foster their loyalty, too.
• Be supportive: Offer encouragement when they're struggling, and help them face their problems. Don’t give up on them when challenges arise. They should know you’re there for them through thick and thin.
• Maintain their confidence: If they share their secrets, hopes, plans, fears, or insecurities with you, respect their privacy and avoid passing judgment.
• Keep promises: Make it a point to follow through on commitments. Be honest if you can't.
• Honor your relationship . Be faithful in whatever way you and your partner define that.
• Be honest: Don't keep secrets. Be authentic with them, even when vulnerability is uncomfortable. Being your true self helps promote trust and loyalty.
• Act in their best interests: Acting on ulterior motives, talking behind their back, or embarrassing them in public shows disloyalty.
• Address problems within the relationship: Manage issues directly instead of talking about them to other people. This shows that you value your relationship and don't seek or require external validation.
• Treat them fairly: If you’re having a disagreement , consider their perspective, even if it clashes with yours. Ignoring or avoiding difficult conversations can cause issues later on. 

A Word From Verywell

Loyalty can help build strong relationships, social support , and mutual emotional health. Being honest, supportive, respectful, and appreciative fortifies this all-important building block of a committed relationship.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Loyalty .

Hong JW, Hong AJ, Kim SR. Exploring implicit and explicit attitudes of employees’ authentic organizational loyalty . Front Psychol . 2021;12:666869. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.666869

Harandi TF, Taghinasab MM, Nayeri TD. The correlation of social support with mental health: A meta-analysis . Electron Physician . 2017;9(9):5212-5222. doi:10.19082/5212

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

• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

Definition of loyalty

• devotedness
• faithfulness
• steadfastness

fidelity , allegiance , fealty , loyalty , devotion , piety mean faithfulness to something to which one is bound by pledge or duty.

fidelity implies strict and continuing faithfulness to an obligation, trust, or duty.

allegiance suggests an adherence like that of citizens to their country.

fealty implies a fidelity acknowledged by the individual and as compelling as a sworn vow.

loyalty implies a faithfulness that is steadfast in the face of any temptation to renounce, desert, or betray.

devotion stresses zeal and service amounting to self-dedication.

piety stresses fidelity to obligations regarded as natural and fundamental.

Examples of loyalty in a Sentence

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'loyalty.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

alteration of Middle English leawte, lewte , from Anglo-French lealté, leauté , from leal, leial loyal

15th century, in the meaning defined above

Phrases Containing loyalty

• divided loyalty

Dictionary Entries Near loyalty

loyal opposition

loyalty board

Cite this Entry

“Loyalty.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loyalty. Accessed 6 Apr. 2024.

Kids Definition

Kids definition of loyalty, more from merriam-webster on loyalty.

Nglish: Translation of loyalty for Spanish Speakers

Britannica English: Translation of loyalty for Arabic Speakers

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

The tangled history of 'it's' and 'its', more commonly misspelled words, why does english have so many silent letters, your vs. you're: how to use them correctly, every letter is silent, sometimes: a-z list of examples, popular in wordplay, the words of the week - apr. 5, 12 bird names that sound like compliments, 10 scrabble words without any vowels, 12 more bird names that sound like insults (and sometimes are), 8 uncommon words related to love, games & quizzes.

• Daily Crossword
• Word Puzzle
• Word Finder
• Word of the Day
• Synonym of the Day
• Word of the Year
• Language stories
• All featured
• Gender and sexuality
• All pop culture
• Grammar Coach ™
• Writing hub
• Grammar essentials
• Commonly confused
• All writing tips
• Pop culture
• Writing tips

the state or quality of being loyal ; faithfulness to commitments or obligations.

faithful adherence to a sovereign, government, leader, cause, etc.

an example or instance of faithfulness, adherence, or the like: a man with fierce loyalties.

Origin of loyalty

Synonym study for loyalty, other words for loyalty, opposites for loyalty, other words from loyalty.

• non·loy·al·ty, noun, plural non·loy·al·ties.
• o·ver·loy·al·ty, noun, plural o·ver·loy·al·ties.
• un·loy·al·ty, noun, plural un·loy·al·ties.

Words Nearby loyalty

• Loyal Order of Moose
• loyalty card
• Loyalty Islands

Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2024

How to use loyalty in a sentence

Oshinsky said that open rates were the initial metric that BuzzFeed tracked when launching courses, but later that transitioned to measuring loyalty — the percentage of the audience that opened all of the emails throughout the series.

Voters tend to not like blind loyalty , and prefer representatives who are willing to compromise with the opposition party.

That includes data such as hashed email addresses or loyalty card information, which is privacy-protected, Clarken told Digiday.

Election officials today disqualified a dozen pro-democracy candidates from running in September’s legislative elections, effectively signalling that only those pledging blind loyalty to the state will be allowed to run for a seat.

He added that most people create their brand loyalties when they are 18-years-old.

For instance, Best Buy has over 40 million members in its customer loyalty program, Reward Zone.

What is it about villains/anti-heroes that inspires such fan loyalty ?

At that age I had little leverage other than work ethic, intense loyalty to the president, and the strength of my ideas.

Joe Biden and John McCain professed undying love and loyalty for each other, even though, as Biden noted, “I drive him crazy.”

Baghdadi accepted the various loyalty oaths three days later in an audio message released on Nov. 13.

It was a great thing to see the future King and Queen of England, and our loyalty and enthusiasm knew no bounds.

Felipe's phrase was like one inspired; another duty, another work, another loyalty , waiting for Ramona.

Their obstreperous loyalty might seem inconsistent with this unideal character, but it is only seeming.

Well, to steer a middle course between my duty to my force and my loyalty to K. is not so simple as it might seem.

The fervor of an Englishman's loyalty is usually in a direct ratio with the extent of his material possessions.

British Dictionary definitions for loyalty

/ ( ˈlɔɪəltɪ ) /

the state or quality of being loyal

(often plural) a feeling of allegiance

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012

Essay on Loyalty

Students are often asked to write an essay on Loyalty in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Loyalty

Understanding loyalty.

Loyalty means being faithful and dedicated. It’s about standing by someone or something, even when it’s not easy. You show loyalty to friends by sticking up for them.

Loyalty to Friends

Loyalty to friends means being there for them in good and bad times. You keep their secrets, support their goals, and respect their views.

Loyalty to Family

Family loyalty involves love and trust. You protect your family members, help them, and forgive them when they make mistakes.

Loyalty to Country

Loyalty to your country means respecting its laws, celebrating its history, and working towards its betterment.

Also check:

• Paragraph on Loyalty
• Speech on Loyalty

250 Words Essay on Loyalty

Loyalty, a virtue often revered and sought after, is a complex concept. It refers to the steadfast allegiance or affection towards a person, group, or cause. Loyalty is not merely a passive state of existence, but an active quality demonstrated through actions and attitudes.

Loyalty’s Multifaceted Nature

Loyalty can be classified into different types: personal loyalty, organizational loyalty, and ideological loyalty. Personal loyalty is the devotion one feels towards another individual, often grounded in shared experiences or emotional bonds. Organizational loyalty, on the other hand, pertains to the allegiance to a particular institution or company, often driven by shared goals or mutual benefits. Ideological loyalty is the commitment to a set of beliefs or principles, regardless of personal or organizational affiliations.

The Ethical Implications of Loyalty

Loyalty is not a virtue that stands alone; it is deeply interconnected with other ethical considerations like honesty, integrity, and fairness. It requires a careful balance. Blind loyalty can lead to unethical actions, while lack of loyalty can result in instability and distrust. The ethical implications of loyalty necessitate a discerning judgment, where one must weigh the value of loyalty against the potential harm it may cause.

Loyalty in the Modern World

In today’s rapidly changing world, loyalty is being constantly redefined. With the advent of globalization and digitalization, the traditional boundaries that once defined our loyalties are being blurred. This calls for a more nuanced understanding of loyalty, one that can adapt to the evolving societal landscapes.

In conclusion, loyalty is a nuanced virtue, demanding a balance between steadfast allegiance and ethical considerations. It is an active quality, capable of shaping relationships, organizations, and societies.

500 Words Essay on Loyalty

Introduction: the concept of loyalty.

Loyalty, a virtue often revered across cultures and societies, is a complex and multifaceted concept. It is a trait that forms the foundation of many relationships, be it personal or professional. Loyalty is an unwavering commitment and dedication to a person, cause, or belief, often tested in trying times. However, it is not a mere blind allegiance; it is a conscious choice to stand by despite challenges.

The Dimensions of Loyalty

Loyalty is not a one-dimensional concept; it has different facets. Personal loyalty is the commitment we show towards our friends, family, and partners. It involves trust, respect, and mutual understanding. Professional loyalty, on the other hand, is the allegiance towards an organization or a profession. It is often associated with dedication, reliability, and integrity at work. Then there is loyalty towards a nation or community, often referred to as patriotism or allegiance. It is the commitment to contribute and work for the betterment of the community or country.

Loyalty: A Double-Edged Sword

While loyalty is a virtue, it can also be a double-edged sword. Blind loyalty can lead to harmful consequences. For instance, loyalty towards a person can sometimes overshadow their wrongdoings, leading to ethical dilemmas. Similarly, blind loyalty towards an organization can often lead to ignoring its unethical practices. Therefore, it is essential to balance loyalty with critical thinking and ethical judgment.

Loyalty and Ethics

Loyalty and ethics are closely intertwined. Ethical loyalty is not about blind allegiance but about making conscious decisions based on moral principles. It involves standing by someone or something not because it is easy or beneficial, but because it is the right thing to do. Ethical loyalty promotes mutual respect, trust, and understanding, fostering healthier relationships and societies.

Loyalty in the Digital Age

In the digital age, the concept of loyalty is evolving. In the era of social media and online interactions, loyalty is often gauged through likes, shares, and online endorsements. However, loyalty in the digital age should not be reduced to these superficial markers. It is about maintaining the same level of commitment, respect, and trust, even in the virtual world. It is about standing up for the right causes, supporting the right people, and making ethical choices online.

Conclusion: The Enduring Value of Loyalty

In conclusion, loyalty is a complex yet essential virtue. It is not just about allegiance but about making conscious, ethical choices. It is about standing by someone or something, not because of convenience, but because of a shared belief in their value. In a rapidly changing world, the essence of loyalty remains the same – it is about commitment, trust, and respect. As we navigate the complexities of our personal, professional, and digital lives, let us remember to uphold the enduring value of loyalty.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Love
• Essay on Lord of the Flies
• Essay on Living Sustainably in Harmony with Nature

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Life Loyalty

Definition Of The Concept Of Loyalty

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

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

• Persistence
• Personal Finance
• Nonconformist

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
• 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 Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• 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 Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Acquisition
• 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 (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• 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 Media
• Music and Culture
• Music and Religion
• 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 Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• 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
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• 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 Society
• Law and Politics
• 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
• Clinical Neuroscience
• 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
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• 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 Games
• Computer Security
• 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 Ethics
• Business History
• Business Strategy
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• 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 History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Systems
• 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 Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• 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
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

Loyalty: An Essay on the Morality of Relationships

Beekman Professor of Law

Author Webpage

• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

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

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]
• Google Scholar Indexing

Personal account

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

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.

Sign in through your institution

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.

Sign in with a library card

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.

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Student Essays

Essays-Paragraphs-Speeches

Essay on Loyalty | Meaning, Value & Importance

Leave a Comment

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.

List of Topics

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.

A loyalty essay discusses the concept of loyalty, its importance, and how it manifests in various aspects of life, such as relationships, friendships, and professional commitments.

You can write about the definition of loyalty, its role in personal and professional relationships, examples of loyal behavior, and how loyalty contributes to trust, integrity, and long-lasting connections.

Loyalty is important in life because it fosters trust, strengthens relationships, and provides a sense of security. It promotes integrity, commitment, and a sense of belonging in various personal and social contexts.

Loyalty is the quality of being faithful, committed, and devoted to someone or something. It implies unwavering support, allegiance, and trustworthiness in relationships, friendships, and obligations.

Related Posts:

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

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

Dr. Karlyna PhD

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

2 pages / 830 words

4 pages / 1937 words

2 pages / 859 words

4.5 pages / 2031 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

Loyalty is a complex and multifaceted concept that has been the subject of much debate and discussion throughout history. It is a fundamental human value that is essential for maintaining relationships, whether they be personal, [...]

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 [...]

In the epic poem Beowulf the titular character is portrayed as a fearless and heroic warrior, known for his strength, bravery, and unwavering dedication to protecting his people. However, beneath his seemingly invincible [...]

Dogs have long been considered man's best friend, and for good reason. Their loyalty, companionship, and unwavering love make them the superior pet choice over cats. In this essay, we will explore the many reasons why dogs are [...]

In the Adventures of Tom Sawyer written by Mark Twain, friendship and loyalty are concepts that are important in the lives of humans. In this novel, Tom makes new friends and new experiences. However, he especially treasures [...]

"Loyalty is a noble quality, so long as it is not blind and does not exclude the higher loyalty to truth and decency." Putting one's faith in something that is not real is worse than putting one's faith in nothing at all. [...]

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

Abolish all Treason and Sedition Laws

The word "treason" has enjoyed something of a renaissance in recent years—on the Left. It used to be more popular on the Right. During the Cold War, conservatives frequently employed the word to demand their ideological enemies be exiled or executed. Nowadays, anti-immigration activists frequently denounce their opponents as "the treason lobby." 

But it's on the Left that the word appears to have its most devoted advocates at the moment. Robert Reich, for instance, is sure that Donald Trump is guilty of treason , and Trump has been accused of treason since at least 2018 for a variety of supposed crimes such as "collusion" with the Russians. In the wake of the January 6 riot, there has been no shortage of commentary denouncing Trump supporters overall as guilty of treason. 

On the other hand, those who suspect—correctly—that neither Trump nor his supporters have done anything that fits the legal definition of treason have often turned to the lesser charge of "sedition" instead. 

Neither term has any place in a free society. Words like "treason" and "sedition" are both premised on the idea that members of society can somehow betray the regime, and that maintenance of the regime is something everyone ought to value. Even worse, the use of these terms suggests that the user believes those guilty of treason or sedition should be subject to harsher penalties because their "seditious" acts were committed against the very special people who work for a regime.

In in free society, however, it is recognized that no one "owes" the government allegiance or approval or loyalty. In a free society, government agents like US soldiers or the US Capitol police are not special people deserving of special legal protections beyond what any private citizen would receive. In a free society, what is treason one day is not suddenly treason the next day because there are different people in power.  

Unfortunately, treason and sedition (of various types) have long been prosecutable offenses in federal law. Moreover, most state constitutions and state statute books contain their own provisions for prosecuting these "crimes," accompanied by often-harsh penalties. These laws—at any level of government—are neither necessary nor prudent, and they exist primarily to enhance the powers that regimes have over their hapless taxpayers and subjects. 

The time has come to abolish treason and sedition from America's courts and constitutions altogether. 

Subjects Do Not Owe the Regime Anything

Terms like “treason” and “traitor” perpetuate the myth that Americans owe something to the regime, or that the regime’s coercive monopoly is somehow based on a free and voluntary agreement—an imaginary “social contract”—between the regime and those who live under it.

The so-called "social contract," however, is obviously no contract at all. We can see this in how only one side of the contract is held to the bargain. We are told we ordinary people must pay taxes and be loyal to the regime as "the price we pay for civilization," or because the regime "keeps us safe."  If we don't keep up our end of the "contract," we are likely to end up in prison. But what happens when the regime doesn't keep up its end of the bargain? What happens when the government allows things like 9/11 to happen , or the regime floods cities with unscreened foreign nationals by doling out free housing and free cash to anyone who shows up? What happens when police officers refuse to confront a school gunman because the safety of government agents is deemed more important? Is the contract voided? Of course not. You, fellow subject, are required to keep paying for that social contract no matter what. And if the regime doesn't provide that "civilization" or safety on its end of the "contract"? Well, then you'll probably be told you're just not paying enough in taxes. The idea that it is possible to betray or commit treason against so fraudulent a contract is an absurdity. 

The great American libertarian Lysander Spooner noticed this in the mid nineteenth century. As shown in his 1867 essay “ No Treason ,” Americans are not morally bound by the US Constitution or its agents. The relationship between the average American and the US government is not a contractual one.  At best , the Constitution was only ever a contract between the those who ratified it and the regime. Those people are now all dead. 

For Spooner , unless a person gives explicit consent and approval of the Constitution and its notions of treason (among other notions) then a person cannot be said to be any sort of traitor:

Clearly this individual consent is indispensable to the idea of treason; for if a man has never consented or agreed to support a government, he breaks no faith in refusing to support it. And if he makes war upon it, he does so as an open enemy, and not as a traitor that is, as a betrayer, or treacherous friend.

The Regime and Its Agents Are Not Special 

A key premise underlying the concepts of treason and sedition is the notion that government employees and government property are somehow very special. Crimes against government police, government soldiers, bureaucrats, and government property are considered to be special crimes worthy of longer sentences. That is, laws like treason and sedition are similar to so-called hate-crime laws in which defendants are subject to enhanced penalties because of who the victim is. 

Opponents of hate-crime laws have long pointed out that crimes ought to be judged on the nature of the crime, and not on whether or not a person is a member of some arbitrarily protected class. These critics are correct. Unfortunately, they fail to notice that the same premise is employed in cases of treason and sedition: these crimes are treated more harshly in law because the victims are members of a special protected class. 

Moreover, as opponents of hate-crime laws have pointed out, it is already illegal to murder people and steal property. Thus, if a so-called traitor or insurrectionist trespasses on government property, vandalizes that property, or assaults government employees, these acts are all already illegal. It's already illegal to blow up buildings with people inside. It's already illegal to murder people, whether or not those people are wearing a special government uniform. 

Thus, laws like treason and sedition exist primarily to send a message: the message that the regime's people and the regime's property are more valuable than the people and property of the productive private sector. 

What Was Not Treason Yesterday Is Treason Today

In a free society, the legal nature of crime does not change from one day to the next simply because the rulers change. 

In the case of treason and sedition, however, this is common, and it has certainly happened in America. After open hostilities began between the American colonies and the British Empire in April 1775, many American secessionists had been engaging in countless acts that were clearly defined as treason and sedition according to British law. 

This didn't stop the Americans from turning around and declaring all their own domestic opponents traitors. For example, on June 5, 1776, the Continental Congress issued a proclamation stating :

That all persons, members of, or owing allegiance to any of the United Colonies, as before described, who shall levy war against any of the said colonies within the same, or be adherent to the king of Great Britain, or others the enemies of the said colonies, or any of them, within the same, giving to him or them aid and comfort, are guilty of treason against such colony.

Note that in this definition of treason, one need not even engage in overt acts against the regime. A traitor need only be an "adherent to the king of Great Britain." In other words, the people who were not traitors in 1775 are transformed into traitors in 1776 based on little more than the fact that a different group of people declare themselves to be the rightful state monopolists. (The irony of a group of traitors declaring last year's non-traitors to be this year's new traitors will forever illustrate the moral incoherence of modern states.)

The Continental Congress wasn't content to leave it at that, either. The June 5 declaration further recommended "to the legislatures of the several United Colonies, to pass laws for punishing, in such manner as to them shall seem fit, such persons before described, as shall be provably attainted of open deed, by people of their condition, of any of the treasons before described."

Subsequently, all of the colonies except Georgia enacted treason statutes of their own . 

The Americans, of course, are not alone in pioneering this rather shameful phenomenon. History provides many cases in which changes in regime turned loyal activists into traitors and seditionists in a matter of hours, all depending on which ruling regime happened to be in power. The waves of secession and political independence that came after the Second World War and the Cold War changed the definition of treason and loyalty for hundreds of millions of human beings, all based on where new arbitrary national borders were drawn. 

Abolish Treason and Sedition in Law 

The legal language of sedition and treason remain important to regimes for their propagandistic power. When ruling regimes define treason in their legal documents, the regimes are establishing that they have attained the status of a state monopolist and assert that the regime will punish any challenges to that monopoly power more harshly than the regime will punish mere ordinary acts of trespass, theft, or violence. In the case of sedition, states establish they will even punish words that challenge the state's monopoly. As historian Mark Cornwell puts it in his study of treason in the Austrian Empire , regimes" have used treason as a powerful moral instrument for managing allegiance."

States know that treason and sedition laws are about much more than matters of law and order. They are essential components of enhancing state power. 

To simply erase this language from the federal and state constitutions, however, is not sufficient. History has shown that governments regard legal silence as consent to an endless array of new and abusive laws. Rather, language similar to that of the First Amendment shows more promise: "Congress/the legislature shall make no law for the creation or punishment of treason or sedition ..." And so on. 

This of course, would also be insufficient as no written bill of rights or constitution is sufficient in itself to prevent despotism. Yet, such language would serve as a helpful reminder that treason and sedition are fundamentally concepts that exist to protect regimes, and not the people.

The Mises Institute exists solely on voluntary contributions from readers like you. Support our students and faculty in their work for Austrian economics, freedom, and peace.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Critic’s Notebook

The Condiment Wars Come for Chile Crisp (or Crunch)

David Chang’s Momofuku company is waging a trademark battle for the term “chile crunch.” But what does ownership mean for such an everyday pleasure?

By Tejal Rao

Tejal Rao is a critic at large for New York Times Food and Cooking.

It’s hard to pinpoint exactly when we reached peak chile crisp in the United States, but if you were to inspect my kitchen today you’d see, alongside an old jar of Lao Gan Ma — years ago, the only chile crisp I could easily find in the food shops nearby — at least a half-dozen others.

While each jar contains a spicy crimson sediment under oil, some have the sweetness of star anise, while others are deepened with tiny dried shrimp or fried shallots. Some have the delicate crunch of fried sesame seeds, garlic or crushed peanuts, or the mouth-numbing tingle of Sichuan peppercorns.

Some of these preparations are rooted in regional Chinese or diasporic traditions, family customs or someone’s idiosyncratic taste, and each is different from the others. (Yes, I really do need them all!)

You might call these condiments chile oil or chile crisp or chile crunch, and the truth is that I didn’t give the precise language of the category too much thought until Thursday.

That’s when The Guardian reported that Momofuku , the global culinary company founded by the celebrity chef David Chang, owned the trademark for the term “chile crunch” and was moving to protect it, while seeking similar trademark status for “chili crunch,” spelled with an “i.”

Momofuku has been sending cease-and-desist letters to other food companies that use either phrase in their marketing, and several have already stopped, fearing a costly legal fight, according to The Guardian.

But how can anyone presume to own the English translation for a basic condiment? Like mustard and mayonnaise, chile crunch might inspire feverish brand loyalty, but surely it’s impossible to own.

All kinds of battles play out in the condiment aisle, where immigrant foods are strategically packaged for American consumers. The more success a condiment finds and the more identifiable it becomes to consumers, the more intense these skirmishes become.

Perhaps the best-known recent branding tussle involved sriracha. Though Huy Fong Foods popularized its version of the squeezable chile sauce in the United States, David Tran, the company’s Vietnam-born owner, hadn’t trademarked the word, which he’d borrowed from Thai cooks.

By the time he realized its popularity, it was too late. Sriracha had leveled up. It was in fast-food restaurants and fine-dining and packaged foods and ramen. By then, “sriracha” had become a shared cultural reference point in the United States. For better or for worse, it didn’t belong to anyone.

Momofuku is a big company doing what big companies do, protecting its brand; it contends that its chile crunch is so distinctive and has become so well-known since it debuted in 2020 that it defines the term. Notably, it acquired the trademark for “chile crunch” in a legal settlement after a rival company accused it of trademark infringement, according to The Guardian. (Mr. Chang did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

“It should never have been trademarked,” said Jing Gao, who owns the company Fly By Jing , whose Sichuan chile crisp helped popularize the condiment. “It’s a descriptive, generic, cultural term, but in Chinese, there are numerous ways of referring to sauces like these with tons of variations, regional styles and techniques.”

Chile crisp and chile crunch have become the American vernacular for all of them. Though Lao Gan Ma, with its recognizable red label, was one of the few commercialized versions of chile crisp available in the United States a decade ago, that condiment opened the door for a competitive, fast-growing category in the last few years.

Ownership seems antithetical to its pleasures. Chile crisp isn’t a precise condiment with a rigid definition, but one translation for an extended family of condiments with infinite variations, a basic template that seems to invite playfulness, variation and adaptation across kitchens.

At least five businesses that received letters from Momofuku have desisted, but not Homiah . Michelle Tew is the tiny company’s owner and only full-time employee, and Ms. Gao is an investor in it. Ms. Tew’s shrimp-rich chile sauce is a Malay product that she wasn’t sure how to market when she started raising funds through Kickstarter in 2021.

How could she translate her family’s condiment for American consumers? She settled on “sambal chile crunch” because it clicked for people and caused the least confusion.

“I’m going to chance it and see how it goes,” said Ms. Tew, whom Momofuku gave 90 days to respond. “If I don’t stand my ground, it would be a very successful strategy for Momofuku.”

Follow New York Times Cooking on Instagram , Facebook , YouTube , TikTok and Pinterest . Get regular updates from New York Times Cooking, with recipe suggestions, cooking tips and shopping advice .

Tejal Rao is a critic at large. She writes about food and culture for The Times and contributes regularly to The New York Times Magazine. More about Tejal Rao

More on Food and Dining

Keep tabs on dining trends, restaurant reviews and recipes..

Whether for a casual cookout or an elegant dinner, these three festive dishes are easy to pull off for any spring party .

Dal, the ultimate comfort food for many across South Asia and its diaspora, is cheap, unfussy and adaptable .

In the South, many Black families have made and eaten chew bread — a dessert similar to a blondie  — for generations.

Flamboyant displays of fake flowers at restaurants have turned into a maximalist design movement , with one man as a chief trendsetter.

Sign up for our “ The Veggie ” newsletter to get vegetarian recipes  for weeknight cooking, packed lunches and dinner parties.

Eating in New York City

Pete Wells, our dining critic, has unveiled his annual ranking of the 100 best restaurants in New York City .

Once the pre-eminent food court in Flushing, Queens, for regional Chinese cuisines, the Golden Mall has reopened after a four-year renovation. A new one in Manhattan  is on the horizon.

At Noksu, dinner is served below the street, a few yards from the subway turnstiles. But the room and the food seem unmoored from any particular place .

You thought Old World opulence was over ? A prolific chef gives it a new and very personal spin at Café Carmellini.