essay on loyalty and faithfulness

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.

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

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.

Essay on Faithfulness

Students are often asked to write an essay on Faithfulness 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 Faithfulness

Meaning of faithfulness.

Faithfulness means staying true to someone or something. It’s like when you make a promise to a friend and you keep it. You are faithful when you are loyal and don’t give up on your friends, family, or even your pet.

Being Faithful in Friendships

In friendships, being faithful means being a good friend all the time. You support your friends when they are sad and cheer for them when they are happy. You don’t tell their secrets to others.

Importance in Family

Faithfulness in a family means you love and take care of each other. You help at home, listen to your parents, and are kind to your siblings. A faithful family sticks together.

Faithfulness at School

At school, being faithful means you do your own work and don’t copy. You show up on time and try your best to learn. Teachers trust students who are faithful.

Faithfulness to Yourself

You must also be faithful to yourself. This means you should be true to what you believe in and always try to do the right thing, even when it’s hard.

250 Words Essay on Faithfulness

Understanding faithfulness.

Faithfulness is being true to someone or something. It means sticking by someone’s side, not lying, and not breaking promises. Just like a dog that stays by its owner, being faithful shows loyalty and trust.

In friendships, faithfulness is key. It’s about being a good friend who can be counted on. When a friend tells you a secret, being faithful means not telling others. It’s also about being there for them in good and bad times, just like they would for you.

Importance in Families

Families are built on faithfulness. Parents take care of their children and make sure they have what they need. Brothers and sisters support each other. When everyone in the family is faithful, it makes a strong, happy home.

In School and Work

Faithfulness is important in school and work too. Doing your homework and not copying is being faithful. At work, it means doing your job well and not taking what’s not yours. This builds trust and shows you’re reliable.

Why Faithfulness Matters

Being faithful makes the world better. It creates trust and makes people feel safe. It’s like the glue that holds friendships, families, and communities together. When people are faithful, they show they care and that they can be trusted. This is why faithfulness is so important.

500 Words Essay on Faithfulness

Faithfulness is a word that we often hear about in stories, in school, and at home. It means to stay true to someone or something, no matter what happens. Think about your best friend. If you are faithful, you keep your promises to them, stand by them when they are sad, and cheer for them when they are happy. Being faithful is like being a very good friend, not just to people but also to your ideas, your promises, and even your pets.

The Importance of Faithfulness

Why is faithfulness important? When people are faithful to each other, they build trust. Imagine if you had a friend who told your secrets to everyone. You would feel hurt and wouldn’t trust them anymore. But if a friend keeps your secret, you know you can rely on them. This is why faithfulness is so valuable. It makes friends, families, and teams stronger because everyone knows they can depend on each other.

Being Faithful in Everyday Life

Faithfulness is not just for big things; it’s for small things too. For example, if you borrow a book from the library, being faithful means returning it on time so others can read it too. Or if you promise to feed your dog every morning, doing it every day shows faithfulness. These little acts of staying true and keeping promises are the building blocks of a faithful life.

Faithfulness in Tough Times

Sometimes, being faithful is hard. A friend might make a mistake, or you might want to give up on something that is difficult. Staying faithful during these times is a true test. It means you keep supporting your friend even when they mess up, and you keep trying on that hard task even when it feels impossible. This kind of faithfulness shows great strength and character.

We often talk about being faithful to others, but what about being faithful to ourselves? This means being true to who you are and what you believe in. If you love painting, keep doing it even if others don’t think it’s cool. If you believe in being kind, don’t let others push you into being mean. Being faithful to yourself is one of the best ways to be happy and feel good about your life.

In the end, faithfulness is a quality that makes us better friends, students, and people. It’s about sticking to our word, being there for others, and being true to ourselves. When we are faithful, we create a world where everyone can feel safe and loved. Remember, every act of faithfulness, no matter how small, adds up to a life filled with trust, friendship, and respect. So let’s try to be faithful in all we do, and we’ll see how much better the world can be because of it.

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

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

Essay on Faith-Based Education
Essay on Exotic Animals As Pets
Essay on Exercise On Body Systems

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

Happy studying!

U.S. Edition

Arts & Culture
Bible & Theology
Christian Living
Current Events
Faith & Work
As In Heaven
Gospelbound
Post-Christianity?
TGC Podcast
You're Not Crazy
Churches Planting Churches
Help Me Teach The Bible
Word Of The Week
Upcoming Events
Past Conference Media
Foundation Documents
Church Directory
Global Resourcing
Donate to TGC

To All The World

The world is a confusing place right now. We believe that faithful proclamation of the gospel is what our hostile and disoriented world needs. Do you believe that too? Help TGC bring biblical wisdom to the confusing issues across the world by making a gift to our international work.

The Faithfulness of God

Other essays.

The faithfulness of God means God is unchanging in his nature, true to his Word, has promised salvation to his people, and will keep his promises forever. He is worthy of eternal trust no matter how unlikely his promises seem. Nothing in heaven or on earth can prevent God from accomplishing all that he has promised his people through Jesus Christ. This reliability of God should be a great source of comfort and strength for God’s people as they repeatedly fail and go through trials and suffering.

This essay surveys four major Old Testament terms and one New Testament term that highlight different aspects of God’s faithfulness to his people. It then goes on to point out the major object lessons and images that God uses to emphasize his commitment to his people. The final section encourages the believer in three areas of application that stem directly from a proper view of God’s faithfulness.

Key Words that Highlight God’s Faithfulness

Old testament.

At least four Old Testament Hebrew terms highlight God’s faithfulness: ʼemet (faithfulness), ʼemuna (steadiness, reliability), ḥesed (loyalty), and zacar (remember). Each of these terms speak to different aspects of the concept of faithfulness.

The word ʼemet occurs 127 times and is most frequently translated “faithfulness.” A core idea in this word is truth. God is true to himself and to his words. This word is used in the context of the relationships that God chooses to have with his people.

In Genesis 12 God calls Abram to himself and gives him incredible promises about acquiring land, having innumerable descendants, and blessing the world. One of the principal promises (having a son) was hard to fathom due to Abram’s advanced age and the delay in fulfillment. After twenty-five years, God finally grants his promise to the name-modified Abraham (Gen 21). God was faithful.

After Isaac is born and becomes a full-grown man, the promises are now threatened by his marital status. Abraham sends his servant Eleazar to search for a wife for Isaac. Upon finding Rebekah, Eleazar declares, “Praise be to the Lord, the God of my master Abraham, who has not abandoned his kindness and faithfulness to my master” (Gen 24:27).

Jacob, the son of Isaac, prays to the “God of his father Abraham, and God of his father Isaac” and acknowledges his unworthiness and God’s faithfulness toward him as he had grown from having only a walking stick when he went to Laban into a wealthy man as he left him (Gen 32:10ff). Thus, God’s faithfulness passed from Abraham to Isaac and then to Jacob.

God reveals to Moses that he is faithful generation after generation (Exod 34:6). He would continue to show faithfulness to the descendants of Jacob by eventually bringing them out of Egypt into the land he promised Abraham.

When God promises David that he would build his house and give him an everlasting ruler, David declares (2Sam 7:28) that God’s words are true (reliable/faithful).

Nehemiah recounts God’s faithfulness to Israel during the Exodus, in the wilderness, throughout the conquest, in the time of the Judges, through captivity, and all the way to the return to the land despite their unfaithfulness during each period (Neh 9:33). Despite Israel’s perpetual lack of faithfulness, loyalty, and knowledge (Hos 4:1; cf. Zech 7:9), God will accomplish such a salvation in his people that Jerusalem will one day be called “the Faithful City” (Zech 8:3).

ʼemuna occurs 49 times and has the concept of steadiness or reliability at its core. The first occurrence of this word is a great illustration of the main idea communicated by this word. In Exodus 17 the Israelites are battling the Amalekites. When Moses held up his hands the Israelites would prevail, but as soon as they started lowering, the Amalekites would start winning. The solution was to have Moses sit on a stone while Aaron and Hur each held up one of his hands. As a result, “his hands remained steady [faithful] till sunset” (Exod 17:12).

God’s ʼemuna reaches to the skies (Ps 36:5). God is faithful from morning to night (Ps 92:2), and when he comes to judge the earth, it will be in righteousness and faithfulness (Ps 96:13). This connection of righteousness and faithfulness occurs multiple times (cf. Deut 32:4; 1Sam 26:23; Pss 40:11; 119:75, 138; 143:1; Isa 11:5) and emphasizes that part of being truly righteous (measuring up to a standard) means that you do so consistently. Even while enduring just punishment for breaking the covenant, God’s people recognize that his faithfulness is great and continues morning by morning (Lam 3:23). One day God will so transform his people that they will go from being a prostituting wife to a people permanently and faithfully committed to the perfect Groom (Hos 2:20).

The word ḥesed occurs 255 times and is frequently translated as “kindness/lovingkindness” or “mercy.” Even though it is not translated with a form of the word “faithful,” it is often used with some variety of the words for “faithful.” The word is often in the context of highlighting God’s faithfulness to his people because of his covenantal commitment to them. As a result, some modern versions translate this word as “loyalty/covenant loyalty.”

The greatest illustration of this type of faithful loyalty is the story of Ruth. Even though Naomi compelled her daughters-in-law to stay in Moab and let her return to Bethlehem as a destitute and bitter woman, Ruth refused. In the same way she had shown loyalty to her deceased husband (Ruth 1:8), she vowed to cling to her mother-in-law until death (“Where you go I will go. . . . Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die. . . . May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me.” Ruth 1:16–17). God rewards Ruth—and Naomi because of Ruth—by showing her his “kindness” in leading her to Boaz (Ruth 2:20). Ruth responds by giving her “kindness” to Boaz in marriage (Ruth 3:10). This kind of loving loyalty is ultimately rewarded in making Ruth part of the genealogy of Christ (Boaz fathered Obed; Obed fathered Jesse; Jesse fathered David, see Ruth 4:21–22).

When God gives his laws to the people of Israel as they are about to ratify the covenant with him, he declares that he shows covenant loyalty to a thousand generations of those who are truly his (Exod 20:6; cf. Deut 7:9). Psalm 136 celebrates God’s loyalty to his people as he brought them out of the land of Egypt, sustained them in the wilderness, brought them into the promised land, and remembered them in their low points as a nation.

Although there are occurrences of ḥesed where the specific covenant in view requires certain conditions be met, other examples of unconditional loyalty occur frequently. When God gives David the promise of an everlasting king, he states (probably in reference to Solomon) that if the king sins, this would not negate God’s loyalty to him as happened to Saul (2Sam 7:15). David declares in Psalm 23:6 that God’s loyalty would “follow” (this word is used of military pursuit) him all the days of his life.

Nehemiah recognized that even though Israel had refused to listen to God and constantly rebelled against him, he was still abounding in loyalty toward them (Neh 9:17). David asks for forgiveness after his adultery with Bathsheba based on God’s loyal love (Ps 51:3). This loyalty that forgives the undeserving is what causes Jonah to flee from God’s command to warn Nineveh (Jon 4:2). Micah, however, celebrated this loyalty that will be shown in the restoration of God’s people and the forgiveness of their sin: “Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy. You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea. You will be faithful to Jacob, and show love to Abraham, as you pledged on oath to our ancestors in days long ago” (Mic 7:18–20).

Zacar occurs about 235 times and is usually translated with some form of the verb “remember.” Although the word is often used of people trying to bring back to mind some idea or event, it can also refer to the action that accompanies actively thinking on something. When it is used of God, it does not suggest that he has somehow forgotten something or needs to be reminded of something. It highlights that God is going to act on whatever he is “remembering.” This word is connected to God’s faithfulness in those texts where God remembers his covenant or his people and the promises he gave to them.

The first occurrence of this word is in Genesis 8:1 when God remembers Noah and the animals in the ark after he has destroyed the earth with the flood. The bleak picture given at the end of chapter 7 is met with this dramatic “but God remembered” moment. This could have been the end of humanity, but God is faithful to his Word and ensures that they survive. After Noah and crew disembark, God establishes the rainbow as the sign of his promise never to destroy the earth with a flood again. He states that when he sees the rainbow, he will “remember the everlasting covenant” he made with his creation (Gen 9:16).

One of the main motivations that drove God to deliver his people out of slavery to the Egyptians was remembering “his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob” (Exod 2:24; 6:5). After the golden calf incident when God is threatening to destroy Israel, Moses pleads with God to “remember . . . Abraham, Isaac and Israel” to whom he had promised innumerable descendants and a land (Exod 32:13).

Psalms 105 and 106 recall numerous occasions in Israel’s history when God remembered his covenant promises made to Abraham and his descendants as they came out of Egypt, traveled through the wilderness, came into the promised land, and eventually were taken into captivity (Pss 105:8, 42; 106:45). Since God knew that the nation of Israel would perpetually rebel against him, he established a new, everlasting covenant with his people because he remembered the covenant he had made with them in their “youth” (Ezek 16:60).

New Testament

The main Greek word used for God’s faithfulness in the New Testament is pistos . It occurs 67 times in 63 verses. Pistos is used to describe people (often stewards or servants), statements, and God. Jesus referred to faithful (often indicating someone who is dependable) and unfaithful servants when he taught through parables in order to encourage genuine faith and perseverance among those who heard his teachings (Matt 24:45ff; 25:21ff; Luke 12:42; 16:10ff).

Several passages use pistos to refer to servants of Christ who persevere in the ministry as dependable servants (1Cor 4:2, 17; Eph 6:21; Col 4:7, 9; 1Tim 1:12; 2Tim 2:2; 1Pet 5:12). The positional standing of all believers is highlighted by using pistos to identify them (Acts 10:45; 16:1; 2Cor 6:15; Gal 3:9; Eph 1:1; Col 1:2; 1Tim 4:10; 5:16; 6:2).

Pistos is also used to describe statements that are reliable because of their truthfulness (1Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2Tim 2:11; Titus 1:9; 3:8; Rev 21:5; 22:6). In the same way that people who stay true to their job or ministry are dependable and trustworthy, so God is a person upon whom his people can depend (like Sarah in Genesis who believed she would have the promised child because God is faithful, see Heb 11:11).

God’s faithfulness is most clearly revealed through Jesus Christ, whose character of ultimate reliability personifies what it means to be faithful—even to the point of “faithful” becoming one of his names or titles. He is the faithful witness (Rev 1:5), the faithful one (Rev 2:13), the faithful and true witness (Rev 3:14), and the one called Faithful and True (Rev 19:11).

Because of the reliability of the work of Christ for his people, all the promises of God to his children find their “yes” in him (2Cor 1:20). God’s faithfulness can help a believer overcome temptation (1Cor 1:9) and suffering (1Pet 4:19). When God’s people are unfaithful, he remains faithful. No matter what people do, God’s faithfulness is unchangeable for he cannot deny himself (i.e., who he is, 2Tim 2:13).

Key Images that Highlight God’s Faithfulness

The Old Testament uses poignant illustrations found in everyday life to highlight God’s faithfulness toward his people.

The Natural Order of the Universe

After God destroyed the earth with the flood and Noah and crew exited the ark, he promised that he would never do this again (Gen 8:21). The perpetual evidence (in addition to the rainbow) that he would keep this promise is found in the relentless, unceasing recurrence of summer and winter, cold and heat, and day and night (Gen 8:22). This illustration is used again as proof not only of God’s sustaining of the physical world but ultimately of his faithfulness to the New Covenant.

Jeremiah 31:35 states that God has appointed the sun to shine during the daytime and the moon and stars by night. He has also appointed the sea to perpetually produce waves. The constancy of these natural phenomena are visible reminders of God’s unbreakable promises in salvation (Jer 31:36). Jeremiah 33:20–26 uses this same covenant with day and night as the guarantee of the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant. For the believer, the blazing of the sun, the glowing of the moon, the crashing of the waves, and the changing of the seasons should all serve as reminders of God’s faithfulness to his people through Christ.

The Immensity of Creation

The vastness of the creation points to the vastness of God’s faithfulness to his people in salvation. Psalm 36:5 states that God’s faithfulness reaches to the skies; in other words, it goes on and on into infinity. In speaking of God’s faithfulness to his covenant, Psalm 103:11 states that God’s faithfulness is comparable in greatness to the distance of the heavens from the earth. This extends to the magnitude of his forgiveness in this covenant; it is as far as the east is from the west (infinite; Ps 103:13). The immensity of the universe becomes a tangible guarantee that God will keep his salvation promises.

Jeremiah 31:37 declares that only if humans can measure the heavens or explore the foundations of the earth will he break his salvation promises of the New Covenant. Whenever a Christian looks up into the night sky or peers through a telescope at some distant planet, he or she can be reminded and assured of God’s faithfulness in salvation.

The Parent/Child Relationship

Psalm 103 details multiple ways in which the Lord shows his faithfulness (covenant loyalty) toward his people. One of the images used to illustrate God’s faithfulness is found in Psalm 103:13. The verse states that God has compassion on his people (those who fear him) in the same way a father has compassion on his children. Parents naturally have feelings of love, attachment, care, and commitment toward each of their children. This general disposition does not change regardless of how many times the child disobeys or disappoints.

Jesus alludes to this positive disposition when he teaches that even “evil” parents give good gifts (bread and fish) to their children when they ask (Matt 7:9–11). This relationship is not based on merit, and it cannot be broken. In this relationship the parent is the one in the position to provide for, protect, nurture, and guide the child. In the same way God’s faithfulness to his people includes this tender, unbreakable, and compassionate care for them.

Isaiah 49:15–16 adds a powerful comparison and even contrast to this parent/child image. Verse 14 describes how some among God’s people were claiming that God had abandoned and “forgotten” them (i.e., they allege God has done the opposite of remembering [ zacar ], and therefore, is unfaithful to the covenant). In verse 15 God mentions a mother’s relationship with her nursing child. It is unlikely that she would forget to care for her newborn (the mother’s body reminds her to nurse her child and the child’s cries remind her of her child’s needs). The degree of attachment and care that a mother feels for a nursing child is one of the most powerful portraits of intimacy, tenderness, and connectedness possible for a human being. God states that even if a mother would somehow manage to forget her child, he never will forget his people. He has inscribed them into the palm of his hand (Isa 49:16). God’s faithfulness to his people surpasses the strongest commitment possible between any human beings.

Husband/Wife

The husband/wife relationship is used in both the Old and the New Testament to illustrate various aspects of God’s relationship with his people. The concept of faithfulness is implied in most contexts, but it is explicitly detailed in the symbolic marriage of the prophet Hosea. God commands him to marry a woman who would prove to be unfaithful in the worst possible way (she is called a “woman of prostitution” in Hos 1:2).

God explains that his people have committed excessive spiritual prostitution (the Hebrew construction is emphatic here) by following after other gods and living immorally. In most human marriages adultery results in divorce. One would imagine that if a wife were to become a prostitute her husband would never give her a chance of restoring the marriage. God’s faithfulness to his unfaithful people unfathomably leads him not only to stay faithfully committed to them but also to so transform them so that they become permanently faithful to him: “I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion. I will betroth you in faithfulness, and you will acknowledge the LORD” (Hos 2:19-20). Paul specifies that this redemptive cleansing of the bride is accomplished by the sacrificial, substitutionary work of Christ (Eph 5:25–27).

God’s Faithfulness Motivates Christian Faithfulness

The faithfulness of God to his people should be the primary motivator for our faithfulness to him. Hebrews 10:23 exhorts believers to hold unwaveringly to the hope of the effective priestly work of Christ on their behalf because the one who promised is faithful. This faithfulness manifests itself in the Christian practice of spurring each other to love and good deeds and habitually gathering with other believers for worship (Heb 10:24–25).

Inevitably believers will prove to be unfaithful as they seek to live-out the gospel. Thankfully we are encouraged that even if we are unfaithful, God remains faithful because he cannot deny himself (2Tim 2:13). Because of God’s faithfulness to us in Christ, we confess our sins (1Jn 1:9). No matter how often we may fail and sin, God is unchanging in his response to the repentant confessor.

Ultimately God’s faithfulness motivates our faithful living as we longingly anticipate the return of Christ. One day the Faithful One will appear in the clouds and accomplish the final sanctification and purification of his people (1Th 5:24).

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

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

1.1 Background

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

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

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

2. The nature of loyalty

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

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

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

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

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

3. The structure of loyalty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Limiting loyalty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Emotions & Feelings — Loyalty

Loyalty Essays

Hook examples for loyalty essays, anecdotal hook.

"Imagine a friend who has stood by your side through thick and thin, never wavering in their support. Such unwavering loyalty is a rare and precious gift in today's world."

Rhetorical Question Hook

"What does it mean to be loyal? Is loyalty an unbreakable bond, or does it depend on circumstances? Exploring the complexities of loyalty can reveal its true nature."

Startling Statistic Hook

"According to a recent survey, 91% of people believe that loyalty is an essential quality in personal relationships. Loyalty clearly plays a central role in our lives."

"'Loyalty is not just a word; it's a lifestyle.' These words by Anthony Liccione remind us that loyalty is not a passive trait but an active choice we make in our interactions."

Historical Hook

"Throughout history, tales of loyalty have inspired nations and cultures. Examining the stories of loyalty in the past offers timeless lessons for today."

Narrative Hook

"Walk alongside a character in a story of unwavering loyalty—a loyalty that defies adversity and tests the boundaries of trust. This narrative explores the power of loyalty in action."

Contrast Hook

"In a world of fleeting connections and changing loyalties, what does it mean to stay loyal? Contrasting the concept of loyalty with its opposite challenges us to reflect on our values."

Emotional Appeal Hook

"The warmth of a loyal friend's embrace, the trust in a loyal partner's eyes, and the comfort of knowing someone has your back—loyalty is the glue that binds us in a fragmented world."

Shocking Scenario Hook

"Imagine a world without loyalty—a world where trust is an endangered concept. Exploring this scenario makes us appreciate the role of loyalty in maintaining our social fabric."

Curiosity Hook

"What motivates people to remain loyal, even in the face of temptation or adversity? Delving into the psychology of loyalty unravels the intricacies of this human trait."

Johnny in The Outsiders

Red lotus of chastity, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Dogs Outshine Cats: Unmatched Companionship

Importance of loyalty in relationships: business, love and friendship, the key concepts of loyalty and friendship in the adventures of tom sawyer, a novel by mark twain, shakespeare’s demonstration of loyalty in king lear, 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

The Importance of Betrayal and Loyalty in "The Kite Runner"

A personal examination on behaviors of loyalty, honesty, generosity and laughter, discussion of how loyal are employees expected to be to their employer, the value of loyalty in the merchant of venice, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Lack of Loyalty Occurred by The Millennials These Days

Top simple strategies to increase your customer's loyalty, study of gwen wilde's on the need to revise the pledge of allegiance, the loyalty and commitment of parson hooper in the minister's black veil, a short story by nathaniel hawthorne, service quality and brand image on customer loyalty, the pledge of allegiance: a meaning-filled phrase, religion as an aspect of the pledge of allegiance, loyalty to family and marital relationship in anglo saxon literature, the kite runner: exploring the dynamics of loyalty and redemption, the meaning of loyalty, the themes of friendships, tragic flaws of beowulf, a spurious brand loyalty, life lessons from my dog, sheryls loyalty in remember the titans.

Loyalty, in general use, is a devotion and faithfulness to a nation, cause, philosophy, country, group, or person. The definition of loyalty in law and political science is the fidelity of an individual to a nation, either one's nation of birth, or one's declared home nation by oath (naturalization).

Relevant topics

Forgiveness
Responsibility
Winter Break

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!

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

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

Student Essays

Essays-Paragraphs-Speeches

Essay on Loyalty | Meaning, Value & Importance

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.

Reader Interactions

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.

Google Scholar Indexing
GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]

Personal account

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

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 institutionâ€™s website and Oxford Academic.

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

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

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 â€˜Sign in through society siteâ€™ in the sign in pane within a journal:

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

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

Sign in using a personal account

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

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

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

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

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

Signed in but can't access content

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

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

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

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

Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

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

What’s the Difference Between Loyal and Faithful?

When we talk about trust in relationships, two words often pop up: loyal and faithful. You might think they’re just two ways to say the same thing, but there’s a twist – they’re not quite identical.

Imagine loyalty as the friend who never leaves your side and faithfulness as the promise that your heart won’t wander. They’re the invisible threads that tie us to each other. These ideas shape our trust and expectations in friendships, in love, and even at work.

But what makes them different? Could understanding the real deal between loyalty and faithfulness change the way you see the people in your life? Stick around, as we’re about to explore this further.

Table of Contents

What Is Loyal?

Loyalty is a strong feeling of support or allegiance. It is when you stand by someone or something, no matter what happens. In relationships, loyalty means you are committed to your partner and you support them. It’s like being on a team – you work together and help each other out.

Here are some key aspects of loyalty:

Consistency : Being there for someone over time, not just when things are easy.
Support : Offering help and encouragement, whether your friend, family member, or partner is having a good day or a bad one.
Protection : Standing up for someone when they are not there to defend themselves.

Loyalty can show up in many ways. For example, a loyal friend might keep your secrets, or a loyal employee might work extra hard to help their company succeed.

Here are a few examples of loyalty in action:

A friend who listens and gives advice when you’re having trouble at work.
A partner who stands by you during a health scare.
A family member who helps you move to a new home, even if it means giving up their weekend.

What Is Faithful?

Faithfulness is a steadfast commitment to someone or something. It’s about being true to your word and not breaking the trust that others have placed in you. When it comes to relationships, faithfulness is the backbone that supports the love and trust between individuals. It means you keep your promises and stay true to your partner, not allowing outside interests to shake that bond.

Let’s break down what faithfulness involves:

Honesty : This is the practice of being truthful and transparent in your actions and words. It means not hiding things from your partner and being open about your feelings and thoughts.
Integrity : Integrity is about doing the right thing, even when no one is watching. It means upholding the values and commitments you’ve made, both to yourself and to your partner.
Dedication : Faithfulness requires a certain level of dedication. It’s about prioritizing your relationship and putting in the effort to maintain it, even when challenges arise.

Imagine a scenario where a couple has agreed to support each other’s careers. One partner gets a fantastic job offer in a new city. Faithfulness in this context means discussing the opportunity together, considering the impact on each partner, and making a decision that respects and supports the relationship’s commitments.

Loyal vs. Faithful: What’s the Difference?

Loyalty : The focus of loyalty is on emotional support and a sense of belonging to a group or cause. It’s about being devoted to a friend, family, a team at work, or even a country. Loyalty fosters a sense of unity and collective strength.
Faithfulness : Faithfulness zeroes in on maintaining a commitment to an individual or upholding a specific promise. This is most commonly seen in romantic relationships, where partners are faithful to each other by not pursuing romantic interests outside the relationship. Faithfulness is about honoring an agreement or a bond, ensuring the stability and trust within that relationship.
Loyalty : Loyalty has a broad scope and can apply to many different aspects of life. You can be loyal to multiple people or groups at the same time without conflict. For example, you might be loyal to your family by attending every family gathering, while also being loyal to your friends by standing by them in difficult times.
Faithfulness : Faithfulness has a more narrow scope, typically tied to a specific relationship or promise. It involves exclusivity and often requires one to refrain from certain actions to maintain the sanctity of a commitment. For example, being faithful in a romantic relationship means you do not engage in romantic or intimate activities with others.

Action/Behavior

Loyalty : Loyalty is about actions that show you stand with someone or something. It includes defending a friend when they’re not around to defend themselves, staying with an employer through tough economic times, or supporting a friend’s decisions. It’s an active demonstration of your commitment.
Faithfulness : Faithfulness is characterized by avoiding actions that could undermine trust or break a commitment. It includes being honest when you make a mistake instead of hiding it or choosing not to flirt with others out of respect for your partner. Faithfulness is more about refraining from certain behaviors to uphold trust.

Emotional Basis

Loyalty is often rooted in deep feelings of affection, personal attachment, and connection. It is an emotional bond that creates a sense of belonging and camaraderie.
For example, a person might feel loyal to their childhood friend due to shared experiences and a long history of mutual support, which leads to a strong emotional tie.

Faithfulness:

Faithfulness, while it can also be emotional, is frequently based on a sense of duty, respect for the other person, and adherence to moral values or principles.
In a marriage or committed relationship, faithfulness stems from the solemn promise to be true to one’s partner, which is often a deeply held value that goes beyond mere feelings.

Demonstrated Through

Loyalty is demonstrated through consistent support, advocacy, and a willingness to stand up for the person, group, or cause you are loyal to.
Actions like publicly supporting a friend’s new business, staying with the same employer for many years, or advocating for a cause you believe in, even when it’s unpopular, are all demonstrations of loyalty.

Faithfulness :

Faithfulness is shown by honesty, transparency in actions and words, and maintaining integrity by keeping one’s promises and commitments.
This could look like a partner openly communicating about potential temptations and working together to strengthen the relationship, or an employee respecting confidential information even after moving to a different company.

Relationship Impact

The impact of loyalty on relationships is the creation of a strong sense of team spirit and unity. It can make people feel secure in the knowledge that they are part of a supportive network.
In a family setting, loyalty might mean that family members know they can rely on each other for support in any situation, which reinforces the family bond.
Faithfulness lays the groundwork for trust and security within a relationship. It assures individuals that their emotional and, in some cases, physical exclusivity is valued and preserved.
In a romantic relationship, faithfulness provides a secure environment where partners can grow together, confident in the knowledge that their commitment is reciprocal and respected, which is crucial for deepening the connection between them.

Loyalty and Faithfulness in Relationship Dynamics

Relationships are like gardens; they need care, attention, and the right conditions to thrive. Loyalty and faithfulness are two of the key elements that help relationships grow strong and healthy. Let’s explore how these virtues play a role in the dynamics of relationships.

Loyalty in Relationships

Loyalty brings people together, creating a sense of belonging and community. It’s the feeling that you are part of a team, working towards common goals and supporting each other along the way.
In friendships , loyalty might mean standing by your friend’s side during tough times. In a family, it could be about putting family needs before your own. In a workplace , it means being committed to your team’s success and not just your individual achievements.
Loyalty in relationships builds trust and mutual respect. It’s knowing that someone has your back and that you have theirs.

Faithfulness in Relationships

Faithfulness is the unwavering commitment to a person. It’s the promise that you are there for them, and only them, in a special and exclusive way.
In romantic relationships , faithfulness is often about being true to your partner in every sense. It’s not just about avoiding romantic or physical relationships with others; it’s also about being emotionally present and true to your partner.
Faithfulness creates a secure foundation for trust. It allows both partners to feel safe and confident in their relationship, knowing that their bond is honored and protected.

Relationships without loyalty and faithfulness can feel unstable and uncertain . These qualities help to create an environment where love and connection can flourish. They are the pillars upon which strong relationships are built.

Trust is built in very small moments, which I call ‘sliding door’ moments. In any interaction, there is a possibility of connecting with your partner or turning away from your partner. One such moment is not important, but if you’re always choosing to turn away, then trust erodes in a relationship – very gradually, very slowly. Dr. John Gottman

Dealing with Infidelity or Betrayal

When trust is broken in a relationship through infidelity or betrayal, it can feel like a storm has damaged the garden you’ve worked so hard to cultivate. Recovering from such a breach of trust is challenging, but with effort and commitment, it’s possible to heal and maybe even grow stronger. Here’s how to navigate this difficult time:

Understanding the Impact

Recognize that feelings of hurt, anger, and disappointment are normal. Infidelity or betrayal shakes the foundation of trust that loyalty and faithfulness have built.
It’s important to understand that healing takes time. There’s no quick fix for the pain caused by betrayal, and both partners need to be patient with the process.

Communication is Key

Open and honest communication is essential. This means talking about the betrayal and expressing feelings in a constructive way.
Both parties should be willing to listen to each other’s perspectives and experiences. It’s not just about airing grievances; it’s about understanding and empathy.

Rebuilding Trust

The person who broke the trust must be willing to take responsibility for their actions and make a genuine effort to repair the damage.
Rebuilding trust involves consistent and reliable behavior over time. Small acts of faithfulness and loyalty can start to mend the broken bond.

Seeking Support

Sometimes, turning to friends, family, or a professional can provide the guidance and support needed to move forward.
Relationship counselors or therapists are trained to help couples navigate the aftermath of infidelity and can offer tools and strategies for rebuilding trust.

Moving Forward

Decide together whether and how to move forward. This is a personal decision and may differ for every couple.
For some, this may mean starting anew with a renewed commitment to loyalty and faithfulness. For others, it may mean parting ways but learning from the experience to build healthier relationships in the future.

Application in Daily Life

Applying the concepts of loyalty and faithfulness in our daily lives can strengthen our relationships and build trust with those around us. Here are practical ways to cultivate and demonstrate these important qualities:

Express gratitude when someone helps you or does something nice. A simple “thank you” can go a long way in showing loyalty to friends and colleagues.
In romantic relationships, regularly acknowledging your partner’s efforts reinforces your commitment and appreciation for them.
Keep the lines of communication open with those you care about. Share your thoughts and feelings honestly, and encourage them to do the same.
When issues arise, address them directly instead of letting them fester. Clear communication can prevent misunderstandings that might harm trust.
If you commit to doing something, follow through. Whether it’s meeting a deadline at work or showing up to a friend’s event, keeping your word is a sign of both loyalty and faithfulness.
Breaking promises can damage relationships, so it’s important to make commitments you can keep.
Understand and respect the boundaries set by others. This shows that you value their comfort and trust.
In romantic relationships, respecting exclusivity and personal space is a clear sign of faithfulness.
Stand by those you care about during difficult periods. Offer help and a listening ear when they’re facing challenges.
Your presence in tough times demonstrates loyalty and can deepen the bonds you share with others.
Be willing to forgive mistakes, both in yourself and in others. Holding onto grudges can erode loyalty and faithfulness.
Remember that everyone is human and capable of errors. Forgiveness can pave the way for stronger, more resilient relationships.

As the saying goes, “ Actions speak louder than words .” By actively practicing loyalty and faithfulness, you show your true commitment to your relationships. It’s not just about avoiding negative behaviors; it’s about taking positive steps to support, respect, and honor those you care about.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can loyalty change over time.

Loyalty can evolve with circumstances and personal growth. While it is described as a long-term commitment, who or what one is loyal to can change due to life changes or shifts in values and beliefs.

What are some signs of a lack of faithfulness?

Signs of a lack of faithfulness may include secrecy, unexplained changes in behavior, breaking promises without reasonable cause, or an unwillingness to communicate openly about potential issues.

How can you maintain loyalty in a long-distance relationship?

Maintaining loyalty in a long-distance relationship can be achieved by keeping regular communication, making plans for the future, being transparent about your feelings and experiences, and making an effort to visit each other whenever possible.

How can I restore loyalty or faithfulness if it has been broken?

Restoring broken loyalty or faithfulness can be challenging and requires a willingness to rebuild trust. It involves sincere apologies, understanding the impact of actions taken, and a commitment to change behaviors.

Continuous, transparent communication and rebuilding trust through consistent actions over time are key.

Final Thoughts

In closing, it’s clear that while loyalty and faithfulness share common ground, they each play their own special role in the tapestry of our relationships. Recognizing their unique shades can help us nurture deeper, more meaningful connections.

So, as we part ways with this topic, ask yourself: How do I embody loyalty and faithfulness in my life? Reflect on these qualities not just in words, but in actions, and watch how they can transform your bonds with others. Here’s to living a life rich with trust and true companionship!

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

As you found this post useful...

Share it on social media!

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Leah Bayubay

Home / Essay Samples / Life / Emotion / Loyalty

Loyalty Essay Examples

Forgiveness essay: what should stay in our daily life.

It isn't astonishing that forgiveness is generally looked through the theme. We live in an an imperfect world with not-so-perfect individuals. Frustration hurt, and disloyalty, if purposeful, is essential for the human experience. Forgiving and unforgiveness capably impacts each feature of our daily routines and...

Theories of Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty

According to Henning-Thurau and Klee (1997), studies dealing with the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty can be classified into three groups. The first comes from service management literature and studies the relationship at an aggregated, company-wide level. These studies consider satisfaction to be an...

The Role of Loyalty in William Shakespeare’s King Lear

Loyalty is a factor that determines the way one’s life may go. Depending on who the individual is loyal to, it can lead them down a dangerous path or one that is great, but not without consequence. In William Shakespeare’s King Lear loyalty plays a...

Loyalty and Betrayal in a View from the Bridge by Arthur Miller

The 1940’s Red Hood an Italian of Italian immigrants who follow a common code of justice of silence. Eddie Carbone, a loving husband and uncle who gets swept by his feelings for his niece and betrays the loyalty of his whole community, family and friends...

Advantages & Benefits Acquired from Brand Loyalty

Brand loyalty is defined as the pattern a consumer demonstrates to a particular brand by making repeated purchases over long periods of time (Staff, I., 2018). As these loyal consumers associate a positive relationship to the brand, they may be insensitive to things like price...

Life Stories of Han Yanhui and Zhang Li: Allegiance and Crossing the Border

In Unbounded Loyalty: Frontier Crossings in Liao China: “Chapter 4, Loyalties in the Borderlands”, the life stories of Han Yanhui and Zhang Li demonstrate how allegiances and loyalties changed over the 10th century and how they crossed borders. Information on Han Yanhui is very little...

Trying to find an excellent essay sample but no results?

Don’t waste your time and get a professional writer to help!

About Loyalty

Loyalty, in more general use, is a devotion and faithfulness to a nation, cause, philosophy, country, group, or person.

The proper object of loyalty Multiplicity, disloyalty, and whether loyalty is exclusionary Other dimensions (basis, strength, scope, legitimacy, and attitude)

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->

Essay On Loyalty – 1300 Words Essay

Written by Wicky

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Top 10 Fun Facts About Egypt

Essay On Nutrition – 2000 Words Essay

Why Is Loyalty So Important?

How to Build Loyalty

Characteristics of Loyalty

Steadfastness and Support

Consistency

Honesty and Transparency

Benefits and Drawbacks of Loyalty

Benefits of Loyalty

Sabrina Romanoff, PsyD

Drawbacks of Loyalty

A Word From Verywell

Essay on Faithfulness

100 Words Essay on Faithfulness

Being Faithful in Friendships

Importance in Family

Faithfulness at School

Faithfulness to Yourself

250 Words Essay on Faithfulness

Importance in Families

In School and Work

Why Faithfulness Matters

500 Words Essay on Faithfulness

The Importance of Faithfulness

Being Faithful in Everyday Life

Faithfulness in Tough Times

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Most Popular

U.S. Edition

To All The World

The Faithfulness of God

Key Words that Highlight God’s Faithfulness

New Testament

Key Images that Highlight God’s Faithfulness

The Natural Order of the Universe

The Immensity of Creation

The Parent/Child Relationship

Husband/Wife

God’s Faithfulness Motivates Christian Faithfulness

Further Reading

Bibliography

1.1 Background

2. The nature of loyalty

3. The structure of loyalty

6. Limiting loyalty

Acknowledgments

Support SEP

Loyalty Essays

Rhetorical Question Hook

Startling Statistic Hook

Historical Hook

Narrative Hook

Contrast Hook

Emotional Appeal Hook

Shocking Scenario Hook

Curiosity Hook

Johnny in The Outsiders

Dogs Outshine Cats: Unmatched Companionship

The Importance of Betrayal and Loyalty in "The Kite Runner"

The Lack of Loyalty Occurred by The Millennials These Days

Relevant topics

Essay on Loyalty | Meaning, Value & Importance

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

Importance of Loyalty in Life

Benefits of Loyalty

Loyalty and trust among students:

Loyalty is necessary for working environment and growth:

How to Develop Loyalty & Trust in Life

Short Essay on Loyalty

Essay on Meaning & Importance of Loyalty:

Essay on Loyalty in Friendship:

Related Posts:

Reader Interactions

Loyalty: An Essay on the Morality of Relationships

Signed in as

Personal account