Loyalty is a devotion to acountry,philosophy, group, orperson.[1]Philosophers disagree on what can be an object of loyalty, as some argue that loyalty is strictly interpersonal and only another human being can be the object of loyalty. The definition of loyalty inlaw andpolitical science is the fidelity of an individual to anation, either one's nation of birth, or one's declared home nation by oath (naturalization).
TheEncyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition defines loyalty as "allegiance to the sovereign or established government of one's country" and also "personal devotion and reverence to the sovereign and royal family". It traces the word "loyalty" to the 15th century, noting that then it primarily referred to fidelity in service, in love, or to anoath that one has made. The meaning that theBritannica gives as primary, it attributes to a shift during the 16th century, noting that the origin of the word is in theOld Frenchloialte, that is in turn rooted in theLatinlex, meaning "law". One who is loyal, in thefeudal sense offealty, is one who is lawful (as opposed to anoutlaw), who has full legal rights as a consequence of faithfulallegiance to a feudal lord. Hence the 1911Britannica derived its (early 20th century) primary meaning of loyalty to amonarch.[2][3]
"Loyalty" is the most important and frequently emphasized virtue inBushido. In combination with six other virtues, which are Righteousness (義 gi), Courage (勇 yū), Benevolence, (仁 jin), Respect (礼 rei), Sincerity (誠 makoto), and Honour (名誉 meiyo), it formed the Bushido code: "It is somehow implanted in their chromosomal makeup to be loyal".[4] In theGospel of Matthew, Jesus states, "No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God andwealth".[5] On the other hand, the "Render unto Caesar" of the synoptic gospels acknowledges the possibility of distinct loyalties (secular and religious) without conflict, but if loyalty to man conflicts with loyalty to God, the latter takes precedence.[6]
Josiah Royce presented a different definition of the concept in his 1908 bookThe Philosophy of Loyalty.[7] According to Royce, loyalty is avirtue, indeed a primary virtue, "the heart of all the virtues, the central duty amongst all the duties". Royce presents loyalty, which he defines at length, as the basic moral principle from which all other principles can be derived.[8] The short definition that he gives of the idea is that loyalty is "the willing and practical and thoroughgoing devotion of a person to a cause".[9][8][10] Loyalty is thoroughgoing in that it is not merely a casual interest but a wholehearted commitment to a cause.[11]
Royce's view of loyalty was challenged by John Ladd, professor of philosophy atBrown University, in the article on "Loyalty" in the first edition of the MacmillanEncyclopedia of Philosophy (1967). Ladd observed that by that time the subject had received "scant attention in philosophical literature". This he attributed to "odious" associations that the subject had withnationalism, includingNazism, and with the metaphysics ofidealism, which he characterized as "obsolete". However, he argued that such associations were faulty and that the notion of loyalty is "an essential ingredient in any civilized and humane system of morals".[12]
Anthony Ralls observes that Ladd's article is thatEncyclopaedia's only article on a virtue, .[13] Ladd asserts that, contrary to Royce, causes to which one is loyal are interpersonal, not impersonal or suprapersonal.[14] He states that Royce's view has "the ethical defect of postulating duties over and above our individual duties to men and groups of men. The individual is submerged and lost in this superperson for its tends to dissolve our specific duties to others into 'superhuman' good". Ronald F. Duska, the Lamont Post Chair of Ethics and the Professions atThe American College, extends Ladd's objection, saying that it is a perversion of ethics and virtue for one's self-will to be identified with anything, as Royce would have it.[15] Even if one were identifying one's self-will with God, to be worthy of such loyalty God would have to be thesummum bonum, the perfect manifestation of good.
Ladd himself characterizes loyalty as interpersonal, i.e., a relationship between a lord and vassal, parent and child, or two good friends. Duska states that this characterization leads to a problem that Ladd overlooks. Loyalty may certainly be between two persons, but it may also be from a person to a group of people. Examples of this, which are unequivocally considered to be instances of loyalty, are loyalty by a person to his or her family, to a team that he or she is a member or fan of, or to his or her country. The problem is that it then becomes unclear whether there is a strict interpersonal relationship involved, and whether Ladd's contention that loyalty is interpersonal—not suprapersonal—is an adequate description.[15] Ladd considers loyalty from two perspectives: its proper object and its moral value.[12]
John Kleinig, professor ofphilosophy atCity University of New York, observes that over the years the idea has been treated by writers fromAeschylus throughJohn Galsworthy toJoseph Conrad, by psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, scholars of religion, political economists, scholars of business and marketing, and—most particularly—by political theorists, who deal with it in terms ofloyalty oaths andpatriotism. As a philosophical concept, loyalty was largely untreated by philosophers until the work ofJosiah Royce, the "grand exception" in Kleinig's words.[9] Kleinig observes that from the 1980s onwards, the subject gained attention, with philosophers variously relating it toprofessional ethics,whistleblowing,friendship, andvirtue theory.[9] Additional aspects enumerated by Kleinig include the exclusionary nature of loyalty and its subjects.[9]
Ladd and others, includingMilton R. Konvitz[16] and Marcia W. Baron,[14] disagree about the properobject of loyalty—what it is possible to be loyalto. Ladd considers loyalty to be interpersonal: the object of loyalty is always a person. In theEncyclopaedia of the History of Ideas, Konvitz states that the objects of loyalty encompass principles, causes, ideas, ideals, religions, ideologies, nations, governments, parties, leaders, families, friends, regions, racial groups, and "anyone or anything to which one's heart can become attached or devoted".[16]: 108 Baron agrees with Ladd, inasmuch as loyalty is "to certain people or to a group of people, not loyalty to an ideal or cause".[14] She argues in hermonograph,The Moral Status of Loyalty, that "[w]hen we speak of causes (or ideals) we are more apt to say that people are committed to them or devoted to them than that they are loyal to them".[14] Kleinig agrees with Baron, noting that a person's earliest and strongest loyalties are almost always to people, and that only later do people arrive at abstract notions like values, causes, and ideals. He disagrees, however, with the notion that loyalties are restrictedsolely to personal attachments, considering it "incorrect (as a matter of logic)".[17]
Loyalty to people and abstract notions such as causes or ideals is considered anevolutionary tactic, as there is a greater chance of survival and procreation if animals belong to loyal packs.[18][better source needed]
Immanuel Kant constructed the basis for an ethical law via the concept ofduty.[19] Kant began his ethical theory by arguing that the onlyvirtue that can be unqualifiedly good is a good will. No other virtue has this status because every other virtue can be used to achieve immoral ends (for example, the virtue of loyalty is not good if one is loyal to an evil person). Thegood will is unique in that it is always good and maintains its moral value even when it fails to achieve its moral intentions.[20] Kant regarded thegood will as a single moral principle that freely chooses to use the other virtues for moral ends.[21]
Stephen Nathanson, professor of philosophy atNortheastern University, states that loyalty can be eitherexclusionary ornon-exclusionary; and can besingle ormultiple. Exclusionary loyalty excludes loyalties to other people or groups; whereas non-exclusionary loyalty does not. People may have single loyalties, to just one person, group, or thing, or multiple loyalties to multiple objects. Multiple loyalties can constitute adisloyalty to an object if one of those loyalties isexclusionary, excluding one of the others. However, Nathanson observes, this is a special case. In the general case, the existence of multiple loyalties does not cause a disloyalty. One can, for example, be loyal to one's friends, or one's family, and still, without contradiction, be loyal to one's religion, or profession.[22]
In addition tonumber andexclusion as just outlined, Nathanson enumerates five other "dimensions" that loyalty can vary along: basis, strength, scope, legitimacy, and attitude:[22]
 | This sectionrelies largely or entirely upon asingle source. Relevant discussion may be found on thetalk page. Please helpimprove this article by introducingcitations to additional sources at this section.(August 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Nathanson observes that loyalty is often directly equated to patriotism. He states that this is a false equality; while patriots exhibit loyalty, it is not conversely the case that all loyal persons are patriots. He provides the example of amercenary soldier, who exhibits loyalty to the people or country that pays him. Nathanson points to the difference in motivations between a loyal mercenary and a patriot. A mercenary may well be motivated by a sense ofprofessionalism or a belief in the sanctity ofcontracts. A patriot, in contrast, may be motivated by affection, concern, identification, and a willingness to sacrifice.[22]
Nathanson contends that patriotic loyalty is not always a virtue. A loyal person can, in general be relied upon, and hence people view loyalty as virtuous. Nathanson argues that loyalty can, however, be given to persons or causes that are unworthy. Moreover, loyalty can lead patriots to support policies that are immoral and inhumane. Thus, Nathanson argues, patriotic loyalty can sometimes rather be a vice than a virtue, when its consequences exceed the boundaries of what is otherwise morally desirable. Such loyalties, in Nathanson's view, are erroneouslyunlimited in their scopes, and fail to acknowledge boundaries of morality.[22]
Thefaithless servant doctrine is adoctrine under the laws of a number of states in the United States, and most notablyNew York State law, pursuant to which an employee who acts unfaithfully towards his employer must forfeit all of the compensation he received during the period of his disloyalty.[23]
Several scholars, including Duska,[citation needed] discuss loyalty in the context of whistleblowing. Wim Vandekerckhove of theUniversity of Greenwich points out that in the late 20th century saw the rise of a notion of abidirectional loyalty—between employees and their employer. (Previous thinking had encompassed the idea that employees are loyal to an employer, but not that an employer need be loyal to employees.) The ethics of whistleblowing thus encompass a conflicting multiplicity of loyalties, where the traditional loyalty of the employee to the employer conflicts with the loyalty of the employee to his or her community, which the employer's business practices may be adversely affecting. Vandekerckhove reports that different scholars resolve the conflict in different ways, some of which he does not find to be satisfactory. Duska resolves the conflict by asserting that there is really only one proper object of loyalty in such instances—the community[citation needed]—a position that Vandekerckhove counters by arguing that businesses are in need of employee loyalty.[3]
John Corvino, associate professor of philosophy atWayne State University takes a different tack, arguing that loyalty can sometimes be a vice, not a virtue, and that "loyalty is only a virtue to the extent that the object of loyalty is good"[citation needed] (similar to Nathanson). Vandekerckhove calls this argument "interesting" but "too vague" in its description of how tolerant an employee should be of an employer's shortcomings. Vandekerckhove suggests that Duska and Corvino combine, however, to point in a direction that makes it possible to resolve the conflict of loyalties in the context of whistleblowing, by clarifying the objects of those loyalties.[3]
Businesses seek to become the objects of loyalty in order to retain customers.Brand loyalty is a consumer's preference for a particularbrand and a commitment to repeatedly purchase that brand.[24] So-calledloyalty programs offer rewards to repeat customers in exchange for being able to keep track of consumer preferences and buying habits.[25]
A similar concept isfan loyalty, an allegiance to and abiding interest in asports team, fictional character, or fictional series. Devoted sports fans continue to remain fans even in the face of a string of losing seasons.[26]
Animals aspets may display a sense of loyalty to humans. Famous cases includeGreyfriars Bobby, a Skyeterrier who attended his master's grave for fourteen years;Hachikō, anAkita dog who returned to the place he used to meet his master every day for nine years after his death;[27] and Foxie, thespaniel belonging toCharles Gough, who stayed by her dead master's side for three months onHelvellyn in theLake District in 1805 (although it is possible that Foxie had eaten Gough's body).[28]
In theMahabharata, the righteous KingYudhishthira appears at the gates of Heaven at the end of his life with a stray dog he had picked up along the way as a companion, having previously lost his brothers and his wife to death. The godIndra is prepared to admit him to Heaven, but refuses to admit the dog, so Yudhishthira refuses toabandon the dog, and prepares to turn away from the gates of Heaven. Then the dog is revealed to be the manifestation ofDharma, the god of righteousness and justice, and who turned out to be his deified self. Yudhishthira enters heaven in the company of his dog, the god of righteousness.[29][30]: 684–85 Yudhishthira is known by theepithet Dharmaputra, the lord of righteous duty.
Misplaced or mistaken loyalty refers to loyalty placed in other persons ororganisations where that loyalty is not acknowledged orrespected, isbetrayed, or taken advantage of. It can also mean loyalty to a malignant or misguided cause.
Social psychology provides a partial explanation for the phenomenon in the way "thenorm of social commitment directs us to honor our agreements... People usually stick to the deal even though it has changed for the worse".[31]Humanists point out that "man inherits the capacity for loyalty, but not the use to which he shall put it... may unselfishly devote himself to what is petty or vile, as he may to what is generous and noble".[32]
One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Loyalty".Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 17 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 80.| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
