From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Additional information:
Taskforce icon


This is verity and i'm new to this, but i changed some things around, most notably the rearrangement of the headings (Social and Culturali love you the page was too focused on this) and also adding a "personal" touch to what loyalty means. You might want to check things out and touch some things yourself if it doesn't make any sense. Good day.

Suggested Changes[edit]

I would say the strongest part of this article is the etymology section, but it would benefit greatly from a citation. As for the philosphy section, none of these philosophers deserves such off-hand mention. Either cut this section, or greatly expand it. An expansion of the comments concerning Plato are especially necessary as they are rather cryptic in their current form.
Might I suggest a section on how the concept of loyalty relates to the concept of love - especially filial love? Also how it relates to the concept of authority (as it is, there is a strong anti-authoritarian bias which, considering the subject, is rather perverse)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 2005-05-12 15:14:30

  • It was in fact cited in the original version of the article (q.v.). This is now clearer, with the citation concerned cross-linked to the text. I've looked for sources that could clarify which of the many things that Plato said is being referenced here. But the only sources that match, attribute the statement to this very Wikipedia article. So I've removed it. It should be clear in any case, from the now expanded article, that philosophy treats the subject of loyalty at length. Plato's actual views on the subject can be put in when a source that has read Plato, rather than Wikipedia, turns up. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Loyalty to a cause[edit]

According to my awareness and perception the concept of loyalty does always refer to a person, and never to a cause. I agree with the description given here: This site is no longer in action. Why do you think that it can refer to a cause, too? Austerlitz 13:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC) ***** There are very important causes that one can be loyal to, such as helping a person, thank you very much.

Jeffrey Masson about loyalty[edit]

Loyalty to oneself

  • I liked the idea of representing nobody but myself. No affiliation, no ties, no loyalties.

-- 21:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


Is loyalty an emotion? -- Sharkface217 23:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

♥ A friend never talks behind your back or bails,leavs you out♥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That rather suggests that people should fulfill some ethical criteria to be worthy of being given loyalty. (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Loyalty (Family)[edit]

I am finding myself questioning and always since I was a child to long for loyalty. Loyalty as a child has brought to me as a since of belonging and edification. When that did not occur for me as a child I promised myself that I would give it to my children. I think I have but keep running in to it with my own siblings and mother for a since of family and loyalty. And for some reason they seem to never come through. Loyalty I give to them but loyalty is never returned. Today I feel a need to write this and it may mean nothing to no one but for me I really needed to get it out. Loyalty! Lynn Posey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhposey41 (talkcontribs) 02:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean love rather than loyalty. (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Loyalty is corrupting[edit]

Being loyal to a corrupt person makes you corrupt, so loyalty is not simply a good thing. I would like more about this aspect in the article. There is an important dicotomy of business or organisational cultures being either fact-based or loyalty-based - with the later seeming superficially to give an excellent performance without anyone doing much work, as people are assessed on their lip-service, until it crashes disastrously. Unless they have such powerful defences to criticism that they are never found out. It can be corrupt to be loyal to a family member if you know, for example, that they are a murderer and do not report it to the police out of loyalty. The (former?) President of Zimbabwe had lots of loyal followers, but the country metaphorically crashed and burned and many people seemed to die as a result of their loyalty. On the other hand loyalty to a family member who becomes ill and needs caring, rather than just walking away, is a good thing. (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

a link to add?

"In my experience, psychoanalysis demanded loyalty that could not be questioned, the blind acceptance of unexamined "wisdom". It is characteristic of religious orders to seek obedience without scepticism, but it spells the death of intellectual enquiry. All variants of "because I say so," or because the Koran says so, or the Bible says so, or the Upanishads say so, or Freud says so, or Marx says so, are simply different means of stifling intellectual dissent. In the end they cannot satisfy the inquisitive mind or still the doubts that naturally arise when such a mind is confronted with authoritative statements about human behavior." (pages 209, 210)

Does loyalty to a cause or a person mean that one has to hide one's own intellectual dissent?

Austerlitz -- (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


  • [3] "6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Why not quote all of it?
Austerlitz -- (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A 'new' definition of loyalty...[edit]

There have been many weighty and learned tomes written about what constitutes loyalty and I have no doubt they are all correct. After all, they are all far cleverer than I. However, until the work below, we had never seen a pragmatic business headline describing what exactly loyalty is. So after many hours of cogitation and discussion this is what emerged. I know it appears a ‘blinding glimpse of the obvious’ but, like so many simple things, it is carefully crafted and has a definition that can be used in any business whilst conveying the key messages - albeit subliminally. The definition of loyalty is:

“When a person chooses to do business with your company over all others time after time."

Let me explain why it is as it is. A few observations (more like facts of life really):

  • Loyalty can only exist between people. Just think of the last time you recommended. I can tell you it was based on how you were made to feel by an individual NEVER by the company.
  • Companies do not do business. People from one company do business with people from another. Regardless of medium, it is people that design and manage interactions. So, what comes through is the personality of the individual or the collective and that’s the thing you hang your hat on.
  • People always have a choice. At the very least, people have a choice whether to or not. More often today they have more choice than ever about who might supply them.
  • Long term loyalty, advocacy, can only come from continually delivering complete satisfaction. Single/individual instances do not constitute loyalty as trust and confidence are essential ingredients of loyalty and these can only be built over time.

ListysDad (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This is another instance of confusion with the vernacular meaning of the word, specifically "customer loyalty". (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Case study of why loyalty is a bad thing[edit]

See MC uses a carrot-and-stick approach to maintain and develop loyalty.

It is a bad thing where loyalty replaces altruism. (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Fundamental flaw of this & related articles[edit]

A simple illustration.

  • "Faithfulness is the concept of unfailingly remaining loyal…"
  • "Loyalty is a devotion and faithfulness…"
  • "Fidelity is the quality of faithfulness or loyalty."

Any proposals to delete, revise, or merge these articles will be considered.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The lede needs oversight. Specifically, claims made at the beginning of an article don't need to cite a source… but MUST be clearly substantiated within the main body. That does not exist here.

Entire sections over-rely on a sole source, Nathanson being an obvious example.

Though perhaps not a critical flaw, caution MUST be exercised when referring to someone in the present tense. Name-dropping their post can be awkward if they retired two decades ago, moreso if they've been dead that long. The article ages much better if past tense (said; wrote; stated; claimed) is preferred.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)