The meaning of the word loyalty

Loyalty is a devotion and faithfulness to a nation, cause, philosophy, country, group, or person.^[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 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).

Historical concepts[edit]

Western world[edit]

Classical tragedy is often based on a conflict arising from dual loyalty.
Euthyphro, one of Plato’s early dialogues, is based on the ethical dilemma arising from
Euthyphro intending to lay manslaughter charges against his own father, who had caused the death of a slave through negligence.

In the Gospel of Matthew 6:24, Jesus states, «No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon». This relates to the authority of a master over his servants (as per Ephesians 6:5), who, according to Biblical law, owe undivided loyalty to their master (as per Leviticus 25:44–46).^[2]
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.^[3]

The Encyclopædia 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 an oath that one has made. The meaning that the Britannica gives as primary, it attributes to a shift during the 16th century, noting that the origin of the word is in the Old French «loialte», that is in turn rooted in the Latin «lex», meaning «law». One who is loyal, in the feudal sense of fealty, is one who is lawful (as opposed to an outlaw), who has full legal rights as a consequence of faithful allegiance to a feudal lord. Hence the 1911 Britannica derived its (early 20th century) primary meaning of loyalty to a monarch.^[4][5]

East Asia[edit]

(Zhong)^{[clarification needed]} Often cited as one of the many virtues of Confucianism, meaning to do the best you can do for others.

«Loyalty» is the most important and frequently emphasized virtue in Bushido. 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».^[6]

Modern concepts[edit]

Josiah Royce presented a different definition of the concept in his 1908 book The Philosophy of Loyalty. According to Royce, loyalty is a virtue, 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.^[7] 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».^[8][7][9] Loyalty is thoroughgoing in that it is not merely a casual interest but a wholehearted commitment to a cause.^[10]

Royce’s view of loyalty was challenged by Ladd in the article on «Loyalty» in the first edition of the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967).

Ralls (1968) observes that Ladd’s article is the Macmillan Encyclopaedia‘s only article on a virtue, and praises it for its «magnificent» declaration by Ladd that «a loyal Nazi is a contradiction in terms».^[11]
Ladd asserts that, contrary to Royce, causes to which one is loyal are interpersonal, not impersonal or suprapersonal.^[12] 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 at The 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. Even if one were identifying one’s self-will with God, to be worthy of such loyalty God would have to be the summum 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 doing so 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 with this that Duska identifies 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.^[13]

Ladd considers loyalty from two perspectives: its proper object and its moral value.^[14]

John Kleinig, professor of philosophy at City University of New York, observes that over the years the idea has been treated by writers from Aeschylus through John Galsworthy to Joseph 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 of loyalty oaths and patriotism. As a philosophical concept, loyalty was largely untreated by philosophers until the work of Josiah Royce, the «grand exception» in Kleinig’s words.^[8] John Ladd, professor of philosophy at Brown University, writing in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy in 1967, observes that by that time the subject had received «scant attention in philosophical literature». This he attributed to «odious» associations that the subject had with nationalism, including Nazism, and with the metaphysics of idealism, 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».^[14] Kleinig observes that from the 1980s onwards, the subject gained attention, with philosophers variously relating it to professional ethics, whistleblowing, friendship, and virtue theory.^[8]

Additional aspects enumerated by Kleinig include the exclusionary nature of loyalty and its subjects.^[8]

The proper object of loyalty[edit]

Ladd and others, including Milton R. Konvitz^{[year needed]} and Marcia W. Baron (1984),^[12] disagree amongst themselves as to the proper object of loyalty—what it is possible to be loyal to, in other words. Ladd, as stated, considers loyalty to be interpersonal, and that the object of loyalty is always a person. In the Encyclopaedia 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».^[15] Baron agrees with Ladd, inasmuch as loyalty is «to certain people or to a group of people, not loyalty to an ideal or cause». She argues in her monograph, 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». 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 restricted solely to personal attachments, considering it «incorrect (as a matter of logic)».^[16] Loyalty to people and abstract notions such as causes or ideals is considered an evolutionary tactic, as there is a greater chance of survival and procreation if animals belong to loyal packs.^[17]

In his combined works, Immanuel Kant constructed the basis for an ethical law by the concept of duty.^[18] Kant began his ethical theory by arguing that the only virtue 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). The good will is unique in that it is always good and maintains its moral value even when it fails to achieve its moral intentions.^[19] Kant regarded the good will as a single moral principle that freely chooses to use the other virtues for moral ends.^[20]

Multiplicity, disloyalty, and whether loyalty is exclusionary[edit]

Stephen Nathanson, professor of philosophy at Northeastern University, states that loyalty can be either exclusionary or non-exclusionary; and can be single or multiple. 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 a disloyalty to an object if one of those loyalties is exclusionary, 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.

Other dimensions[edit]

In addition to number and exclusion as just outlined, Nathanson enumerates five other «dimensions» that loyalty can vary along: basis, strength, scope, legitimacy, and attitude.^[21]

Loyalties differ in basis according to their foundations. They may be constructed upon the basis of unalterable facts that constitute a personal connection between the subject and the object of the loyalty, such as biological ties or place of birth (a notion of natural allegiance propounded by Socrates in his political theory). Alternatively, they may be constructed from personal choice and evaluation of criteria with a full degree of freedom. The degree of control that one has is not necessarily simple; Nathanson points out that whilst one has no choice as to one’s parents or relatives, one can choose to desert them.^[21]

Loyalties differ in strength. They can range from supreme loyalties, that override all other considerations, to merely presumptive loyalties, that affect one’s presumptions, providing but one motivation for action that is weighed against other motivations. Nathanson observes that strength of loyalty is often interrelated with basis. «Blood is thicker than water», states an aphorism, explaining that loyalties that have biological ties as their bases are generally stronger.^[21]

Loyalties differ in scope. They range from loyalties with limited scope, that require few actions of the subject, to loyalties with broad or even unlimited scopes, which require many actions, or indeed to do whatever may be necessary in support of the loyalty. Loyalty to one’s job, for example, may require no more action than simple punctuality and performance of the tasks that the job requires. Loyalty to a family member can, in contrast, have a very broad effect upon one’s actions, requiring considerable personal sacrifice. Extreme patriotic loyalty may impose an unlimited scope of duties. Scope encompasses an element of constraint. Where two or more loyalties conflict, their scopes determine what weight to give to the alternative courses of action required by each loyalty.^[21]

Loyalties differ in legitimacy. This is of particular relevance to the conflicts among multiple loyalties. People with one loyalty can hold that another, conflicting, loyalty is either legitimate or illegitimate. In the extreme view, one that Nathanson ascribes to religious extremists and xenophobes for examples, all loyalties bar one’s own are considered illegitimate. The xenophobe does not regard the loyalties of foreigners to their countries as legitimate while the religious extremist does not acknowledge the legitimacy of other religions. At the other end of the spectrum, past the middle ground of considering some loyalties as legitimate and others not, according to cases, or plain and simple indifference to other people’s loyalties, is the positive regard of other people’s loyalties.^[21]

Finally, loyalties differ in the attitude that the subjects of the loyalties have towards other people. (Note that this dimension of loyalty concerns the subjects of the loyalty, whereas legitimacy, above, concerns the loyalties themselves.) People may have one of a range of possible attitudes towards others who do not share their loyalties, with hate and disdain at one end, indifference in the middle, and concern and positive feeling at the other.^[21]

In relation to other subjects[edit]

Patriotism[edit]

Nathanson observes that loyalty is often directly equated to patriotism. He states, that this is, however, not actually the case, arguing that whilst patriots exhibit loyalty, it is not conversely the case that all loyal persons are patriots. He provides the example of a mercenary 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 of professionalism or a belief in the sanctity of contracts. A patriot, in contrast, may be motivated by affection, concern, identification, and a willingness to sacrifice.^[21]

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 erroneously unlimited in their scopes, and fail to acknowledge boundaries of morality.^[21]

Employment[edit]

The faithless servant doctrine is a doctrine under the laws of a number of states in the United States, and most notably New 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.^{[22][23][24][25][26]}

Whistleblowing[edit]

Several scholars, including Duska, discuss loyalty in the context of whistleblowing. Wim Vandekerckhove of the University of Greenwich points out that in the late 20th century saw the rise of a notion of a bidirectional 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, himself, 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, a position that Vandekerckhove counters by arguing that businesses are in need of employee loyalty.

John Corvino, associate professor of philosophy at Wayne 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» (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.^[5]

Marketing[edit]

Businesses seek to become the objects of loyalty in order to retain customers. Brand loyalty is a consumer’s preference for a particular brand and a commitment to repeatedly purchase that brand.^[27] Loyalty programs offer rewards to repeat customers in exchange for being able to keep track of consumer preferences and buying habits.^[28]

One similar concept is fan loyalty, an allegiance to and abiding interest in a sports team, fictional character, or fictional series. Devoted sports fans continue to remain fans even in the face of a string of losing seasons.^[29]

In the Bible[edit]

Attempting to serve two masters leads to «double-mindedness» (James 4:8), undermining loyalty to a cause. The Bible also speaks of loyal ones, which would be those who follow the Bible with absolute loyalty, as in «Precious in the eyes of God is the death of his loyal ones» (Psalms 116:15). Most Jewish and Christian authors view the binding of Isaac (Genesis 22), in which Abraham was called by God to offer his son Isaac as a burnt offering, as a test of Abraham’s loyalty.^[30] Joseph’s faithfulness to his master Potiphar and his rejection of Potiphar’s wife’s advances (Genesis 39) have also been called an example of the virtue of loyalty.^[31]

Misplaced[edit]

Misplaced or mistaken loyalty refers to loyalty placed in other persons or organisations where that loyalty is not acknowledged or respected, is betrayed, 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 «the norm of social commitment directs us to honor our agreements…People usually stick to the deal even though it has changed for the worse».^[32] 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».^[33]

In animals[edit]

Animals as pets may display a sense of loyalty to humans. Famous cases include Greyfriars Bobby, a Skye terrier who attended his master’s grave for fourteen years; Hachiko, a dog who returned to the place he used to meet his master every day for nine years after his death;^[34] and Foxie, the spaniel belonging to Charles Gough, who stayed by her dead master’s side for three months on Helvellyn in the Lake District in 1805 (although it is possible that Foxie had eaten Gough’s body).^[35]

In the Mahabharata, the righteous King Yudhishthira 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 god Indra is prepared to admit him to Heaven, but refuses to admit the dog, so Yudhishthira refuses to abandon the dog, and prepares to turn away from the gates of Heaven. Then the dog is revealed^{[by whom?]} to be the manifestation of Dharma, 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.^[36][37] Yudhishthira is known by the epithet Dharmaputra, the lord of righteous duty.

See also[edit]

• Filial piety
• Pietas

References[edit]

Further reading[edit]

• Alford, C. Fred (2002). «Implications of Whistleblower Ethics for Ethical Theory». Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-8780-4.
• Axinn, Sydney (1997). «Loyalty». In Patricia H. Werhane; R. Edward Freeman (eds.). Encyclopedic Dictionary of Business Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. pp. 388–390.
• Connor, James (25 July 2007). The Sociology of Loyalty (1st ed.). Springer. ISBN 978-0-387-71367-0.
• Corvino, John (November 2002). «Loyalty in Business?». Journal of Business Ethics. 41 (1–2): 179–185. doi:10.1023/A:1021370727220. ISSN 0167-4544. S2CID 154177012.
• Ewin, R. Edward (October 1992). «Loyalty and Virtues». The Philosophical Quarterly. 42 (169): 403–419. doi:10.2307/2220283. JSTOR 2220283.
• Kim Dae-jung (June 1999). «Loyalty, Filial Piety in Changing Times».
• Konvitz, Milton R. (1973). «Loyalty». In Philip P. Wiener (ed.). Encyclopedia of the History of Ideas. Vol. III. New York: Scribner’s. p. 108.
• Mullin, Richard P. (10 May 2007). «Josiah Royce’s Philosophy of Loyalty as the Basis for Ethics». The Soul of Classical American Philosophy: The Ethical and Spiritual Insights of William James, Josiah Royce, and Charles Sanders Peirce. SUNY Press. p. 2007. ISBN 978-0-7914-7109-8.
• Nitobe, Inazō (1975). «The Duty of Loyalty». In Charles Lucas (ed.). Bushido: The Warrior’s Code. History and Philosophy Series. Vol. 303. Black Belt Communications. ISBN 978-0-89750-031-9.
• Royce, Josiah (1908). The Philosophy of Loyalty. New York: The Macmillan Company.
• William Ritchie Sorley (1908). «Review of The Philosophy of Loyalty«. The Hibbert Journal. 7.
  Reprinted as William Ritchie Sorley (2000). «Review of The Philosophy of Loyalty«. In Randall E. Auxier (ed.). Critical Responses to Josiah Royce, 1885–1916. History of American Thought. Vol. 1. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-85506-833-9.
• White, Howard B. (1956). «Royce’s Philosophy of Loyalty». The Journal of Philosophy. 53 (3): 99–103. doi:10.2307/2022080. JSTOR 2022080.

Last Updated:
12 Apr 2023
— Updated example sentences

лояльность, верность, преданность

существительное ↓

Словосочетания

the loyalty of the team’s fans — преданность поклонников команды  
a politician with unswerving loyalty to the President — политик, непоколебимо пренданный президенту  
under the cloak of loyalty — под маской лояльности  
to make a declaration of loyalty to the king — дать клятву верности королю  
display of loyalty — демонстрация лояльности  
loyalty to one’s friends — верность своим друзьям  
to demonstrate / show loyalty — выказывать преданность  
to swear loyalty — клясться в верности  
to command loyalty — быть лояльным  
oath of loyalty / allegiance — присяга на верность  
loyalty rebate — скидка за приверженность  
loyalty status — степень приверженности  

Примеры с переводом

Примеры, ожидающие перевода

Возможные однокоренные слова

disloyalty  — нелояльность, неверность, предательство, вероломство
loyalties  — верность, преданность, родственные чувства, привязанность, приверженность

Формы слова

noun
ед. ч.(singular): loyalty
мн. ч.(plural): loyalties

• 1
  loyalty
  
  

  ве́рность, пре́данность; лоя́льность

  Англо-русский словарь Мюллера > loyalty

• 2
  loyalty
  
  

  Персональный Сократ > loyalty

• 3
  loyalty
  
  

  Politics english-russian dictionary > loyalty

• 4
  loyalty
  
  

  сущ.

  1)

  общ.

  приверженность; верность, преданность; привязанность; лояльность

  Syn:

  Ant:

  See:

  See:

  3)

  соц.

  терпение, смирение, согласие

  *

  See:

  * * *

  Англо-русский экономический словарь > loyalty

• 5
  loyalty
  
  

  1. n верность, преданность

  2. n лояльность; благонадёжность

  loyalty oath — «присяга в благонадёжности»; подписка о непринадлежности к подрывным организациям

  3. n родственные чувства; привязанность

  tribal loyalties — чувства, связывающие членов одного племени, племенная связь

  Синонимический ряд:

  1. fidelity (noun) adherence; adhesion; allegiance; ardor; constancy; faithfulness; fealty; fidelity; homage; patriotism; piety; steadfastness

  2. love (noun) affection; attachment; bond; devotion; fondness; love; tie

  Антонимический ряд:

  English-Russian base dictionary > loyalty

• 6
  loyalty
  
  

  [ˈlɔɪəltɪ]

  brand loyalty приверженность торговой марке consumer loyalty приверженность потребителя loyalty верность, преданность; лояльность loyalty верность loyalty лояльность, верность loyalty лояльность loyalty преданность loyalty соблюдение законов

  English-Russian short dictionary > loyalty

• 7
  loyalty
  
  

  ˈlɔɪəltɪ сущ. верность, преданность;
  лояльность (to) to command loyalty ≈ быть лояльным to demonstrate, show loyalty ≈ выказывать преданность to swear loyalty ≈ клясться в верности deep-rooted, strong, unquestioned, unshakable loyalty ≈ непоколебимая, не вызывающая сомнений верность party loyalty ≈ верность партии unswerving loyalty to one’s friends ≈ непреклонная верность своим друзьям Syn: allegiance
  верность, преданность лояльность;
  благонадежность — * certificate свидетельство благонадежности — * oath (американизм) «присяга в благонадежности»;
  подписка о непринадлежности к подрывным организациям — * purge( американизм) чистка государственных учреждений от заподозренных в нелояльном отношении к американскому образу жизни — * test (американизм) «проверка лояльности» (государственных служащих) родственные чувства;
  привязанность — tribal loyalties чувства, связывающие членов одного племени, племенная связь
  brand ~ приверженность торговой марке
  consumer ~ приверженность потребителя
  loyalty верность, преданность;
  лояльность ~ верность ~ лояльность, верность ~ лояльность ~ преданность ~ соблюдение законов

  Большой англо-русский и русско-английский словарь > loyalty

• 8
  loyalty
  
  

  n

  верность, преданность, лояльность

  English-russian dctionary of diplomacy > loyalty

• 9
  loyalty
  
  

  [‘lɔɪəltɪ]

  сущ.

  1) верность, преданность

  deep-rooted / strong / unquestioned / unshakable loyalty — непоколебимая, не вызывающая сомнений верность

  to demonstrate / show loyalty — выказывать преданность

  Syn:

  Англо-русский современный словарь > loyalty

• 10
  loyalty
  
  

  [ʹlɔıəltı]

  1. верность, преданность

  2. лояльность; благонадёжность

  loyalty oath — «присяга в благонадёжности»; подписка о непринадлежности к подрывным организациям

  loyalty purge — чистка государственных учреждений от заподозренных в нелояльном отношении к американскому образу жизни

  3.

  родственные чувства; привязанность

  tribal loyalties — чувства, связывающие членов одного племени, племенная связь

  НБАРС > loyalty

• 11
  loyalty
  
  

  Англо-русский синонимический словарь > loyalty

• 12
  loyalty
  
  

  English-Russian big medical dictionary > loyalty

• 13
  loyalty
  
  

  Patent terms dictionary > loyalty

• 14
  loyalty
  
  

  English-russian dctionary of contemporary Economics > loyalty

• 15
  loyalty
  
  

    лояльность; приверженность; верность

  ♦ brand loyalty лояльность по отношению к определенной марке товара

  Англо-русский словарь по рекламе > loyalty

• 16
  loyalty
  
  

  лояльность; уважение к властям и верность действующим законам.

  * * *

  сущ.

  лояльность; уважение к властям и верность действующим законам.

  Англо-русский словарь по социологии > loyalty

• 17
  loyalty
  
  

  Англо-русский словарь по экономике и финансам > loyalty

• 18
  loyalty
  
  

  ве́рность ж, пре́данность ж, лоя́льность ж

  The Americanisms. English-Russian dictionary. > loyalty

• 19
  loyalty
  
  

  Универсальный англо-русский словарь > loyalty

• 20
  loyalty
  
  

  [`lɔɪ(ə)ltɪ]

  верность, преданность; лояльность

  Англо-русский большой универсальный переводческий словарь > loyalty

English[edit]

Alternative forms[edit]

• lealty (archaic, Scotland)
• loialty (archaic)
• loyaltie (obsolete)

Etymology[edit]

From Middle English loialte, borrowed from Old French loialte, loiauté (Modern loyauté) from loial + -té.

Pronunciation[edit]

• IPA^(key): /ˈlɔɪəlti/
• Hyphenation: loy‧al‧ty

Noun[edit]

loyalty (countable and uncountable, plural loyalties)

1. The state of being loyal; fidelity.

   brand loyalty

2. Faithfulness or devotion to some person, cause or nation.

   He showed loyalty to his local football club after successive relegations.

   • 2021 January 5, Luttig, J. Michael, Twitter‎^[1], archived from the original on 05 January 2021; republished as Washington Post‎^[2], January 5, 2021:

     The only responsibility and power of the Vice President under the Constitution is to faithfully count the electoral college votes as they have been cast.
     The Constitution does not empower the Vice President to alter in any way the votes that have been cast, either by rejecting certain of them or otherwise.
     How the Vice President discharges this constitutional obligation is not a question of his loyalty to the President any more than it would be a test of a President’s loyalty to his Vice President
     whether the President assented to the impeachment and prosecution of his Vice President for the commission of high crimes while in office.
     No President and no Vice President would—or should—consider either event as a test of political loyalty of one to the other.
     And if either did, he would have to accept that political loyalty must yield to constitutional obligation.
     Neither the President nor the Vice President has any higher loyalty than to the Constitution.

Synonyms[edit]

• trueness

Antonyms[edit]

• disloyalty

Derived terms[edit]

• loyalty card

Translations[edit]

See also[edit]

• allegiance
• fealty
• fidelity

Content

• What is Loyalty:
• Loyalty as value
• Loyalty phrases
• Loyalty and fidelity
• Brand loyalty

What is Loyalty:

Known as loyalty to the character of a loyal person, thing or animal. The term of loyalty expresses a feeling of respect and fidelity towards a person, commitment, community, organizations, moral principles, among others.

The term loyalty comes from the Latin «Legalis» which means “respect for the law”.

The term loyal is an adjective used to identify a faithful individual based on their actions or behavior. That is why a loyal person is one who is characterized by being dedicated, and compliant and even when circumstances are adverse, as well as defending what he believes in, for example: a project.

Loyalty is synonymous with nobility, rectitude, honesty, honesty, among other moral and ethical values ​​that allow to develop strong social and / or friendship relationships where a very solid bond of trust is created, and respect is automatically generated in individuals.

Nevertheless, the opposite of loyalty is treason, It is the fault that a person commits by virtue of the breach of his word or infidelity. Lack of loyalty describes a person who cheats on his peers, family, and exposes his own good repute.

See also: Raise crows and they will put out your eyes.

Loyalty is a characteristic that is not only present between individuals, but also between animals, especially dogs, cats and horses. All this, in gratitude for the affection and protection that human beings offer him.

The term of loyalty can be placed in different contexts such as work, friendship relationships, love affairs, among others, but loyalty should not be confused with patriotism since not all loyal people are patriotic, because patriotism is love of the country while that loyalty to the homeland is a feeling that many countries should awaken to citizens.

The word loyalty translated into English is loyalty.

See also Homeland.

Loyalty as value

Loyalty as a value is a virtue that unfolds in our conscience, in the commitment to defend and be faithful to what we believe and in whom we believe. Loyalty is a virtue that consists of obedience to the rules of fidelity, honor, gratitude and respect for something or someone, whether it be towards a person, animal, government, community, among others.

In reference to this point, some philosophers maintain that an individual can be loyal to a set of things, while others maintain that one is only loyal to another person since this term refers exclusively to interpersonal relationships.

However, in a friendship it is not enough only the value of loyalty but also sincerity, respect, honesty, love, among other values ​​must be present.

See also Values.

Loyalty phrases

• «Love and loyalty run deeper than blood.» Richelle mead
• «Where there is loyalty, weapons are useless.» Paulo Coelho
• “You don’t earn loyalty in a day. You earn it day by day. » Jeffrey Gitomer.
• “Loyalty is a trademark. Those who have it, give it away for free. » Ellen J. Barrier.

Loyalty and fidelity

First of all, loyalty and fidelity are two values ​​necessary for strong relationships. However, both terms are not seen as synonyms, since some authors indicate that loyalty is part of loyalty.

Loyalty is a value that consists of respect, obedience, care and defense of what is believed and in whom it is believed, it can be to a cause, project, or person. For its part, fidelity is the power or virtue of fulfilling promises, despite changes in ideas, convictions or contexts. As such, fidelity is the ability not to cheat, and not betray the other people around you, so you do not break your given word.

Brand loyalty

In the world of marketing, brand loyalty indicates the continuous purchases of a product or service as a result of the value, emotional bond and trust between company — client. For this, it is essential that the products have an influence on the lives of customers, so that they are the brand ambassadors themselves.

However, to achieve loyalty it is necessary to use a set of strategies, especially communication by the seller or company, being dispensable the use of advertising to show the product and / or service which through social networks is very easy, safe and fast. Also, create an interaction between the client and the company to achieve communication and knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the product, which allows its improvement to achieve full customer satisfaction.

For other uses, see Loyalty (disambiguation).

Loyalty is faithfulness or a devotion to a person, country, group, or cause (Philosophers disagree as to what things one can be loyal to. Some, as explained in more detail below, argue that one can be loyal to a broad range of things, whilst others argue that it is only possible for loyalty to be to another person and that it is strictly interpersonal.)

There are many aspects to loyalty. John Kleinig, professor of Philosophy at City University of New York, observes that over the years the idea has been treated by creative writers from Aeschylus through John Galsworthy to 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 of loyalty oaths and patriotism. As a philosophical concept, loyalty was largely untreated by philosophers until the work of Josiah Royce, the «grand exception» in Kleinig’s words.^[1] John Ladd, professor of Philosophy at Brown University writing in the Macmillan Encyclopaedia of Philosophy in 1967, observes that by that time the subject had received «scant attention in philosophical literature». This he attributed to «odious» associations that the subject had with nationalism, including the nationalism of Nazism, and with the metaphysics of idealism, which he characterized as «obsolete». He argued that such associations were, however, faulty, and that the notion of loyalty is «an essential ingredient in any civilized and humane system of morals».^[2] Kleinig observes that from the 1980s onwards, the subject gained attention, with philosophers variously relating it to (amongst other things) professional ethics, whistleblowing, friendship, and virtue theory.^[1]

Early concepts

1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica

The Encyclopædia 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 an oath that one has made. The meaning that the Britannica gives as primary, it attributes to a shift during the 16th century, noting that the origin of the word is in the Old French «loialte», that is in turn rooted in the Latin «lex», meaning «law». One who is loyal, in the feudal sense of fealty, is one who is lawful (as opposed to an outlaw), who has full legal rights as a consequence of faithful allegiance to a feudal lord. Hence the 1911 Britannica derived its (early 20th century) primary meaning of loyalty to a monarch.^[3] This definition of loyalty based upon the word’s etymology is echoed by Vandekerckhove, when he relates loyalty and whistleblowing (more on which below).^[4]

Biblical and Christian views

In the Christian Bible, Jesus states «Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.» However, it acknowledges a limit to the scope of that authority. There is a sphere beyond the political sphere, in the Christian view, and where loyalty to authority conflicts with loyalty to God, the latter takes precedence.^[5] Moreover, Christianity rejects the notion of dual loyalty. In the Gospel of Matthew 6:24, Jesus states «No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon». This relates to the authority of a master over his servants (as per Ephesians 6:5), who according to (Biblical) law owe undivided loyalty to their master (as per Leviticus 25:44–46).^[6]

Josiah Royce’s conception

Josiah Royce in his 1908 book The Philosophy of Loyalty presented a different definition of the concept. According to Royce, loyalty is a virtue, 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.^[7] 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».^[1][7][8] The cause has to be an objective one. It cannot be one’s personal self. It is something external to oneself that one looks outward to the world to find, and that cannot be found within. It concerns not one’s own person, but other people. The devotion is active, a surrendering of one’s self-will to the cause, that one loves. Moreover, according to Royce, loyalty is social. Loyalty to a cause unites the many fellow-servants of that cause, binding them together in their service.^[7] Richard P. Mullin, professor of Philosophy at Wheeling Jesuit University, describes the three words «willing and practical and thoroughgoing» as «packed with meaning». Loyalty is willing in that it is freely given, not coerced. It is chosen after personal consideration, not something that one is born into. Loyalty is practical in that it is practiced. It is actively engaged upon, not passively expressed merely as a strong feeling about something. Loyalty is thoroughgoing in that it is not merely a casual interest but a wholehearted commitment to a cause.^[9]

From this definition, Royce constructs a moral framework based upon loyalty, using the notion of loyalty to loyalty itself.^[7] In order to do so, Royce distinguishes good causes from evil causes, by defining good causes as those that promote loyalty to loyalty. In other words, loyalty to such a cause enables, promotes, or otherwise furthers the abilities of other people to be loyal to their causes. A cause that destroys the object of someone else’s legitimate loyalty cannot be good. From this can be derived the virtues of truthfulness, justice, benevolence, and courtesy. Royce himself relates this to business ethics:^[7][9]

[I]n the commercial world, honesty in business is a service, not merely and not mainly to the others who are parties to the single transaction in which at any one time this faithfulness is shown. The single act of business fidelity is an act of confidence of man in man upon which the whole fabric of business rests.

—Josiah Royce, The Philosophy of Loyalty^[9][10]

Misplaced loyalty

Misplaced loyalty (or mistaken loyalty) is loyalty placed in other persons or organisations where that loyalty is not acknowledged or respected; is betrayed 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 ‘the norm of social commitment directs us to honor our agreements….People usually stick to the deal even though it has changed for the worse’.^[11] 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’.^[12]

Concepts from the mid-20th century onwards

John Ladd challenges Royce’s view of loyalty, as does Andrew Oldenquist (professor of Philosophy at Ohio State University).^[13] (Anthony Ralls observes that Ladd’s article is the Macmillan Encyclopaedia’s only article on a virtue, and praises it for its «magnificent» declaration by Ladd that «a loyal Nazi is a contradiction in terms».^[14]) Ladd asserts that, contrary to Royce, causes to which one is loyal are interpersonal, not impersonal or suprapersonal.^[13] 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, holder of the Charles Lamont Post Chair of Ethics and the Professions at The 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. Even if one were identifying one’s self-will with God, to be worthy of such loyalty God would have to be the summum bonum, the perfect manifestation of good. Ladd himself characterizes loyalty as interpersonal, i.e. a relationship between persons, as between (for examples) a lord and a vassal, a parent and a child, or between two good friends. Duska states that doing so 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/her family, to a team that he/she is a member/fan of, or to his/her country. The problem with this that Duska identifies 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.^[2] Further aspects, enumerated by Kleinig, include the exclusionary nature of loyalty and its subjects.^[1]

The proper object of loyalty

Ladd and others, including Milton R. Konvitz and Marcia W. Baron (professor of Philosophy at Indiana University), disagree amongst themselves as to the proper object of loyalty — what it is possible to be loyal to, in other words. Ladd, as stated, considers loyalty to be interpersonal, and that the object of loyalty is always a person. Konvitz, writing in the Encyclopaedia of the History of Ideas, states that the objects of loyalty encompass principles, causes, ideas, ideals, religions, ideologies, nations, governments, parties, leaders, families, friends, regions, racial groups, and indeed «anyone or anything to which one’s heart can become attached or devoted». Baron agrees with Ladd, inasmuch as loyalty is «to certain people or to a group of people, not loyalty to an ideal or cause». She argues, in her monograph 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». Kleinig agrees with Baron, noting that a person’s earliest formed and psychologically strongest loyalties are almost always to people, and that it is only later on that people come to abstract the notions of values, causes, and ideals from such personal loyalties. He disagrees, however, with the notion that loyalties are restricted solely to personal attachments, saying it to be «incorrect (as a matter of logic)».^[16]

Multiplicity, disloyalty, and whether loyalty is exclusionary

Stephen Nathanson, professor of Philosophy at Northeastern University, states that loyalty can be either exclusionary or non-exclusionary; and can be single or multiple. 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 a disloyalty to an object if one of those loyalties is exclusionary, 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.

Other dimensions

In addition to number as just outlined, Nathanson enumerates five other «dimensions» that loyalty can vary along: basis, strength, scope, legitimacy, and attitude.^[17]

Loyalties differ in basis according to what foundation they are constructed upon. Loyalties may be constructed upon the basis of unalterable facts that constitute a personal connection between the subject and the object of the loyalty, including loyalties based upon biological ties, or upon place of birth (a notion of natural allegiance propounded by Socrates in his political theory). Alternatively, at the opposite end of the spectrum, they may be constructed out of personal choice and evaluation of criteria with a full degree of freedom, unprejudiced by circumstances and facts over which one has no control. The degree of control that one has is not necessarily simple. Nathanson points out that whilst one has no choice as to one’s parents or relatives, one can choose to desert them.^[17]

Loyalties differ in strength. They can range from supreme loyalties, that override all other considerations, to merely presumptive loyalties, that affect one’s presumptions, providing but one motivation for action that is weighed against other motivations. Nathanson observes that strength of loyalty is often interrelated with basis. «Blood is thicker than water.» states an aphorism, explaining that loyalties that have biological ties as their bases are generally stronger than loyalties that do not.^[17]

Loyalties differ in scope. They range from loyalties with limited scope, that require few actions of the subject, to loyalties with broad or even unlimited scopes, which require many actions, or indeed to do whatever may be necessary in support of the loyalty. Loyalty to one’s job, for example, may require no more action than simple punctuality and performance of the tasks that the job requires. Loyalty to a family member can, in contrast, have a very broad effect upon one’s actions, requiring considerable personal sacrifice. Extreme patriotic loyalty (more on which below) may impose an unlimited scope of duties. Scope encompasses an element of constraint. Where two or more loyalties conflict, their scopes determine what weight to give to the alternative courses of action required by each loyalty.^[17]

Loyalties differ in legitimacy. This is of particular relevance to the conflicts between multiple loyalties. People with one loyalty can hold that another, conflicting, loyalty is either legitimate or illegitimate. In the extreme view, one that Nathanson ascribes to religious extremists and xenophobes for examples, all loyalties bar one’s own are considered illegitimate. The xenophobe doesn’t regard the loyalties of people of other countries, to those countries, as legitimate. The religious extremist does not acknowledge the legitimacy of any other religion. At the other end of the spectrum, past the middle ground of considering some loyalties as legitimate and others not, according to cases, or plain and simple indifference to other people’s loyalties, is the positive regard of other people’s loyalties.^[17]

Finally, loyalties differ in the attitude that the subjects of the loyalties have towards other people. (Note that this dimension of loyalty concerns the subjects of the loyalty, whereas legitimacy, above, concerns the loyalties themselves.) People may have one of a range of possible attitudes towards others who do not share their loyalties, with hate and disdain at one end, indifference in the middle, and concern and positive feeling at the other.^[17]

In relation to other subjects

Patriotism

Nathanson observes that loyalty is often directly equated to patriotism. He states, that this is, however, not actually the case, arguing that whilst patriots exhibit loyalty, it is not conversely the case that all loyal persons are patriots. He provides the example of a mercenary soldier, who exhibits loyalty to the people/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 of professionalism, or a belief in the sanctity of contracts. A patriot, in contrast, may be motivated by affection, concern, identification, and a willingness to sacrifice.^[17]

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 erroneously unlimited in their scopes, and fail to acknowledge boundaries of morality.^[17]

Whistleblowing

Main article: Whistleblowing

Several scholars, including Duska mentioned earlier, discuss loyalty in the context of whistleblowing. Wim Vandekerckhove, senior lecturer at the University of Greenwich, points out that in the late 20th century there sprung forth the notion of a bidirectional 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/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, himself, 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, a position that Vandekerckhove counters by arguing that businesses are in need of employee loyalty. John Corvino, associate professor of Philosophy at Wayne State University takes a different tack, arguing along lines similar to Nathanson and others 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». This argument Vandekerckhove characterizes as «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 exactly what the objects of those loyalties really are.^[4]

Marketing

Businesses seek to become the objects of loyalty, in order to have their customers return. Brand loyalty is a consumer’s preference for a particular brand and a commitment to repeatedly purchase that brand in the face of other choices.^[18] Other businesses establish loyalty programs, which offer rewards to repeat customers, and often allow the business to keep track of their preferences and buying habits.^[19]

Fan loyalty is similar: an allegiance to and abiding interest in a sports team, fictional character, or fictional series. Devoted fans of a sports team will continue to follow it, relatively undaunted by a string of losing seasons.^[20]

In the Bible

Attempting to serve two masters leads to “double-mindedness” (James 4:8), undermining loyalty to a cause. The Bible also speaks of loyal ones, which would be those who follow the Bible with absolute loyalty, as in «Precious in the eyes of God is the death of his loyal ones», (Psalms 116:15) Most Jewish and Christian authors view the binding of Isaac (Genesis 22), in which Abraham was called by God to offer Isaac as a burnt offering, as a test of Abraham’s loyalty to God.^[21] Joseph’s faithfulness to his master Potiphar and his rejection of Potiphar’s wife’s advances (Genesis 39) have also been called an example of the virtue of loyalty.^[22]

In animals

Animals as pets have a large sense of loyalty to humans which may be more human-to-human loyalty. Famous cases include Greyfriars Bobby who attended his master’s grave for fourteen years; Hachiko, who returned to the place he used to meet his master every day for nine years after his death;^[23] and Foxie, the spaniel belonging to Charles Gough, who stayed by her dead master’s side for three months on Helvellyn in the Lake District in 1805 (the fact that Gough’s body was eaten by his dog was ignored in subsequent Romantic accounts of the story).^[24]

In the Mahabharata, the righteous King Yudhisthira, at the end of his life, appeared at the gates of Heaven. He had previously lost his brothers and his wife to death, and when he appeared at the gates his only remaining companion was a stray dog he had picked up along the way. The god Indra is prepared to admit him to Heaven, but refuses to admit the dog. Yudhistira refuses to abandon the dog, and prepares to turn away from the gates of Heaven. Then the dog is revealed to be the manifestation of Dharma, the god of righteousness and justice, and who turned out to be his deified self. Yudhistira enters heaven in the company of his dog, the god of righteousness.^[25][26] Yudhistira is known by the epithet Dharmaputra, the lord of righteous duty.

References

 This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed (1911). «Loyalty». Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Loyalty.

Further reading

• Josiah Royce (1908). The Philosophy of Loyalty. New York: The Macmillan Company.
• Howard B. White (1956). «Royce’s Philosophy of Loyalty». The Journal of Philosophy (Journal of Philosophy, Inc.) 53 (3): 99–103. http://jstor.org./stable/2022080.
• Richard P. Mullin. «Josiah Royce’s Philosophy of Loyalty as the Basis for Ethics». The soul of classical American philosophy: the ethical and spiritual insights of William James, Josiah Royce, and Charles Sanders Peirce. SUNY Press. pp. 2007. ISBN 0791471098.
• Inazō Nitobe (1975). «The Duty of Loyalty». In Charles Lucas. Bushido: the warrior’s code. History and Philosophy Series. 303. Black Belt Communications. ISBN 0897500318.
• James Connor (2007-07-25). The Sociology of Loyalty (1st ed.). Springer. ISBN 0387713670.
• W. R. Sorley (1908). «Review of The Philosophy of Loyalty«. Hibbert journal 7.
  reprinted as W. R. Sorley (2000). «Review of The Philosophy of Loyalty«. In Randall E. Auxier. Critical responses to Josiah Royce, 1885–1916. History of american thought. 1. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 1855068338.
• Kim Dae Jung (June 1999). Loyalty, Filial Piety in Changing Times. http://tparents.org/UNews/unws9906/Kim_conscience.htm.
• R. E. Ewin (October 1992). «Loyalty and Virtues». The Philosophical Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing) 42 (169): 403–419. http://jstor.org./stable/2220283.
• Milton R. Konvitz (1973). «Loyalty». In Philip P. Wiener. Encyclopedia of the History of Ideas. III. New York: Scribner’s. pp. 108.
• C. Fred Alford (2002). «Implications of Whistleblower Ethics for Ethical Theory». Whistleblowers: broken lives and organizational power. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0801487803.
• Sydney Axinn (1997). «Loyalty». In P. H. Werhane and R. E. Freeman. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Business Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. pp. 388–390.
• John Corvino (November 2002). «Loyalty in Business?». Journal of Business Ethics (Springer Netherlands) 41 (1–2): 179–185. doi:10.1023/A:1021370727220. ISSN 0167-4544.