Ewin would argue that because a nazi can be loyal, loyalty could not be a virtue, for the virtues are internally linked to the idea of good judgment. Whether that follows can be disputed. The loyal nazi might express that loyalty in a number of ways (as a husband and father, as a compassionate co-worker, or as a scourge of Jews) and in at least some of these ways loyalty would appear to function as a virtue (unless, perhaps. In the more interesting 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 them; but it is doubtful whether the value of loyalty is simply reducible to the value of the association in question.
Best Hamlet Argumentative essay topics
We will take extra risks or bear special burdens for them. Although our primary loyalties tend to be professional associations or groupings that are socially valued, such that loyalty may seem to be an important practical disposition, this moment 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. Football teams and coffee chains, gangs and crime families, may become objects of loyalty no less than professional associations and siblings. This raises 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 would argue that loyalty is virtuous or vicious depending on what is done out of loyalty. Others would argue that loyalty is always virtuous, though overridden when associated with immoral conduct. Consider the complicated case of a loyal nazi.
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 definitions reference to intrinsically valued associational universities attachments. Intrinsically valued associational attachments are usually those to which we have developed a 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 ones own. We feel shame or pride in their doings.
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, 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, 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). The structure of loyalty.1 loyalty and loyalties Although we often speak of loyalty as though it were a relatively free-floating practical disposition—which it occasionally is—it is more common to associate loyalty with certain natural or conventional groupings. Our loyalty tends to be expressed in loyalties. That is, it is not just a general affiliational attachment, but one that is tied to certain kinds of natural or conventional associations, such as friendships, families, organizations, professions, countries, and religions.
A few good Men - whysanity
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. 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 ). 2.1 A practical disposition or only a sentiment? The nature of loyal attachment is a matter monkey 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 puts it, it is an instinct to sociability (Ewin, 1990, 4;. But feelings of loyalty are probably not constitutive of loyalty, even if it is unusual to find loyalty that is 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. Those who focus on loyalty as a sentiment often intend to deny that loyalty might be rationally motivated. But even though expressions of loyalty are not 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. 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. 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 mcConnell). It is to this shared professional commitment that the lawyer is ultimately committed, not as a matter of mere sentiment but of deliberated choice.
From high-school essays to PhD dissertations, we ensure that every paper you need is done to the highest standards of academia. Introduction.1 Background, until recently, loyalty did not attract much attention in Western philosophical writing. Most of the detailed engagement with loyalty came from creative writers (Aeschylus, galsworthy, conrad business and marketing scholars (Goman; Jacoby chestnut psychologists (Zdaniuk levine psychiatrists (Böszörményi-nagy sociologists (Connor religious scholars (sakenfeld; Spiegel political economists (Hirschman and—pre-eminently—political theorists, who took a particular interest in nationalism, patriotism. Because of its focus on familial relations, confucian thought has long been interested in loyalty (Goldin). The grand Western philosophical exception has been Josiah. Royce, 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. Since the 1980s, though, some independent philosophical discussion has begun to emerge (Baron, Fletcher, Oldenquist, macIntyre, nuyen, keller, jollimore, felten, Kleinig not only generally and in the context of political theory, but also in the areas of occupational and professional ethics (McChrystal, Trotter, hajdin, hart. 1.2 roots, although the term loyalty has its immediate philological origins in Old French, its older and mostly abandoned linguistic roots are in the latin lex. 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 continually occupied with the fickleness of human commitments, whether to god or to each other. To characterize it 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 torn 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.
Essay on four Themes in The kite runner by Khaled Hosseini
The theme of Betrayal is evident in many of Shakespeare's characters be it Iago in Othello, brutus and Cassius in Julius caesar, or many of the key characters in the tragedy of King lear. In the first act of the play, the scene is set for action as our protagonist, the aging King lear, decides to abdicate his throne and divide it between his three daughters in divisions proportionate to their declaration of love for him. And here are to be answered. Tell me, my daughters. Since now we will divest us, both of rule. Interest of territory, cares of state. Which of you shall we say doth love us most i, i, 48-51). The eldest daughters, goneril and Regan. Our team offers professional writing assistance to students across the globe.
I think the only person Brutus has to blame for his loss is himself. #4 25-Feb-2007, 18:27, actually if you read the poem properly i think you'll find that Bess killed herself to warm her lover not to come any closer - "Then her finger moved ppt in the moonlight, her musket shattered the moonlight, Shattered her breast in the moonlight. The essay is a really good summary of what noyes was trying to achieve in his poem, it identifies the key themes, writing techniques and language used. I hope you do/did well! Summary: Discusses the william Shakespeare play, king lear. Explores the theme of betrayal in the play. Describes how the title character is driven by trust, deception, betrayal and loyalty all of which drive lear into madness. "Et tu Brute Act iii, scene 1, line 77) were the words of Julius caesar after being brutally stabbed and betrayed by his colleague, brutus, in William Shakespeare's Julius caesar.
simply mistrust. The conspirators did not trust caesar. They were sure he would destroy rome by becoming a tyrant. Later Cassius and Brutus s mistrust of each other would hander their cause. When two people in a group are fighting it makes the group weaker; for this reason Antony one his fight while Brutus lay dead. Mistrust will simply lead to demise, weather it be your demise or that of your idea. Because Brutus did not understand the concepts of loyalty, betrayal, and mistrust he was unprepared for the consequences. If Brutus had been a better friend he and caesar would have lived out their days in peace and tranquillity.
It is easy to give up and not be loyal to a friend. If Brutus had been a true friend he would have given his resume life right then and there along side caesar. Of course Brutus did not die on the ides of March. Brutus choose the easy route, which was to betray his friend. Betrayal is just not being loyal to someone. Betraying a trust can be the worst thing of all; there fore, it can be said that Brutu s committed the worst crime of all. When Brutus hacked at his friend, making him a former friend, he betrayed caesar for the first time.
SparkNotes: Julius caesar: Character List
Brutus 2 Essay, research Paper, stumbling and dripping blood from gashes of not only the flesh but of the soul caesar makes his way towards his friend. Then the tear into caesar most unkindly of all comes from Brutus. As Brutus hacked at his friend the thought most probably farthest from his mind was loyalty. Most people have to face the moral ramification of loyalty, betrayal, and mistrust. When you stand by a friend threw thick and thin you are being loyal. Loyalty is one of those tricky things in life. Staying loyal dessay to a friend may cost you a lot in the long run. Brutus thought he was a good friend, but when pressure was put on him he swayed.