FORUM : LOYALTY

Me : Someone said it is "the holiest virtue in the human heart". It anchors a marriage and binds a friendship and yet people are saying this is a fast disappearing virtue. Is this so? If so, why?

If truly an ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness and if " it is better to be faithful than famous" - Theodore Roosevelt, AND if "those who faithfully observe their trust and their covenants will inherit Paradise" - The Quran.....

...are we then becoming less divine, less clever, having problems with our commitment , allegiance and devotion to the people and entity that we say we love such that finding worthy partners and friends may soon become a thing of the past?

Loyalty diminishes because of egotism.....

Me : That may be true...

A person's loyalty says much about that person. If you are loyal to someone, you would always preserve his/her good name no matter what. It is a moral necessity which reflects your understanding and acceptance of the person or institution you are related with.

They say a loyal person has character. Real loyalty endures inconvenience, withstands temptation and does not cringe under assault.

It is also said that only those who are special and exceptional may have the capacity to be truly loyal and true loyalty may be seen only when challenged. It would appear that many had succumbed to the challenges it attract!

Why is it so difficult to be loyal, or is being "normal" men just an excuse? After all, normalcy is supposed to be acceptable.

You say they have become more self-centered. Why have they become so?

Self-centredness is a prerequisite of survival. However, as you grow and mature, survival should also be balanced up with other values in life....

Why? Even the education system of the country recognises the limit of human IQ

which is basically hinging on the ability of the individual.

The nature of loyalty is dependency

Me : Individual achievement is important to feel good about yourself. However, loyalty may still be upheld so long as it does not compromise your honour. Otherwise it is blind loyalty. My thought reflects the Tuah-Jebat "brotherhood".

William J. Bennet suggests that loyalty needs the understanding of truth and what is right. As such, children should be educated in values which may improve the ability to think when empowered under any situation. At times young people tend to give up easily.... and they resort to becoming jumping frogs for the sake of RM100-200 more. Employers see this as a loyalty issue.

Loyalty has it's limitation... it should not be to the extent of being being led by the noose.

I do not deny it's positiveness and implications, but then at times it destroys oneself from within. It would be worst if it destroy others too. For example, blind loyalty. I think loyalty is linked to love.... we dare not confront the person whenever he makes a mistake, or worst we defend him ... all in the name of loyalty and love. In true loyalty and love one should be able to discuss such thing.

All things must have limits

Me : Thanks for mentioning this aspect, interestingly, it underlines the dependency of loyalty.

Agreed that loyalty must have it's limitations but nonetheless it does not change the characteristics of loyalty itself. It should be limited by ethics. For example, an abused wife should not allow the abuse to continue in the name of loyalty towards her husband. Loyalty ceases to be a virtue when we need to sacrifice our self respect to preserve it. This may be a little subjective as it depends on what one terms as self respect. How would you know when your self respectability is being compromised?

Only those capable of sacrifice may be loyal

Me : It is true that loyalty does have the element of sacrifice - a responsibility that transcends normal obligation whilst preserving the interest of those we have relationship with such as the husband-wife, employee-employer, citizen-nation, father-son......there will surely exist a certain expectation of loyalty, allegiance, fidelity and devotion .

It is a silent expectation.

I am LOYAL to those who deserved to be LOYAL to.

Interesting, who in your analysis should deserve it?

The thing is I am thinking that we don't necessarily give our loyalty to any Tom, Dick or Harry for no apparent reason. We give it to those whom we have come to be bonded to say, by employment or marriage, family tie or by any means of formal or informal contract.

It is something abstract, actually...can't put a finger to it...we can only follow a hunch...if we misplace it...we can always 

pull it back and give to those most deserving...most sincere...

Me : I am unsure of how to respond to this. You gave the notion that loyalty is something you may chose to give and then pull back and then give it to someone else.....You follow your hunch in this decision. Do correct me if I am wrong.

So my question would be what kind of hunch/feeling would you consider qualified for loyalty giving?

My thoughts are, once you decide on a bond or relationship with someone or entity, it goes with a commitment which, amongst others, would include an understanding/ expectation of some degree of loyalty. By an large, loyalty becomes the right thing to do and is therefore given willingly. If for some reason you find the bond no longer meaningful, then you may decide to break the bond and hence you become no longer bound to be loyal. That is why they say that the test of loyalty is when the bond is under stress. Loyalty therefore goes with the bond. I feel that it is not possible for you to remain bonded to someone and yet not be loyal to that person unless you choose not to be steadfast in your bond or attachment.

Sort of you need to test the loyalty that you give out...like Sayembara

Me : Sayembara"? What is it?

But still interesting........ Usually people would want to test the loyalty received. So what does it mean when you test the loyalty you give to others? Are you really expecting a "return" for the loyalty?

It's a contest a literary term. Nothing is 'free' nowadays, it seems...

Me : Oh thanks .....Cari dictionary says " prize contest" . Gee, it's pretty scary when I come to think of it. If you are not loyal in your friendship, what kind of a friend would that make you?

Due to a lot of bad things happenning to me in the past, my loyalty is given only to those who deserve it.

I think self-preserverence is the answer for this. Be defensive, follow your hunches and justify the badness in people, then you can get loyalty from someone

Me : Would you still remain in the same relationship as before even when you are no longer loyal to him/her/whatever?

There is no use to stay when there is nothing to commit to...I am an all-giver. If I can't be of help, I don't think I should be around at all. It would make me look useless. The same goes to him...whoever he is. my utmost strict policy on relationship is, the guy has to be super loyal and committed because i am. I may sound too firm ..huhu

Me : You make absolute sense. If you cannot commit do not get into a relationship. Any relationship demands self-sacrifice.

Hehehe... so how, while women may fake orgasm, men can fake a whole relationship!

In that case, should I say, mutual understanding? 

You do that, then I'll do this lah. Hihih, but in serious light, I see that both parties have to be clear about things like this. Communication is vital! no normal human being is born with psychic ability, especially men. Women mags have sheded some light on this and also relationship consultants have produced books to tell the public how should we do it in a most subtle way.

What do you think if, in a family situation, the mother is usually constrained to be loyal to the family only for the sake of the children when the daddy has commited adultery/affairs with another (showing he is being unloyal)....vice versa too, if the wife commits an affair with another.

Me : Generally, this calls for shared values. You know in my days the akad nikah(marriage solemnization) was done beyond the earshot of the bride. I always wondered why women were excluded from may things. Was it considered better if they knew less??

Cannot agree with you more. Maybe a proper agrement may be better....terms are clear cut...? I do wonder why the most important contract on earth is really without a proper agreement!

Definitely a problem of commitment which may be caused by various reasons. Something is missing in the bond.............Perhaps it was never real after all.....