I hope I have given you what you need. I want to thank you for sharing all of your secrets with me. You have trusted me, and treated me sinless and kind. How marvelous are those words. Granted that loyalty is the wholehearted devotion to an object of some kind, what kind of thing is this object? Or is it a person or group of persons? The idealist contents that loyalty is the willing and practical and thoroughgoing devotion of a person to a cause. Its object is a cause beyond your private self, greater than you are and impersonal and superpersonal. As a cause it is something that transcends the individual, an eternal reality. Apart from familiar metaphysical and logical objections to this concept of a superpersonal reality, this view has the ethical defect of postulating duties over and above duties to individual men and groups of men. The individual is submerged and lost in this superperson not only ontologically but also morally, for it tends to dissolve our specific duties and obligations to other into a superhuman good.  

It should be pointed out that in our common moral language, as well as historically, loyalty is taken to refer to relationships between persons—for instance, between lord and his vassal, between a parent and his children, or between friends. Thus, the object of loyalty is ordinarily taken to be a person or a group of persons. Loyalty is conceived as interpersonal, and it is also always specific; a man is loyal to his lord, his father, or his comrades. It is conceptually impossible to be loyal to people in general (humanity) or to a general principle, such as justice or democracy. The social atomist fails to recognize the special character and significance of the ties that bind individuals together and provide the basis for loyalties. Loyalty is not founded on just any causal relationship between persons, but on a specific kind of relationship or tie. The special ties involved arise from the twofold circumstance that the persons so bound are comembers of a specific group (community) distinguished by a specific common background and sharing specific interests, and are related in terms of some sort of role differentiation within that group.  

Is loyalty something good in itself? Is it always good? Can there be bad loyalties? Loyalty is the highest moral good.  A man’s wholehearted devotion to a cause is eo ispo (by that very act or quality; thereby) good and becomes evil only when it conflicts with other loyalties. The supreme good is loyalty to loyalty: so choose and so serve your individual cause as to secure there by the greatest increase of loyalty among men. The view that loyalty has an inner value, whatever be the cause to which this man is loyal, can be used to redeem the most evil acts of men. Such a belief outrages our moral feelings, for we want to say that a cause which demands injustice or cruelty as the price of devotion render that devotion an evil it itself. What is due or owed is defined by the roles of the persons concerned. The fact that loyalty gives what is due also explains why we can demand the loyalty of others. It follows that mere blind obedience to every wish of the person who is the object of loyalty is not loyalty; it is a perversion of loyalty. There is no moral value to it at all, since it is not something that is morally due.  

In this sense, loyalty may often be one-sided, although it need not be. If we could not count on the loyalty of others or give them out loyalty, social life would not only be bleak but also impossible. When loyalty is one-sided, eventually the loyal party will disengage, they will let go of the connection. People who feel betrayed will stop devoting their time and effort to the relationship because they feel that their trust has been eroded. When the people we love or with whom we have a deep connection stop caring, stop paying attention, stop investing and fighting for the relationship, trust begins to slip away and hurt starts to seep in. Disengagement triggers shame and out greatest fears—the fear of being abandoned, unworthy, and unlovable. Even if you betray a person and they remain loyal to you for a while, there comes a point when the relationship is over. By virtue of the empirical and logical connections among facts, a relationship can only sustain so much abuse before, no matter who you are nor what you do for a living, a person simply gives up on you. 

The way to facilitate satisfaction in relationship is lovingly to picture the best possible outcome. Make sure it is mutually beneficial. Let go of all the negative feeling and merely hold the picture in mind. We can tell if we are really surrendered when we feel okay either way; it is okay with us if it happens, and it is okay with us if it does not happen. Therefore, to be surrendered does not mean to be passive. It is being active in a good way. When we are surrendered, there is no longer the pressure of time. Frustration comes from wanting a thing now instead of letting it happen naturally in its own time. Patience is an automatic side effect of letting go, and we know how easy it is to get along with patient people. Notice that patient people usually get what they want. One resistance to letting go is the illusion that, if we let go of our wantingness and our expectations, we will get what we want. We fear that we will lost it if we do not keep pressuring for it. The mind has the idea that the way to get a thing is to want it.  

Actually, if we examine the issues, we will see that events are due to decisions, and choices are based on our intentions. What we get is the result of those choices, even though they are unconscious, rather than what we think we want. When we surrender the pressure of wantingness, we are clear to make wiser choices and decision. We think that our happiness depends on controlling events, and that facts are what upset us. Actually, it is our feeling and thoughts about these facts that are real cause of our upset. Facts in and of themselves are neutral things. The power we give the is due to our attitude of acceptance or non-acceptance and our overall feeling state. If we get stuck in a feeling, it is because we still secretly believe that it will accomplish something for us. Research has shown that when we are repeatly exposed to novel stimuli—whether they be unfamiliar musical selections, works of art, or human faces—our liking for such stimuli increases. This phenomenon is called the mere exposure effect, and it explains why we are attracted to people in close proximity to us.  

Conversely, with the mere exposure effect, if you keep exposing people to negative stimuli, they will see what they do not like and eventually be turned off and want nothing to do with the object.   The purpose of life is happiness. If we are not happy, we cannot think of making others happy. We realize that to satisfy someone’s needs, we also have to give something in return.  The accusation that one person has exploited another is a common one. Charges of exploitation are frequently applied with regard to specific actions, interactions, and transactions among individuals, as well as to broader practices of relationships. A relationship becomes exploitative when one takes unfair advantage of another and it is clear that the terms or substances of a transaction must be unfair if it is to be exploitative. I know that it is difficult in this materialistic World to be truly altruistic. I have moved to a stage of life when selfishness has no value. The harmony of the whole World is re-created with each and every soul that is born to it.