issue 235 欢迎拍文作文修改小组7.16日作业

dsndiziUID: 2792853

Does it true that loyalty is always playing a role more destructive rather than positive as the author suggested? In response to the issue, one need to analyzes the proposition comprehensively and systematically, there has merit from the conclusion, which I agree with, that loyalty sometimes would bring about more destructive force rather than a positive force, while, after close consideration, I still can not entirely agree with the whole conclusion, which I disagree with is that the author overlooks the crucial function of being loyal.

First and foremost, there is no denying that in some particular situations not being loyal is a better choice, when there may emerge a breakthrough which differs from former findings or when the boss or cause is evil, being loyalty will make a great disaster. On one hand, in the academic field, if blindly keeping loyal to the ancient findings or thoughts, which may be popular for a certain period of time, there won't so many breakthroughs, such as the heliocentricism by Galileo, who was not loyal to the church whose main idea was that earth was the centre of universe. On the other hand, when the leader or the certain cause is evil or will harm to human, then be loyal equals to betray grand right of overall human beings, which is not accepted by morality. For instance,
Germany used be a developed and friendly country, while Hitler changes the situation, people in Germany were misleaded by his ideas and were loyalty to him, eventually led the World War two which brought the vast catastrophe to whole world. In this sense, sometimes loyalty is destructive.

In the second place, even if sometimes being loyal brings bad effects, while people can not neglect its positive influences. I will further explain it in virtue of three aspects. Firstly, when protecting our country, soldiers need to be loyal to their country, of course as well as their leaders, if not, without loyalty, the safety of the country can not be sustained. Secondly, it is the need of ethic, supposing that without loyalty how people can establish a family, or a tight friendship with others.
In this respect loyalty acts as a bridge that connects individuals together. Lastly, in the angle
of business, employees should be loyal to keep business secrets, which is crucial not only for their cooperation but also their own financial rights. In sum, I can safely claim that being loyalty has its positive force.

Finally and may be the most importantly, society can not be healthily develops without loyalty, people can not just assumes that under particular situations loyalty brings bad results then they can ignore the positive force of being loyal. Because our society
needs loyalty, people can achieve much previous wealth
from loyalty, such as if you being loyal to your friends, they will contribute their whole hearts to you in return, if you being loyal to your army, not only your country is safe your family can also live under a steady circumstance,
and perhaps can earn respect and reputation from people as well. If you are loyalty to your company, your occupation is maintained. While,
it is equally essential to judge whether the person and cause should be positive to the society.

From the analysis above, I can safely commit to the optimal conclusion that since loyalty is a dispensable part of our society, people should be loyal when affirmed that the leader or cause is positive and worth to attain your loyalty. From the point of this view, loyalty is a double-edged sword hinging on our attitudes towards it.
As a result it is reasonable that we should take every possibility into account when judging this issue.