Issue 235

dabaoqiaoUID: 195888

------题目------
Most people are taught that loyalty is a virtue. But loyalty—whether to one's friends, to one's school or place of employment, or to any institution—is all too often a destructive rather than a positive force.
------正文------
We are taught in our childhood that loyalty is a virtue and we should keep loyalty to our countries, our friends, our employment and so on, We never suspect this virtue until now when some people put forwards an attitude that loyalty, whether to one's friends, to one's school or others, is all too often a destructive rather than a positive force. However in my opinion, this attitude is so absolute that I can not totally agree with it though under some certain circumstances it really seems reasonable.

If we want to clearly analyze this question we should examine what loyalty means at first. From my angle there are two understandings of this word, the narrow one and the broad one. The former are the one we are taught when young, meaning never hurt others, never do anything that disturbs or brings troubles to others for one’s own profits. This is undoubtedly right and can be said a virtue. However loyalty never means obey everything of others’ standards, which is a mistaken understanding of loyalty, and the latter understanding of loyalty also contains being loyal to oneself and the truth, loyal to one’s own belief, personality and standards of living if one considers it is right and loyal to what the nature the world presents to us. These two understandings lead to different attitudes to loyalty.

On one hand, people who think loyalty is all too often a destructive rather than a positive force confuse obeying everything to the broad meaning of loyalty. Admittedly, we can see many prominent persons in our history are those who had been seen not loyal to their surround environment but loyal to themselves and the truth. For example, in academic areas, Copernicus, who betrayed the long-existed theory of historical prominent person, has been seen loyal to the nature regulation later. Some politicians, who are not the loyal persons to their current mode of the society, created new styles of public's living which bring content and satisfied. They are loyal to the development regulation of society. Moreover, some heroes considered by later people even lost their lives only because they are loyal to their own beliefs, such as Joan of Arc. However there are also some people who may be said loyal by contemporary people caused destructive events for the whole world and human beings. The World War II was caused by fascist who said themselves were loyal to their countries and people but brought miserable experiences for numerous people in other countries. In past time, especially in feudalism, subordination had to obey all the standards established by the king whether they are right or wrong, or they are called not loyal. These not only mistakenly understand the meaning of loyal but cause destructive force for the society.

On the other hand, loyal is a virtue if it is seen as not to hurt others. If we say one betrays his friends, we always means that the person did something that hurt his friends; If we say one betrays his country, we always means that the person did something disturb his country, such as letting some secrets out to enemy. However under this circumstance loyal should be said a virtue and may cause positive force, such as keeping the secret of one’s friends and one’s country when allured by enemy or money.

Only to say loyalty is all too often a destructive rather than a positive force without considering circumstance is too absolute. Whether the narrow understanding or the broad one are all virtue of a person, and only the mistaken understanding, obeying every standards of others, may cause destructive force.

hardbeaverUID: 197443

We are taught in our childhood that loyalty is a virtue and we should keep loyalty to our countries, our friends, our employment and so on, We never suspect this virtue until now when some people put forwards an attitude that loyalty, whether to one's friends, to one's school or others, is all too often a destructive rather than a positive force. However in my opinion, this attitude is so absolute that I can not totally agree with it though under some certain circumstances it really seems reasonable.

If we want to clearly analyze this question we should examine what loyalty means at first.下定义是不错的论证方法 From my angle there are two understandings of this word, the narrow one and the broad one. The former are the one we are taught when young, meaning never hurt others, never do anything that disturbs or brings troubles to others for one’s own profits. This is undoubtedly right and can be said a virtue. However loyalty never means obey everything of others’ standards, which is a mistaken understanding of loyalty, and the latter understanding of loyalty also contains being loyal用loyal解释loyal合适吗 to oneself and the truth, loyal to one’s own belief, personality and standards of living if one considers it is right and loyal to what the nature the world presents to us. These two understandings lead to different attitudes to loyalty.

On one hand, people who think loyalty is all too often a destructive rather than a positive force confuse obeying everything to the broad meaning of loyalty. Admittedly, we can see many prominent persons in our history are去掉 those who had been seen not loyal to their surround environment but loyal to themselves and the truth. For example, in academic areas, Copernicus, who betrayed the long-existed theory of historical prominent person, has been seen loyal to the nature regulation later. Some politicians, who are not the loyal persons to their current mode of the society, created new styles of public's living which bring content and satisfiedsatisfiction. They are loyal to the development regulation of society. Moreover, some heroes considered by later people even lost their lives only because they are loyal to their own beliefs, such as Joan of Arc. However there are also some people who may be said loyal by contemporary people caused destructive events for the whole world and human beings. The World War II was caused by fascist who said themselves were loyal to their countries and people but brought miserable experiences for numerous people in other countries. In past time, especially in feudalism, subordination had to obey all the standards established by the king whether they are right or wrong, or they are called not loyal. These not only mistakenly understand the meaning of loyal but cause destructive force for the society.

On the other hand, loyal is a virtue if it is seen as not to hurt others. If we say one betrays his friends, we always means that the person did something that hurt his friends; If we say one betrays his country, we always means that the person did something disturb his country, such as letting some secrets out to enemy. However under this circumstance loyal should be said a virtue and may cause positive force, such as keeping the secret of one’s friends and one’s country when allured by enemy or money.

Only to say loyalty is all too often a destructive rather than a positive force without considering circumstance is too absolute. Whether the narrow understanding or the broad one are all virtue of a person, and only the mistaken understanding, obeying every standards of others, may cause destructive force.
我觉得你的构思是不错的，先下个定义，然后再做区分。文章整体不错，但句子表达还需要再改进。

dabaoqiaoUID: 195888

thank you：）
我会抓紧时间改进语言的，尽管马上就考试了，但还是要努力。


OTE]最初由 hardbeaver 发布
[B]We are taught in our childhood that loyalty is a virtue and we should keep loyalty to our countries, our friends, our employment and so on, We never suspect thi..

以下省略...... [/B][/QUOTE]