Throughout Book VIII, Aristotle also draws many comparisons between friendship and justice which gives insight into how a properly run communities and political systems work. The basis of this comparison comes from Aristotle’s view that if people of different social worth become friends the one of lesser worth must love the other more then he/she loves them. This is why a kingship is the supreme political setup, because a good king shows some form of love to his subjects and they should return this love in multiples in form of obedience and order to their king. Furthermore if the king’s subjects are friends with each other they are more likely to be just to each which keeps peace in society.
However, I believe Aristotle’s view of friendships between unequals is quite dated and not relevant to society today. Aristotle says the following about the relationship of quantity of love to the caliber of person, “the better person, and the more beneficial and each of the other likewise, must be loved more than he loves” (Ethics 127). In other words, the inferior person must love the superior more than the superior does to the inferior in order to achieve equality. In a society it is vital to use each person to better the society as a whole and if people are focused on doing goods and loving their superior then there is less attention on doing good and helping the inferior and lower members of society.
Perhaps, Aristotle would say that when we do good for others in friendships, we are actually doing for the sake of our selves and thus this would be helping the inferiors to improve.
6 comments:
I completely agree with you when say that Aristotle's view about friendships between unequals is outdated and not relevant to the society we live in today. I especially disagree with Aristotle when he says that the inferior person must love the superior person more than superior does to the inferior in order to achieve equality. I don't think the relationship between the superior and inferior person will last. I say this because if the inferior person is showing more love but is not recieving the same amount of love back from the superior person, I feel that the inferior person will eventually get fed up with not recieving equal love and the relationship between the two will sour. I get the feeling that Aristotle is saying that inferior people don't expect to be loved back from superior people. Aristotle says, "But it is also clear with kings, since far inferior people do not expect to be their friends; nor do worthless people expect to be friends to the best or wisest." (Page 127)
I think the question that you pose towards Aristotle's critique of friendship is a good one. I'm not sure, however, if Aristotle's reply to your question would be that to "do good for others in friendships, we are actually doing for the sake of ourselves." Doesn't Aristotle insist that the truly virtuous friendship is one where you are good to you friend simply for your friend's sake? Maybe in a truly virtuous relationship, where you are only thinking of doing good to your friend, the problem of inequality disappears. If you are subjectively in a virtuous friendship (unlike Aristotle, who is, instead, objectively analyzing what a relationship should be), it would make no difference if you if you loved your friend more than they loved you.
Aristotle's view on friendship seems to be one based on net gain. He suggests that the best friendships are those that have an equal giving and receiving of pleasure and utility. Further, like Alex said, it is one in which the pleasure and utility given and received is done for the sake of that friend. However, I can understand why Corrado's answer is that Aristotle would say that in doing "good for others in friendships, we are actually doing it to the sake of ourselves" although for a different reason: that friendship is necessary to our nature. The fact Aristotle is able to derive so many different kinds of relationships of varying degrees of friendship between people very much stood out to me and suggests that those in Greek society, just like us in ours, need, in one form or another, some sort of camaraderie in order to function.
I am quite intrigued by the idea of a friendship as a virtue. It seems that Aristotle lays down two different ways to find the virtuous relationship. I think Aristotle's point, which Tim draws out, that a king of any type would not have to be as loving to subjects as they are to him is Aristotle's way finding a continuing peace. However, I think this can have an interesting view based on our political system here in the U.S. In no circumstance would we expect someone to 'love' the President or Congressmen. However, there are some people who do greatly support certain figures, as well as people who do nothing but criticize, usually upon party lines. I think this balance is a good one, and maintains true peace much better than a type of blind love that I think Aristotle speaks about.
I completely agree with you when you say that Aristotle would say that when we do good for others in friendships, we are actually doing it for our own sake. Aristotle addresses this point when he says "Hence it is to the other as a human being that a friend will wish the greatest goods-though not presumably all of them, since each person wishes goods most of all to himself", page 127. When he says this, I believe that he thinks all human beings do wish goodwill on all others, whether they are friends or not. However, all humans beings ultimately care about is themselves and their own well-being. They want the best good for themselves. The act of having friends constitutes being virtuous since friendship is a virtue. Because that being virtuous is a personal goal for all of us according to Aristotle, even friendship itself is somewhat selfish.
I think Aristotle’s concept of friendship is still relevant today but I don’t agree with his thoughts regarding friendship between unequals. You say it’s irrelevant and outdated in society today, do you think it was ever relevant in society? However I like Aristotle’s three types of friendships, I think people do have friendships of utility and real friends so to speak and that not every friendship can be a complete one. Instinctively people crave friendship but on different levels to meet their own needs or just to enjoy the company of another person. I agree with your last point Tim when you say “that when we do good for others in friendships, we are actually doing for the sake of our selves” I feel that many ‘selfless’ acts in friendship may have ulterior motives , hoping for some reimbursement in the future,
Post a Comment