Virtuous Friendship is not Mandatory for Unity - Essay Example

Virtuous Friendship is not mandatory for unity If virtuous friendship, the most complete and highest form of love, is mandatory for unity among human beings, who are political by nature, then unity is unachievable in society. Pure love is selfless in that in it is not offered in return for something else, unlike trade relationships between merchants who exchange wares for wares or for cash; therefore, this sort of love can only exist where there is virtuous friendship. Aristotle conceptualizes virtuous friendship as the purest form of love since in this sort of friendship, one values loving another and does not expect anything in return (Crisp, 2000). This implies that in virtuous friendships, one must simply appreciate loving others rather than being loved, and always wish the best for others; in that case, Aristotle’s view of virtuous friendship is that it can only be found among a few people of high moral standing. It is evident that not many virtuous friendships exist in real life since it is human nature for people to want things in exchange for friendship, which explains why most friendships do not last even a fortnight. In many cases, friendships arise and survive on the products of the relationship rather than love; implying people are friends as long as the benefits of the relationship last and as soon as there is nothing to gain from friends, friendship is dissolved as quickly as it emerged. In that respect, it is true to say that love only exists in virtuous friendships that are based on the selfless love for others. Human beings are incapable of unity because they often pursue friendship not for the love of others, but for their own selfish gains, particularly because they are generally political creatures by nature. In that case, human friendships are plain and easily dissolvable as soon as there are no gains to be made in them, this is because an individual who only seeks their own personal gains at the expense of their so-called “friends” is not worth of the title of “friend”. A friend should be capable of sacrificing themselves for the sake of others, and to always want what is in the best interest of others too, rather than merely pursuing their ends. Unfortunately, this is a highly ambitious ideal, which is rarely achievable in normal circumstances considering the fact that the world is full of scheming individuals always preying on others for their own gains (Sivertsen, 2003). Aristotle acknowledges that indeed most relationships in life are based on love of utility and love of pleasure (Pangle 2002), and in that respect, most people seek to optimize their gains in any sort of relationship they establish. Aristotle argues that both friendship of utility and friendship of pleasure are unstable and are often prone to sudden change (Crisp, 2000); while on the other hand friendship of utility is based on selfish gains, friendship of pleasure is based on fleeting passions of the heart, especially among young people. Human beings are more likely to pursue their own selfish gains at the expense of others while they would rather have constant gratification in the present rather than invest in long lasting virtuous relationships of love. If unity is indeed a product of virtuous friendship, then human beings are incapable of unity; hence, virtuous friendship calls for selfless love and yet human beings cannot love selflessly because they are political creatures that survive on friendships of utility and pleasure. For human beings to love selflessly, they need to give up self-love, and this means that they should deny themselves and all desires of personal gratification that are at the core of humanity and therefore inevitably part of human nature. Individuals in virtuous friendships would rather love than be loved and do not wish anything for themselves but for others all the time; however, this kind of friendship is extremely limited because its ideals are way beyond what is feasible in the real word context. Aristotle acknowledges that virtuous friendships are long lasting and tough to encounter because they require a lot of work to build and are only existent among the good or is confined among individuals of extremely high moral standing. Plato initially argued that people desire the good for its own sake and not because of something else beyond the goodness itself (Doubt & Sauder 2013). Granted that humans are political creatures, it inevitably means that human beings are not capable of friendship for its own sake and must be enticed for friendships to last. Following this argument to its logical conclusion, it goes without saying that human beings are incapable of loving one another selflessly as in virtuous friendships and are more likely to enter into friendships of utility and pleasure. The relationship between virtuous friendship and unity is an intricate one since whereas the latter is a product of the former, the former’s existence is also dependent on the existence of the latter. Stated otherwise, whereas unity is the product of virtuous friendship, virtuous friendship does not exist where there is no unity, a relationship that is analogous to the allegorical argument of the origin of the egg and the hen. The implication of this relationship is that unity and virtuous friendship are mutually exclusive in that one cannot exist without the other; hence, for there to be unity, there must be virtuous friendship and vice versa. A mutually exclusive relationship between unity and virtuous friendship is not ideal since it inevitably leads to immutability of either of the two, thereby eliminating the second and third options respectively. Therefore, virtuous friendship, the most complete and highest form of love, is not necessarily mandatory for unity among human beings; in that respect, human beings can achieve unity in the absence of virtuous friendships because human beings are naturally political creatures. Unity in human societies depends on friendship of utility and friendship of pleasure, which are more common than virtuous friendship, which is more difficult to come by and only exists among a very limited number of people with high moral standing. References Crisp, R. 2000. Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doubt, K., & Sauder, M. 2013. Friendship in Plato’s Lysis. In Luvah: Journal of the Creative Imagination, Pangle, L. 2002 Aristotle and the Philosophy of Friendship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sivertsen, E. 2003. Dialectical Theory of Friendship: An exploration of friendship in contemporary USA and a look at the television Sitcom, Friends. [online]. Available from: https://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/friendship01.pdf Read More