Aristotle on Friendship

Aristotle on Friendship

In his Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle outlines his view of friendships and explains that there are three distinct types of human friendship: Friendship of Utility,

Friendship of Pleasure, and Friendship of Virtue. He distinguishes them from one another on the basis of the manner of their generation, their defining characteristics, and their relative value to human beings. In general, Aristotle argued that friendship is one of the most significant human relationships, even suggesting that one type of friendship (friendship of virtue) trumps even highly important concepts such as law and justice. In particular, Aristotle suggested that while friendships of utility and pleasure fulfill specific and important human needs, it is friendship of virtue that deserves the greatest esteem and that represents the highest form of friendship.

Aristotle's characterization and analyses of the three different types of friendships is largely consistent with contemporary ideas about human relationships. In that regard, friendship of utility would correspond to functional symbiosis between and among individuals who contribute elements valued and appreciated by others and for which each friend reciprocates in kind. Friendship of pleasure would correspond to those friendships based on or inspired by mutual affinity for similar but relatively superficial interests. Finally, friendships of virtue would correspond to friendships based on shared values and fundamental beliefs. Naturally, friendships of that type would be consistent with Aristotle's characterization as the most substantial and important of the three different types of friendships enjoyed by human beings.

Friendship of Utility

According to Aristotle, a friendship of utility represents a relationship in which both parties contribute something to the relationship that is valued by the other party (Egner & Denonn, 1961). The form of that value may be bartered services, paid services, or simply reciprocal favors of any sort that are roughly equivalent in the degree to which they are appreciated by the individuals involved in the friendship. The modern-day analog of Aristotle's characterization might include the friendly relations shared by a shopkeeper and a regular customer, business partners, or neighbors who take turns watering or mowing one another's lawn.

Aristotle explained that friendships of utility tend to be superficial, precisely because they are inspired by the nature of transaction or the mutual external needs of the individuals for the tangible contributions of one another (Egner & Denonn, 1961). While the human community thrives on these kinds of relationships, they are superficial because they do not require that the individuals involved necessarily share anything substantial. Therefore, friendships of utility typically form quickly (even spontaneously) and they may end abruptly, such as anytime the need that created the friendship in the first place ceases to exist. Likewise, in friendships of utility, one friend or the other can be easily substituted by a different person who fulfills the same need for the other person (Magill & McGreal, 1981).

Aristotle also argued that friendships of utility are particularly well-suited to the elderly because they generally have a greater need for the assistance of others than do younger individuals (Magill & McGreal, 1981). While this may be true in many respects, it may be the least accurate of Aristotle's observations, simply because with advanced age often comes additional psychological maturity that enables individuals to best appreciate and more readily form the types of friendships that Aristotle describes as being the most substantial, meaningful, and valuable of all human friendships: namely, friendships of virtue.

Despite having been formulated millennia ago, Aristotle's general conception of friendships of utility perfectly describes the modern-day relationship between superficial friendly acquaintances who may or may not ever actually come to know one another on any meaningful level. That would include the friendships between patrons who frequent restaurants or other service-oriented or product-oriented places of business and their proprietors or that formed between customers and their hired professionals. The friends need one another for specific reasons and may indeed share genuine pleasantries, but their relationship is built around the superficiality of their need for one another's specific contribution to the relationship. Such friendships can end abruptly or be replaced without significant loss on either part and even a long-lasting friendship of this type may never develop any greater substance to it than existed on the day that the friends first met, regardless of the duration of the friendship.

Friendship of Pleasure

According to Aristotle, a friendship of pleasure represents a relationship in which the individuals share a specific common interest that forms the basis of the friendship (Magill & McGreal, 1981). Aristotle differentiated friendships of pleasure from friendships of utility by virtue of the fact that the former are based on preferences and shared interests whereas the latter are based on specific needs that exist irrespective of preferences and interests. For example, the friendship between shopkeepers and their customers is based on a reciprocal need: the shopkeeper has a need for the patronage of the customer to support himself and the customer has a need for the goods sold by the shopkeeper. In most cases, neither of those individuals has any choice or control over the need that generates the friendship. Conversely, in friendships of pleasure, the individuals involved typically choose their respective interests that they share with their counterparts in the friendship and that form the basis of that relationship (Magill & McGreal, 1981).

Whereas Aristotle characterizes friendships of utility as most natural among the elderly, he suggested that friendships of pleasure are most natural to young people. While the first suggestion may or may not be entirely accurate, one could easily conclude that the second suggestion is extremely accurate, even today (or, perhaps, especially today). For example, children typically form friendships based on nothing more than the physical proximity of their homes or their attendance of the same classes. Childhood friendships are largely identical even among many different pairs of friends and they are relatively easily formed and terminated, such as by relocation of transfers to new schools. Likewise, teenagers often form friendships and select their friends from their many acquaintances based on superficialities such as appreciation for similar music or sports interests.

Aristotle argues that, as a result, friendships of pleasure are equally superficial and, much like friendships of utility, are formed and ended quickly, and they are relatively easily exchanged (Magill & McGreal, 1981). Aristotle's views of friendships of pleasure would also appear to be highly applicable to contemporary friendships among individuals whose principal motivation or inspiration for friendship is a shared interest in an external pursuit or recreational activity. In that regard, it differs from friendship of utility only in the former reflects a mutual satisfaction of a need that is not necessarily chosen by the individuals while the latter often reflects autonomous choice in the specific interest shared by the friends. It may be the source of significant joy and may certainly be the source of much needed companionship, it is, nevertheless, a superficial form of friendship precisely because it reflects an arbitrary external commonality.