Aristotle's View Of Friendship With Notice To Mill's Determining The Right Action And Being Moral Term Paper

Length: 6 pages Sources: 1+ Subject: Black Studies - Philosophy Type: Term Paper Paper: #33600179 Related Topics: Aristotle, Mills Theory, John Stuart Mill, Nicomachean Ethics
Excerpt from Term Paper :

Aristotle vs. Mill

The Greek philosopher Aristotle and John Stuart Mill agreed that the objective of morality was the pursuit of general happiness and the good life in society and in the individual. But they deviated in the concept of, and the manner of arriving at, "the right thing to do," especially in reference to friendships. Mill held that actions are right in the proportion that they tend to promote that happiness and wrong, as they tend to promote unhappiness. He advocated the action/rule-based type of morality, which determined the goodness of an act according to the consequences of that act and independently of the doer's virtues or character traits (Fieser). This type directly opposes the virtue-based morality propounded by Aristotle, who believed that happiness as the ultimate end of existence that is sought for itself and not for any other end.

Aristotle contended that friendship is the greatest external good and a necessity because of the function of beneficence a person shows his friends. Rich or poor, strong or weak, everyone everywhere needs friends to help and to support them. He argued that friendships develop from the simplest species of life, in the family, groups to cities and the world and these provide the basis for justice and equality (Irwin, trans 1998).

In Book VIII (Irwin, trans 1998), Aristotle discusses the three different kinds of friendship, based on the purposes for which they are formed. The first kind builds friendship out of goodwill or the good or virtues the friend possesses and practices. It is pursued for its own sake and lasts as long as virtue lasts. The second kind forges friendship for some useful purpose or end and the friendship remains for as long as one party continues to serve that or another useful purpose. And the third kind creates friendship for pleasure, whereby one is pleasant or pleases the other. Like the second kind, the friendship remains as long as the pleasure exists and disappears when the pleasure ceases in either side (Irwin p 122).

Of the three types of friends, the first is the most lovable and loving and the best and the most in life is found in such a friend (Irwin p 123). This friend is virtuous and pursues the practice of virtue as an end in itself. The friendship one forms with him or her is immune to slander and trust exists between him and his friend. He is, therefore, a good in himself to his friend and each repays the other in equal measure of goodness. In this condition of friendship, equality evolves, wherein each side gets the same goodness and wish and will the same goodness or exchange pleasure for benefit. This condition is exclusive to the first type or kind of friendship. In the two other kinds, friendship is developed or maintained only for a selfish purpose and only on account of some benefit derived from it. It is not sought as an end itself and serves one's self-interest regardless of the welfare of the other, oftentimes, against that welfare or interest.

This first type of friendship, though the best and the only lasting one, is difficult to cultivate and maintain. It needs time and character to make the friendship endure. The parties or sides must first get accustomed to each other until they accept each other as they are, until they appear lovable to each other and gains each other's confidence (Irwin p 123). Such friends and friendships are few and rare and only persons with genuine goodwill can be true friends and develop such friendships with those like themselves. Though few and rare, they are the only people who, in Aristotle's eyes, can be true equals, as equality is possible only in such friendships (Irwin p 125).

In real life, many people are incline to form friendly groups and alliances and to be friendly with one another for some useful purpose. Friendliness is a useful and pleasant trait but friendliness does not always establish lasting friendships or assure that the friendly person is lovable in himself. In the second kind, this friendly person has meaning only insofar as he serves one's interests. And under the third kind, the friendly person remains friendly as long as the other party is pleasing to him or remains as friendly. When the utility is filled or the desire to please wanes, the presumed...

...

Aristotle notes that a person who holds power over another cannot be a genuine friend because equality does not exist between them, unless both of them are virtuous and desire each other's virtuousness as their end in itself. If they do, then Aristotle considers them excellent persons who are not only genuinely good friends to each other but are also useful and pleasant because of the virtues or goodness they inherently possess, practice and wish or will for one another (Irwin p 126).

But because it takes much time, effort and concerted wills to develop this first kind, they are few and rare. Only their kind can attain to the goodness and happiness, which all people want. Selfish or bad people cannot come to that level because their enjoyment is limited to their purposes, rather than perpetuated by a good that goes beyond these purposes (Irwin p 123).

In Aristotle's view, the first type of friend is good because he is a self-actualized person (Irwin p 145), who is a benefactor who can well afford to be generous even to others who do not deserve or know about his goodness or generosity. That generosity or goodness in itself is his actualization and he is as generous as he loves his own being. The more he expresses that generosity or goodness, the deeper his love for his own being goes. Because he loves and pursues goodness for its own sake and not for any worldly purpose or end, it does not require honor, wealth or praise from the beneficiary or the world. This friend's generosity is complete, unqualified and needs nothing.

The difference between this first type of friend and a selfish person is that the selfish person pursues an end based on feeling or raw inclination. The first type of friend, on the other hand, uses reason in pursuing something. This first type desires what is fine, while the selfish person desires what is advantageous (Irwin p 147).

Aristotle sees the excellent person as performing fine actions that contributing to the common good. Through this series of fine actions, every individual in society will receive the greatest possible good from this practice of virtue and fine actions. Every excellent person will thus favor another excellent person, a friend who is like him, because they have an identical and united pursuit. Either of them will invest time, money, honor and other resources, even life itself, if the welfare or the good of that friend requires them. The excellent person aims at the fine thing at the expense of everything else because goodness in oneself or an excellent friend is the highest good, and that excellent friend, the greatest external good, worthier than life itself. Aristotle, however, asserts that the common good is superior to individual good or welfare.

On the other hand, JS Mill insists that goodness in nature stands separately and previously to human action and intervention. He maintains that a person can behave or act only according to that nature that is already in existence in him and not in observance of an external, categorical and immutable imperative. He does not see man as acting or desiring anything beyond what nature allows and requires him. He can only, and should, improve on the course of events, rather than obey pre-stated laws or Law. Mill states that moral rules should be drawn from specific and empirical circumstances and that an action is morally good only in proportion to the beneficial consequences it has in society and the individual. He, therefore, sees this as the only moral act, the right thing to do, and which every man must place above himself and his relationships and friendships.

JS Mill rejects Aristotle's a priori concept of goodness as the basis of an excellent person and the primary of friendship with such a person. Rather, Mills poses that the most useful to the greatest number of people at the longest time possible should be the pursuit of every excellent person. To him, this is the only rational and moral function of man, not leaving to a pre-existing and supernatural Law the production of goodness or simply letting natural phenomena take their course in human lives. He points to the human capability and responsibility to subvert nature for the greatest possible benefit of the individual and his society, and this cannot happen if the individual seeks some intrinsic goodness in friends or within himself.

Both Aristotle and Mill place the common welfare above individual benefit and this is agreeable. But Aristotle assumes a pre-existing categorical Law already at work and guiding…

Sources Used in Documents:

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Fieser, James. Moral Philosophy Through the Ages. http://www.utm.edu/~/jfieser/vita/research/moralphil.htm

2. Irwin, Terence, trans. Nicomachean Ethics. Second edition, UK: Hackett Publishing,1998


Cite this Document:

"Aristotle's View Of Friendship With Notice To Mill's Determining The Right Action And Being Moral" (2004, December 07) Retrieved June 12, 2021, from
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/aristotle-view-of-friendship-with-notice-58569

"Aristotle's View Of Friendship With Notice To Mill's Determining The Right Action And Being Moral" 07 December 2004. Web.12 June. 2021. <
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/aristotle-view-of-friendship-with-notice-58569>

"Aristotle's View Of Friendship With Notice To Mill's Determining The Right Action And Being Moral", 07 December 2004, Accessed.12 June. 2021,
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/aristotle-view-of-friendship-with-notice-58569

Related Documents
Friendship in Lord of the Rings: The
Words: 1033 Length: 3 Pages Topic: Literature Paper #: 87941565

Friendship in Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring The Lord of the Rings embodies friendship and its importance through the many relations among its stimulating characters. Tolkien truly lives vicariously through his creations by emphasizing on companionship throughout the course of the epic fantasy. Relations such as those between Sam and Frodo, Gandalf and Aragorn and Legolas and Gimli, prove time and time again how friendship indeed was

Friendship the Classic Story of
Words: 951 Length: 3 Pages Topic: Children Paper #: 20297169

This is what the friendship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu represents. Thus, during the friendship of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, the two engage in numerous adventures, often dangerous in nature. For example, Enkidu assists Gilgamesh in his fight against Humbaba, the guardian monster of the Cedar Forest. Even though Enkidu does not agree with the actions, he nonetheless cooperates with Gilgamesh in successfully defeating and killing Humbaba. He later assists Gilgamesh with

Friendship in the Polis
Words: 1082 Length: 3 Pages Topic: Government Paper #: 82263281

Aristotle's Friendships Elena Irrera interprets Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics on friendship as having three distinct, but possibly overlapping purposes. In addition to friendships based on love, there are also friendships based on "ethical excellence" and "utility" (p. 7). Friendships based on love can be rooted in a mutual sense of understanding and trust, and are typically rooted in a long history of companionship. Friendships based on ethical excellence are more difficult to

Friendships: Classification the First Type
Words: 489 Length: 1 Pages Topic: Children Paper #: 63016425

The mentor guides and counsels and takes an interest in the younger person, and is inspired by seeing the trainee succeed. This may occur in the workforce, in the classroom between teacher and pupil, and even in cross-generational friendships. This mentoring relationship may have some overlap with friends who are also family members. One of the proudest things any parent can boast is that his or her child is a

Friendship in Plato, Augustine and Montaigne
Words: 1677 Length: 6 Pages Topic: Philosophy Paper #: 21167396

Plato, Augustine and Montaigne all define friendship in different ways, though they share many similarities. Augustine, for instance, defined it in terms of the ultimate aim of man as a Christian, which is to be united to God: a friend was thus one who assisted or supported the development of that holy union. Plato viewed friendship in a more philosophical (and less theological vein) but nonetheless defined it as one

Friendship in Huckleberry Finn
Words: 703 Length: 2 Pages Topic: Family and Marriage Paper #: 45263824

Huck Finn The Friendship of Huck and Jim As Huck and Jim drift on to Cairo, Huck begins to feel that Jim is displaying more hubris than a runaway slave should. His "civilized" self begins to come to the surface and he contemplates turning Jim in as it would be the "right" thing to do -- after all, Jim does belong to Miss Watson and not to himself. The struggle in Huck