Aristotle's Theory of Friendship and Political Community
This paper examines Elena Irrera's interpretation of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics on friendship, focusing on three distinct forms: friendships based on love, ethical excellence, and utility. Drawing on Aristotle's concept of the polis, the paper explores how political or utilitarian friendships are bound by a shared sense of justice rather than personal affection. The discussion connects Aristotelian political theory to contemporary American politics, using immigration reform and the 2012 presidential election as illustrative examples. The paper ultimately considers whether Aristotle's ideal of a politically unified community striving toward an ultimate good is achievable, or whether it remains an inspiring but distant aspiration given the realities of human nature and partisan conflict.
- Introduction to Aristotle's Three Forms of Friendship: Defines love, ethical excellence, and utility friendships
- The Polis and the Pursuit of the Ultimate Good: Aristotle's political community and moral goals
- Political Friendships and the Role of Justice: Justice as the bond of utilitarian political friendship
- Immigration Reform as a Case Study in Political Friendship: 2012 U.S. election and Aristotelian political friendship
- The Limits of Aristotle's Ideal Political Community: Assessing whether Aristotle's communal ideal is achievable
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds abstract Aristotelian philosophy in a concrete, contemporary political example — the 2012 U.S. election and immigration reform — making the theory accessible and relevant.
- It maintains a clear logical progression, moving from definitions of friendship types to the concept of the polis, then to real-world application, and finally to a measured critical assessment of Aristotle's ideal.
- The paper acknowledges the tension between Aristotelian communal goals and American individualism, demonstrating intellectual balance rather than uncritical acceptance of either framework.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper effectively uses secondary source analysis — particularly Irrera's reading of Aristotle — as a scaffold for applied philosophical argumentation. Rather than simply summarizing Aristotle, the author filters the theory through a contemporary lens, showing how philosophical concepts can illuminate current political phenomena. This technique of "theory-to-application" is central to undergraduate philosophy and political theory writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by defining Aristotle's three friendship types before establishing the philosophical foundation of the polis. It then narrows to political (utilitarian) friendship, applies that framework to U.S. immigration politics, and closes with a realistic appraisal of whether Aristotle's communal ideal is attainable. Each section builds on the last, creating a coherent argumentative arc from concept to critique.
Introduction to Aristotle's Three Forms of Friendship
Elena Irrera interprets Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics on friendship as identifying three distinct, but possibly overlapping, purposes. In addition to friendships based on love, there are also friendships based on "ethical excellence" and "utility" (Irrera, p. 7). Friendships based on love are rooted in a mutual sense of understanding and trust, and typically emerge from a long history of companionship. Friendships based on ethical excellence are more difficult to explain, but are nonetheless easily recognized by most people as a mutual attraction grounded in similar values and ethics.
"Ethical excellence" friendships contrast with utilitarian friendships in that the former concerns the good of the individual while the latter concerns the good of the polis, or political community (Zunjic). To understand the meaning of an Aristotelian friendship based on utility, however, the philosophical foundation of Aristotle's concept of the polis must first be understood.
The Polis and the Pursuit of the Ultimate Good
Aristotle's view of morality was based on the concept of a political community consisting of individuals sharing a common goal — a striving toward a "supreme good" in the moral sense (Zunjic). In American society, this goal could reasonably be assumed to encompass the fulfillment of individual, familial, social, and financial aspirations. Aristotle would argue, however, that these goals cannot be achieved unless most, if not all, of society agrees on the same overarching aims. Individual fulfillment and happiness therefore depend on a communal recognition of an "ultimate good" that everyone is seeking in their own way. In other words, for people to achieve genuine happiness and fulfillment, they must become organized around the pursuit of the same ultimate goal of individual actualization; otherwise, they risk struggling in futility.
Aristotle argued that for society to become organized around the pursuit of an ultimate good, laws and policies must be established to guide individual behavior (Zunjic). The only means by which this end can be achieved, according to Aristotle, is the science of politics. In essence, Aristotle asserts that political science is the only instrument by which society — and thus individuals — can pursue and achieve a communally defined ultimate good. The state is therefore essential to attaining the highest state of moral existence.
This philosophy may appear to contrast with American values such as individual achievement. However, if the vast majority of people in American society agree that individual actualization represents the ultimate good, then according to Aristotle, state institutions — financial, legal, educational, and defense-related — should be organized in ways that foster the attainment of that ultimate good (Zunjic).
In light of Aristotle's definition of a political community, the only type of friendship that would be considered controversial from a moral and ethical perspective is the one based on utility. While the existence of such friendships is widely recognized throughout society, many would argue that they are not inherently "good" in the moral sense. Irrera draws a clear distinction between political friendships (utilitarian), which often exhibit many traits commonly associated with more traditional friendships but frequently lack a long-term association (pp. 3–4). From Irrera's perspective, a shared sense of justice acts as a surrogate for love in political friendships, but does not guarantee that such associations contribute to the attainment of an ultimate good.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.