Intro:

• Aristotle defends a conception of political life where civil association is viewed as an extended form of friendship.
• This view of politics has influenced contemporary philosophers (called communitarians); and got a hearing in the Clinton White House under William Galston.
• It is an alternative to the dominant rights-based conception of politics.

I: The Nature of Companion Friendship

1. Aristotle distinguishes between three kinds of friends:

i) business friends:
    E.g. Gena buys her scone and coffee at the same corner bakery each day and gets to know the owner.

ii) pleasure friends
    e.g. Fred always goes fishing with Ralph.

iii) companion friends
 

These may be instances of friendship rather than relations of convenience (the kind of relation I have with the guy who sells my garden supplies, or repairs my car).

The marks of friendship:

the parties care about one another’s well-being

the parties derive enjoyment from each others company

the parties prefer being with each other on occasions to being alone or participating in a mere relationship of convenience

2. Companion Friendship
 

Q: What distinguishes (I) and (II) from deep friendships?

Ans: Some Suggestions (by me)

• In deep friendships we derive enjoyment from the person and not only a specific activity (like fishing).
• We are intrigued by them and want to know a great deal about their point of view.
• We value their opinion on our own affairs.

This suggests that one necessary or essential feature of companion friendship is the exchange of secrets (here I am persuaded by Laurence Thomas).

3. The Friend as Mirror

Aristotle claims that an essential feature of friendship is a similarity in values or attitudes about ethics.
Call this the mirror view of friendship.

Q: Is the mirror view correct?
    I doubt that friendship requires agreement on policies.
    Example: my girlfriend and I differ about war in Iraq.

But our differences occur against the background of agreement over ends (the end of relieving human suffering) and involve disagreements over means (is war going to improve the lot of most Iraqis?)
Friends can differ in their social science beliefs.

Consider:
A: You know that policy x will lead to lots of suffering especially for innocent children.
B: I know. That’s exactly why I really like policy x!!!

Q: Why can’t we be friends with amoralists (people who have no moral values) or extreme immoralists (people hold terribly mistaken values)?
Assume that the amoralists and immoralists are entrenched and there is no prospect for conversion.

Ans:

• Self-respect: if B has terrible values then she’s likely to think my vocation is trivial, and I can’t remain friends with someone who thinks my life is trivial.
• A craving from communities of judgment: we find it difficult to spend time with people who are so totally misguided that they are not worth arguing with.
• Trust: would you tell your secrets to someone who feels he has no duty to avoid betraying you?

II Politics as Friendship

1) Rights-based political theories:
Individuals have certain guarantees that place limits on what the majority can do to them.
Examples:

• Rights of privacy: I can sleep with whom I want (more or less) behind closed doors.
• Rights to freedom of expression: I can advocate whatever policies I want no matter who I offend. I can read dirty books.
• Welfare payments in coin rather than kind: I can spend my income assistance on drugs rather than getting food stamps.

2) Communitarianism:
Individuals have no (or fewer) guarantees that place limits on what the majority do to them. They are expected to embrace the wisdom of the majority.

The Friendship Model:
When my friends and I differ I sometimes accept their opinion that my views are unreasonable and change my mind. If we need to coordinate our activities I defer to the majority.

Q: Should the state be organized on the friendship model?

Ans:
1) The Voluntary Quality of an Association:

• You choose your friends, but not your fellow citizens.
• You can end a friendship if things get crazy, but not you political community.

3) The Need for Guarantees: Even in the case of marriage (a perfectly voluntary association) there are legal guarantees in recognition of the fact that any relationship can go sour.