Friendship, as understood here, is a distinctively personal relationship that is grounded in a concern on the part of each friend for the welfare of the other, for the other's sake, and that involves some degree of intimacy. As such, friendship is undoubtedly central to our lives, in part because the special concern we have for our friends must have a place within a broader set of concerns, including moral concerns, and in part because our friends can help shape who we are as persons. Given this centrality, important questions arise concerning the justification of friendship and, in this context, whether it is permissible to ldquo trade up rdquo when someone new comes along, as well as concerning the possibility of reconciling the demands of friendship with the demands of morality in cases in which the two seem to conflict.

International Human Rights Law Thesis

Friendship essentially involves a distinctive kind of concern for your friend, a concern which might reasonably be understood as a kind of love. Philosophers from the ancient greeks on have traditionally distinguished three notions that can properly be called love: agape. agape is a kind of love that does not respond to the antecedent value of its object but instead is thought to create value in the beloved it has come through the christian tradition to mean the sort of love god has for us persons as well as, by extension, our love for god and our love for humankind in general. By contrast, eros and philia are generally understood to be responsive to the merits of their objects mdash to the beloved's properties, especially his goodness or beauty. The difference is that eros is a kind of passionate desire for an object, typically sexual in nature, whereas lsquo philia rsquo originally meant a kind of affectionate regard or friendly feeling towards not just one's friends but also possibly towards family members, business partners, and one's country at large liddell et al. Given this classification of kinds of love, philia seems to be that which is most clearly relevant to friendship though just what philia amounts to needs to be clarified in more detail. For this reason, love and friendship often get lumped together as a single topic nonetheless, there are significant differences between them.

How to Write Contract Law Coursework

As understood here, love is an evaluative attitude directed at particular persons as such, an attitude which we might take towards someone whether or not that love is reciprocated and whether or not we have an established relationship with her. 1 friendship, by contrast, is essentially a kind of relationship grounded in a particular kind of special concern each has for the other as the person she is and whereas we must make conceptual room for the idea of unrequited love, unrequited friendship is senseless. Consequently, accounts of friendship tend to understand it not merely as a case of reciprocal love of some form together with mutual acknowledgment of this love , but as essentially involving significant interactions between the friends mdash as being in this sense a certain kind of relationship. Nonetheless, questions can be raised about precisely how to distinguish romantic relationships, grounded in eros. Insofar as each involves significant interactions between the involved parties that stem from a kind of reciprocal love that is responsive to merit. Clearly the two differ insofar as romantic love normally has a kind of sexual involvement that friendship lacks yet, as thomas 1989 asks, is that enough to explain the real differences between them? badhwar 2003, 65 ndash 66 seems to think so, claiming that the sexual involvement enters into romantic love in part through a passion and yearning for physical union, whereas friendship involves instead a desire for a more psychological identification.

Yet it is not clear exactly how to understand this: precisely what kind of ldquo psychological identification rdquo or intimacy is characteristic of friendship? for further discussion, see section 1.2. In philosophical discussions of friendship, it is common to follow aristotle nicomachean ethics. Book vi in distinguishing three kinds of friendship: friendships of pleasure, of utility, and of virtue. Although it is a bit unclear how to understand these distinctions, the basic idea seems to be that pleasure, utility, and virtue are the reasons we have in these various kinds of relationships for loving our friend. That is, i may love my friend because of the pleasure i get out of her, or because of the ways in which she is useful to me, or because i find her to have a virtuous character. Given the involvement of love in each case, all three kinds of friendship seem to involve a concern for your friend for his sake and not for your own.

So it looks like pleasure and utility friendships are at best deficient modes of friendship by contrast, virtue friendships, because they are motivated by the excellences of your friend's character, are genuine, non deficient friendships. For this reason, most contemporary accounts, by focusing their attention on the non deficient forms of friendship, ignore pleasure and utility friendships. 2 as mentioned in the first paragraph of this section, philia seems to be the kind of concern for other persons that is most relevant to friendship, and the word, lsquo philia , rsquo sometimes gets translated as friendship yet philia is in some ways importantly different from what we ordinarily think of as friendship. Lsquo philia rsquo extends not just to friends but also to family members, business associates, and one's country at large. Contemporary accounts of friendship differ on whether family members, in particular one's children before they become adults, can be friends.

How to Write Introduction of Coursework

Most philosophers think not, understanding friendship to be essentially a relationship among equals yet some philosophers such as friedman 1989 rorty 1986/1993 badhwar 1987 explicitly intend their accounts of friendship to include parent child relationships, perhaps through the influence of the historical notion of philia. Nonetheless, there do seem to be significant differences between, on the one hand, parental love and the relationships it generates and, on the other hand, the love of one's friends and the relationships it generates the focus here will be on friendship more narrowly construed. In philosophical accounts of friendship, several themes recur consistently, although various accounts differ in precisely how they spell these out.

These themes are: mutual caring or love , intimacy, and shared activity these will be considered in turn. Although many accounts of friendship do not analyze such mutual caring any further, among those that do there is considerable variability as to how we should understand the kind of caring involved in friendship. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that caring about someone for his sake involves both sympathy and action on the friend's behalf. That is, friends must be moved by what happens to their friends to feel the appropriate emotions: joy in their friends rsquo successes, frustration and disappointment in their friends rsquo failures as opposed to disappointment in the friends themselves , etc. Moreover, in part as an expression of their caring for each other, friends must normally be disposed to promote the other's good for her sake and not out of any ulterior motive. To care about something is generally to find it worthwhile or valuable in some way caring about one's friend is no exception. A central difference among the various accounts of mutual caring is the way in which these accounts understand the kind of evaluation implicit therein.

Most accounts understand that evaluation to be a matter of appraisal: we care about our friends at least in part because of the good qualities of their characters that we discover them to have annas 1977 sherman 1987 whiting 1991 this is in line with the understanding of love as philia or eros given in the first paragraph of section 1 above. Other accounts, however, understand caring as in part a matter of bestowing value on your beloved: in caring about a friend, we thereby project a kind of intrinsic value onto him this is in line with the understanding of love as agape given above. Friedman 1989, 6 argues for bestowal, saying that if we were to base our friendship on positive appraisals of our friend's excellences, ldquo to that extent our commitment to that person is subordinate to our commitment to the relevant evaluative standards and is not intrinsically a commitment to that person. Rdquo however, this is too quick, for to appeal to an appraisal of the good qualities of your friend's character in order to justify your friendship is not on its own to subordinate your friendship to that appraisal. Rather, through the friendship, and through changes in your friend over time, you may come to change your evaluative outlook, thereby in effect subordinating your commitment to certain values to your commitment to your friend. Of course, within friendship the influence need not go only one direction: friends influence each other's conceptions of value and how to live.

Indeed, that friends have a reciprocal effect on each other is a part of the concern for equality many find essential to friendship, and it is central to the discussion of intimacy in section 1.2. For more on the notion of caring about another for her sake and the variety of philosophical accounts of it, see the entry on love. The relationship of friendship differs from other interpersonal relationships, even those characterized by mutual caring, such as relationships among colleagues: friendships are, intuitively, ldquo deeper, rdquo more intimate relationships. The question facing any philosophical account is how that characteristic intimacy of friendship is to be understood. On this point, there is considerable variation in the literature mdash so much that it raises the question whether differing accounts aim at elucidating the same object.

For it seems as though when the analysis of intimacy is relatively weak, the aim is to elucidate what might be called ldquo acquaintance friendships rdquo as the analysis of intimacy gets stronger, the aim seems to tend towards closer friendships and even to a kind of ideal of maximally close friendship. It might be asked whether one or another of these types of friendship ought to take priority in the analysis, such that, for example, cases of close friendship can be understood to be an enhanced version of acquaintance friendship, or whether acquaintance friendship should be understood as being deficient in various ways relative to ideal friendship. Nonetheless, in what follows, views will be presented roughly in order from weaker to stronger accounts of intimacy. To begin, thomas 1987 1989 1993 claims that we should understand what is here called the intimacy of friendship in terms of mutual self disclosure: i tell my friends things about myself that i would not dream of telling others, and i expect them to make me privy to intimate details of their lives.

The point of such mutual self disclosure, thomas argues, is to create the ldquo bond of trust rdquo essential to friendship, for through such self disclosure we simultaneously make ourselves vulnerable to each other and acknowledge the goodwill the other has for us. Such a bond of trust is what institutes the kind of intimacy characteristic of friendship. Cocking amp kennett 1998 caricature this as ldquo the secrets view, rdquo arguing: it is not the sharing of private information nor even of very personal information, as such, that contributes to the bonds of trust and intimacy between companion friends. 518 their point is that the secrets view underestimates the kind of trust at issue in friendship, conceiving of it largely as a matter of discretion. Given the way friendship essentially involves each caring about the other's good for the other's sake and so acting on behalf of the other's good, entering into and sustaining a relationship of friendship will normally involve considerable trust in your friend's goodwill towards you generally, and not just concerning your secrets.