NationStates Jolt Archive

Three questions for the good people of NSG.

First, is friendship a moral good to be pursued? That is to say, should human beings pursue friendship not only for the enjoyment we derive from it, but also as a moral end? (I don't just mean as a moral end-in-itself--I'm also thinking here of claims like, "We ought to pursue friendship because it makes being moral people easier.")

Second, do we have special ethical duties to our friends that we do not have to other people? For instance, are we obligated to help our friends when they are in need in a way that we're not obligated to help people with whom we have no special connection? I mean "obligated" here, not merely "inclined": certainly our emotional inclinations to help our friends (and to treat them well in a broad sense) are generally stronger than our emotional inclinations to help (and treat well) non-friends, but that is not the issue for which I am concerned.

Third, in light of generally accepted moral contentions about universality, impartiality, and human equality, are there aspects of friendship (which is, after all, an exclusive, particular relationship) that are morally dubious? Does the particular relationship established by friendship ever entitle (or obligate) us to override certain moral norms founded on such universality, impartiality, and equality? (For instance, would we be justified in sheltering a friend from the law, even assuming a general duty of respect for the law, or for the particular law in question?) Conversely, does taking such moral norms seriously ever threaten cherished parts of human ideas of friendship?

Can't we just be friends?

no, yes, no.

Can't we just be friends?

Lets admit we made a mistake
But can we still be friends
Heartbreaks never easy to take
But can we still be friends
Its a strange, sad affair
Sometimes seems like we just dont care
Dont waste time feeling hurt
Weve been through hell together

Thanks Todd Rundgren

Can't we just be friends?

Only if I can philosophize about it.

Friend help friend move. Real friends help friends move bodies.

:D

I don't view freindhsip as a striclty ethical, or unethical thing.

the just be friends thing is normally a woman's(sometimes the man's too) need for security. though men tend to play along because they know break up sex is a good possibility.

I don't view freindhsip as a striclty ethical, or unethical thing.

So would you say that it is a sphere of human life and behavior where ethics (at least in an ordinary sense) simply does not apply? Or do you simply mean that it is not ethical or unethical in and of itself?

I agree with the latter contention, but that certainly does not imply that no aspect of a particular friendship can be ethical or unethical, or even that the relationship between human beings implied by friendship (even if it is ethically neutral in itself) has no ethical implications for their duties to each other.

So would you say that it is a sphere of human life and behavior where ethics (at least in an ordinary sense) simply does not apply? Or do you simply mean that it is not ethical or unethical in and of itself?

I agree with the latter contention, but that certainly does not imply that no aspect of a particular friendship can be ethical or unethical, or even that the relationship between human beings implied by friendship (even if it is ethically neutral in itself) has no ethical implications for their duties to each other.

I'll have to get back to you on this, I'm sorry but I'm more than a little tired and its all just running together. 36 hours at work in 3 days will do that to people...

Three questions for the good people of NSG.

First, is friendship a moral good to be pursued? That is to say, should human beings pursue friendship not only for the enjoyment we derive from it, but also as a moral end? (I don't just mean as a moral end-in-itself--I'm also thinking here of claims like, "We ought to pursue friendship because it makes being moral people easier.")

Second, do we have special ethical duties to our friends that we do not have to other people? For instance, are we obligated to help our friends when they are in need in a way that we're not obligated to help people with whom we have no special connection? I mean "obligated" here, not merely "inclined": certainly our emotional inclinations to help our friends (and to treat them well in a broad sense) are generally stronger than our emotional inclinations to help (and treat well) non-friends, but that is not the issue for which I am concerned.

Third, in light of generally accepted moral contentions about universality, impartiality, and human equality, are there aspects of friendship (which is, after all, an exclusive, particular relationship) that are morally dubious? Does the particular relationship established by friendship ever entitle (or obligate) us to override certain moral norms founded on such universality, impartiality, and equality? (For instance, would we be justified in sheltering a friend from the law, even assuming a general duty of respect for the law, or for the particular law in question?) Conversely, does taking such moral norms seriously ever threaten cherished parts of human ideas of friendship?

Yes, friendship is a moral good, as friends generally teach other well, and help each other.

Yes, people have a duty to help friends simply because they are friends. When times get tough real friends will stick by and help you out.

No, friendships are not morally dubious. Just because friendships can be exclusive doesn't mean its wrong. And I for one value friends over laws.

I'll have to get back to you on this, I'm sorry but I'm more than a little tired and its all just running together.

I'm just asking questions, I'm not trying to make demands on your time. Answer at your leisure, or not at all. :)

Yes, people have a duty to help friends simply because they are friends. When times get tough real friends will stick by and help you out.

Speaking not as the OP (I don't want to exclude this kind of answer from the discussion) but just as me, I don't think that this adequately addresses the question.

To put it differently, perhaps this would make me a "real friend" in a certain sense, but would it make me a better person? (Or would refraining from it make me a bad person?) That's the ethical question.

Culturally, certainly, we have notions of what friends "should" do, but should we hold people morally accountable for their failure to act accordingly? Or should we just say that they don't meet those cultural norms of friendship? (If those cultural norms are one of the things we value in a friend, such a judgment may be enough to end the friendship. But it would not be enough for moral criticism.)

No, friendships are not morally dubious. Just because friendships can be exclusive doesn't mean its wrong.

Well, maybe, but I'm not sure you are dealing meaningfully with the problem.

If, as most of us believe, human beings are worthy of equal moral regard in some sense, what do we make of the fact that there are certain people whom we obviously favor in our attitudes and actions, not generally for any moral reason (that is to say, not because they deserve it), but just for all the morally arbitrary reasons upon which friendships are founded? (Reasons that, indeed, tend to exclude people who may be equally deserving from our sphere of friendship?)

If my best friend is possessed of moral equality with people I have never met, what do we make of the fact that I will leap to help him if he is in need, but am not bothered in any more than the most abstract sense when others who are not emotionally close to me suffer far worse than he ever has, or probably ever will?

And I for one value friends over laws.

Why? Doesn't an attitude like this one, by placing private relationships over a duty to maintain social order and public justice, threaten the very foundations of our society? Isn't that ultimately more important than friendship, however valuable and enjoyable our ties to other human beings might be?

The word 'friend' gets thrown around with no regard nowadays.. well probably always .. esp in advertising, but still. A true friend is rare indeed and one doesn't know exactly what that means until they've experienced what it's NOT. Unless they just happen to be born wise. Friendship is a learning exp. You learn what you want and expect form a friend. I have 1.

The word 'friend' gets thrown around with no regard nowadays.. well probably always .. esp in advertising, but still. A true friend is rare indeed and one doesn't know exactly what that means until they've experienced what it's NOT. Unless they just happen to be born wise. Friendship is a learning exp. You learn what you want and expect form a friend. I have 1.

That's interesting. Are you planning on sharing the insights of your wisdom and experience with the rest of us?

Yes, friendship is a moral good to be pursued? Because what is life without good friends?

Yes, because our friends do become part of our extended family, they cease to be part of the crowd. They become known faces, presences we love and cherish. The stand from the rest of the human crowd.

No, friendship does not require us to to do these things. A true friend, for example, would not expose you to danger on account of his/her misdemeanor.

First, is friendship a moral good to be pursued? That is to say, should human beings pursue friendship not only for the enjoyment we derive from it, but also as a moral end? (I don't just mean as a moral end-in-itself--I'm also thinking here of claims like, "We ought to pursue friendship because it makes being moral people easier.")

I'm inclined to say yes here. Friendship with a wide range of people is educational, encourages tolerance and eliminates ignorance. So it would seem to make it easier to be a decent person if you have a wide and varied friendship group.

Second, do we have special ethical duties to our friends that we do not have to other people? For instance, are we obligated to help our friends when they are in need in a way that we're not obligated to help people with whom we have no special connection? I mean "obligated" here, not merely "inclined": certainly our emotional inclinations to help our friends (and to treat them well in a broad sense) are generally stronger than our emotional inclinations to help (and treat well) non-friends, but that is not the issue for which I am concerned.

Again, I am going to say yes here. That is part of being a friend. I think that if you say that you are somebody's friend, and then are unwilling to help them when they are in need, then you have lied and deceived them. I'd argue theres an obligation there that there isn't with a stranger.

Third, in light of generally accepted moral contentions about universality, impartiality, and human equality, are there aspects of friendship (which is, after all, an exclusive, particular relationship) that are morally dubious? Does the particular relationship established by friendship ever entitle (or obligate) us to override certain moral norms founded on such universality, impartiality, and equality? (For instance, would we be justified in sheltering a friend from the law, even assuming a general duty of respect for the law, or for the particular law in question?) Conversely, does taking such moral norms seriously ever threaten cherished parts of human ideas of friendship?

Tricky. I'm not sure humans are capable of being impartial, treating people equally or whether there really are universal moral rules that x or y is always wrong. If I believed a friend to be innocent of a crime, or that they would not be able to get a fair trial for some reason, I would shelter them from the law, and I probably would even if I believed them to be guilty unless it was a horrific crime without excuse. Even then I might still do it. Is that right? I'm really not sure

Three questions for the good people of NSG.

First, is friendship a moral good to be pursued? That is to say, should human beings pursue friendship not only for the enjoyment we derive from it, but also as a moral end? (I don't just mean as a moral end-in-itself--I'm also thinking here of claims like, "We ought to pursue friendship because it makes being moral people easier.")


That's a fascinating question. I'm inclined to say that friendship does make it easier to be a moral person: If we define "morality" as behaving in ways that benefit (or, at least, stabilize) society, then we're more likely to be moral if we have more invested in the proper functioning of society. The bonds of friendship then represent an emotional "stake" in the well-being of the wider community. Friends tie us to something larger than ourselves, and in so doing encourage us to think of our actions in less selfish terms.


Second, do we have special ethical duties to our friends that we do not have to other people? For instance, are we obligated to help our friends when they are in need in a way that we're not obligated to help people with whom we have no special connection? I mean "obligated" here, not merely "inclined": certainly our emotional inclinations to help our friends (and to treat them well in a broad sense) are generally stronger than our emotional inclinations to help (and treat well) non-friends, but that is not the issue for which I am concerned.


No, I don't think we do. I think our obligation to help others stems from a recognition of shared humanity; the golden rule, after all is "Do unto others...", not do unto our friends. I agree, obviously, that we're more inclined to help friends than strangers, but as I argued above the moral function of friendship is to strengthen our bond to the community, not provide "prioritized" (for lack of a better word) aid.


Third, in light of generally accepted moral contentions about universality, impartiality, and human equality, are there aspects of friendship (which is, after all, an exclusive, particular relationship) that are morally dubious? Does the particular relationship established by friendship ever entitle (or obligate) us to override certain moral norms founded on such universality, impartiality, and equality? (For instance, would we be justified in sheltering a friend from the law, even assuming a general duty of respect for the law, or for the particular law in question?) Conversely, does taking such moral norms seriously ever threaten cherished parts of human ideas of friendship?


The short answer is yes. A friend that asks you to shelter him/her from the law is contravening their function as a stabilizing bond to the community, and yet the moral argument for turning them in seems unsatisfying to me, at least on a gut level. I think I need to consider this question further.

Hehe, this thread is about ethnics of friendships, and there's an ad about Cliffnotes....hehe.

First, is friendship a moral good to be pursued? That is to say, should human beings pursue friendship not only for the enjoyment we derive from it, but also as a moral end? (I don't just mean as a moral end-in-itself--I'm also thinking here of claims like, "We ought to pursue friendship because it makes being moral people easier.")

Since friendship is essential to human flourishing I think that it is a moral good that should be pursued.

Second, do we have special ethical duties to our friends that we do not have to other people? For instance, are we obligated to help our friends when they are in need in a way that we're not obligated to help people with whom we have no special connection? I mean "obligated" here, not merely "inclined": certainly our emotional inclinations to help our friends (and to treat them well in a broad sense) are generally stronger than our emotional inclinations to help (and treat well) non-friends, but that is not the issue for which I am concerned.

Special obligations that one owe's a friend above and beyond what one owe's anyone is implicit in the concept of friendship. Unless one thinks that friendship is immoral I would think that one has to accept that we owe friends special obligations.

Does the particular relationship established by friendship ever entitle (or obligate) us to override certain moral norms founded on such universality, impartiality, and equality? (For instance, would we be justified in sheltering a friend from the law, even assuming a general duty of respect for the law, or for the particular law in question?)

If the particular law said friend is guilty of breaking is just then no we would not be justified in sheltering them. At most it might entitle us to ignore the obligation to inform the authorities of their whereabouts. if the crim is minor.

Third, in light of generally accepted moral contentions about universality, impartiality, and human equality, are there aspects of friendship (which is, after all, an exclusive, particular relationship) that are morally dubious?Conversely, does taking such moral norms seriously ever threaten cherished parts of human ideas of friendship?

Yes to both. Obviously if we accept the moral contentions universality, impartiality, and equality then concepts such as friendship, family, and nationality that requires one to treat some people differently from others there will be conflict.

E. M. Forester said "If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country."

A friend helps you move. A best friend help you move the bodies.

I'm not sure seeking friends has inherent moral ends, I find friends meet more than one criteria.

People who understand where you're coming from in terms of reciprocal communication - but that could be a mutual love for robbing banks as much as enjoying the same books
People on whom I can count for support - same as above
People whose opinions I respect - same as above
Distractions - same as above

Different friends can fulfill one or all of the above, both for good or bad.

One thing I do note, I give far greater leeway to friends for completely fucking me over. While I can count on support where required, my best friends have no sensitivity in terms of calling me on my bullshit, causing physical pain or other for their own amusement, I hope I repay them their 'kindness' in equal measure.

It's that complete confidence they have in my own friendship that allows for far greater honesty, and the same confidence I have in theirs allows me the same.

I will defend my friends to the end where they're being disrespected, not so much where they're just wrong.

Since this is all about "morals" and "ethics", the answer, of course, is:
they depend upon your personal morals and ethics, so only you can answer these question, and only for yourself.

Yes. Friendship aids us in making moral choices.
Yes. Part of the duty of friendship is making an extra effort for a friend. This relates to aid in making moral choices.
Yes. Laws should be based in mutual friendship and obligation. If one has to make a choice between betraying a friend and betraying the law, it's at least conceivable that the problem is with the law, not with the friend.

Yes. Laws should be based in mutual friendship and obligation.

While I do believe that the law should be based on reciprical obligations, I doubt that it could be based fully on mutual friendship in a legal system that covers at least thousands of individuals.

If one has to make a choice between betraying a friend and betraying the law, it's at least conceivable that the problem is with the law, not with the friend.

If a friend robs a 711 and wishes to hide out at your place for a few days would saying no be betraying him?

I actually met my special lady as a friend - and from that, greater things were born. :)

So would you say that it is a sphere of human life and behavior where ethics (at least in an ordinary sense) simply does not apply? Or do you simply mean that it is not ethical or unethical in and of itself?

I agree with the latter contention, but that certainly does not imply that no aspect of a particular friendship can be ethical or unethical, or even that the relationship between human beings implied by friendship (even if it is ethically neutral in itself) has no ethical implications for their duties to each other.

You're thinking about this in far too rational a fashion.

Like so many other things, friendship is in that part of human nature that isn't rational.

In any case, to me, friends are the family you choose.

not that i understand the OP but

yeah its good to have friends. we are social animals. we need friends and good friends make us better people

our duty to our friends is reciprocity. we dont expect more from our friends than we are willing to give them. some friends are "call at the last minute to go to the movies" friends, some are "take me to the airport" friends, some are "help me move friends" and some are "help me hide the body" friends. you dont ask the "go to the movies' friend to give you an alibi for the night he robbed the liquor store. you are obligated to miss "heroes" in order to pick up your friend at the airport if he has done similar things for you--even if its a really good episode and you dont have tivo.

when it comes to violating the laws or common decency you can draw the line wherever you think is best as long as you would never expect your friend to cross that line for you.

If a friend robs a 711 and wishes to hide out at your place for a few days would saying no be betraying him?

more generally, does being good friends with someone imply an obligation to be bad?

though perhaps we could get around this by declaring that only the right sort of friendship is good. if your friendship obligations lead you to being torn between what is right in some socially external sense and what you owe your friends, perhaps we might claim that your friendships are bad.

Friends are overrated. You don't need them to survive.

Friends are overrated. You don't need them to survive.

But they help. :)

But they help. :)

Sometimes yes.

But they stay in the way as well. Or they are the cause of your problem(s).

Sometimes yes.

But they stay in the way as well. Or they are the cause of your problem(s).

Perhaps, but I find the problems are worth it. I refuse to be a loner.

Perhaps, but I find the problems are worth it. I refuse to be a loner.

You don't have to be a loner, I'm not one as well.

Only, I do not trust 'friends'.

Only, I do not trust 'friends'.

Not very good 'friends' then, are they?

Friends are overrated. You don't need them to survive.

mere survival is not anything to be proud of

Not very good 'friends' then, are they?

Good friends are just a fantasy.

Good friends are just a fantasy.

Clearly you hang around with the wrong crowd. My friends are awesome.

Clearly you hang around with the wrong crowd. My friends are awesome.

Sure. I don't hang around with the wrong people. I'm old enough to know, that one can't trust humans, that's all.

Sure. I don't hang around with the wrong people. I'm old enough to know, that one can't trust humans, that's all.

Well, think what you will. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Well, think what you will. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Sooner or later, you'll be on my side. Take your time. :)

Sure. I don't hang around with the wrong people. I'm old enough to know, that one can't trust humans, that's all.

Bwahaha of course you can. If you pick wisely.

Freinds are a great boon.

There is no 'real friend' test. And even it was, it would be obscure.

I picked sometimes 'wrong' friends, and I'll do it in the future. I'm not alone, most, if not, all people are doing it.

I still have friends and I like them, but I don't trust them. Not even close.

You don't have to be a loner, I'm not one as well.

Only, I do not trust 'friends'.

You make me sad.

You make me sad.

Unfortunately, there are people like this everywhere. :(

You make me sad.

Why? You don't have to feel sad, 'cause I don't trust them.

Maybe I'm all wrong, but till now, I never met any person that I could trust.

Sooner or later they all cheat on you, f*ck your wife, steal your money, take your job, eat your food or commit whatever harmful action.

They all do and always will do, sooner or later. I feel very good by knowing that all people will do it. This is making life much easier for me.

Why? You don't have to feel sad, 'cause I don't trust them.

Maybe I'm all wrong, but till now, I never met any person that I could trust.

Sooner or later they all cheat on you, f*ck your wife, steal your money, take your job, eat your food or commit whatever harmful action.

They all do and always will do, sooner or later. I feel very good by knowing that all people will do it. This is making life much easier for me.

The sad part, HK, is not that you say it, it's the fact that after reading your posts, I have come to the conclusion that you are one lonely individual. That's what's sad. And I don't mean this in an offesnive way.

Unfortunately, there are people like this everywhere. :(

It's an unavoidable consequence of a life where you've been hurt and betrayed. Having been attacked many times by those you deemed as friends, you raise your shields even with your friends.

Everyone becomes that way - if they live long enough.

It's an unavoidable consequence of a life where you've been hurt and betrayed. Having been attacked many times by those you deemed as friends, you raise your shields even with your friends.

Everyone becomes that way - if they live long enough.

I've only ever been betrayed once... But the friends I have now I have known for a long time, and they have never betrayed me, so I can trust them - I have yet to be given a reason to suspect them.

I've only ever been betrayed once... But the friends I have now I have known for a long time, and they have never betrayed me, so I can trust them - I have yet to be given a reason to suspect them.

That's a good thing, but not all people can allow themselves to lower their shields.

The sad part, HK, is not that you say it, it's the fact that after reading your posts, I have come to the conclusion that you are one lonely individual. That's what's sad. And I don't mean this in an offesnive way.

Well, I'm not offended, because you're mistaken.
And even if I was a loner, I would not feel ashamed.
In fact I admire loners, but I can't be one. I need people around me.
But I don’t trust them, that’s all. It’s not a big thing, believe me. :)

Why? You don't have to feel sad, 'cause I don't trust them.

Maybe I'm all wrong, but till now, I never met any person that I could trust.

Sooner or later they all cheat on you, f*ck your wife, steal your money, take your job, eat your food or commit whatever harmful action.

They all do and always will do, sooner or later. I feel very good by knowing that all people will do it. This is making life much easier for me.

Naa man not all of them.

That's a good thing, but not all people can allow themselves to lower their shields.

I admit I was very suspicious of others for a long time, but even then I trusted a few people. Whatever happened to HK, it must have destroyed their faith in mankind.

I admit I was very suspicious of others for a long time, but even then I trusted a few people. Whatever happened to HK, it must have destroyed their faith in mankind.

Have you looked at mankind recently? :p

Have you looked at mankind recently? :p

I have - and there are those I trust, and those I have given my heart to. There are bad people out there, true. But if I hid away from them all, it would be a very quiet and boring existance, likely driving me to suicide.

I have - and there are those I trust, and those I have given my heart to. There are bad people out there, true. But if I hid away from them all, it would be a very quiet and boring existance, likely driving me to suicide.

Well it's like this. You start with your bar low - you trust people just because they've been there (such as parents). Then, someone screws up and you set the bar a little higher, and most people can still reach it. Then someone stabs you in the back, and the bar gets a little higher, and a little higher, and a little higher - until no one can hurdle it.

If you can keep good friends, you've definitely got an advantage in life. Don't think it's the norm, though.

Well, I'm not offended, because you're mistaken.
And even if I was a loner, I would not feel ashamed.
In fact I admire loners, but I can't be one. I need people around me.
But I don’t trust them, that’s all. It’s not a big thing, believe me. :)

You perhaps admire their self-sufficiency. But even loners, at one point or anothere, need and crave friends.
I'm not sure what your story is, perhaps I judged rashly. I know I can't live without 2 or 3 close friends. These are part of my extended family and enrich my life greatly.

Well it's like this. You start with your bar low - you trust people just because they've been there (such as parents). Then, someone screws up and you set the bar a little higher, and most people can still reach it. Then someone stabs you in the back, and the bar gets a little higher, and a little higher, and a little higher - until no one can hurdle it.

If you can keep good friends, you've definitely got an advantage in life. Don't think it's the norm, though.

Well then, I must be lucky. For I am surrounded with those I can trust with all my heart. And I am very happy with my current lot in life.

Well then, I must be lucky. For I am surrounded with those I can trust with all my heart. And I am very happy with my current lot in life.

You're so cute. :p

You're so cute. :p

Don't make me take out the whip, servant. :D

You're so cute. :p

Now I'm jelouse.:(

Now I'm jelous. :(

Why? He's our slave! :D

*gets out whip*

Bow down, servant.

Now I'm jelouse.:(

He is. He's so young and innocent. I want to be like that.

He is. He's so young and innocent. I want to be like that.

Is that a compliment? :D

Why thank you Gallo-San! :fluffle:

Is that a compliment? :D

Why thank you Gallo-San! :fluffle:

Actually, it was.

You perhaps admire their self-sufficiency. But even loners, at one point or anothere, need and crave friends.
I'm not sure what your story is, perhaps I judged rashly. I know I can't live without 2 or 3 close friends. These are part of my extended family and enrich my life greatly.

I have my sister and her 2 kids.
I'm with someone, but we're not living together.
I have 4 or maybe 5 friends. Real friends and not friends of friends.
I have about 100 of colleagues, but these are not friends.

I trust my sister her 2 kids, till they are 16 or something. :)

I think that if you say that you are somebody's friend, and then are unwilling to help them when they are in need, then you have lied and deceived them.

That would do it, yes... but is there really such a promise built into friendship?

Certainly the content of friendship--mutual feelings of affection, enjoyment of shared endeavours--would tend to get us to be more eager to give aid, but is it really so clear that friendship itself is a pledge of aid?

If for whatever reason I am a naturally unhelpful person, am I bound to be dishonest in making friendships?

I'm not sure humans are capable of being impartial, treating people equally

Certainly we are not. But we are capable of pursuing it as an ideal, and my question is whether such pursuit would (or should) come into conflict with friendship.

or whether there really are universal moral rules that x or y is always wrong.

I'm not concerned with "universality" in this sense, more "universality" in the sense that if I hold by a given moral principle in one case, I should respect its application to other cases as well.

Friends tie us to something larger than ourselves, and in so doing encourage us to think of our actions in less selfish terms.

But doesn't friendship also encourage us to put private relationships above public duties? Sure, we may be less selfish in a strict sense, but that is not to say that we are more concerned for the public good, or for right, in a broad sense: it just means that we are emotionally attached to a few other private interests as well.

Yes to both. Obviously if we accept the moral contentions universality, impartiality, and equality then concepts such as friendship, family, and nationality that requires one to treat some people differently from others there will be conflict.

I don't think this is by any means obvious. For instance, as a believer in human equality I could argue that humans are equally entitled to favor their friends and family (and other people with whom they have personal connections). As long as I accept this right in others as well as in myself, I'm not sure there is any necessary conflict here.

they depend upon your personal morals and ethics, so only you can answer these question,

Does nobody else have "personal morals and ethics"?

and only for yourself.

We routinely convince others of certain ethical contentions. Even if morality is fundamentally dependent on personal attitudes, human beings share enough moral common ground that we can still discuss morality productively.

If one has to make a choice between betraying a friend and betraying the law, it's at least conceivable that the problem is with the law, not with the friend.

Most of us probably agree that there are some laws ("Don't hide Jews") that we have no moral duty to obey. But what about the laws that, in ordinary cases, we would defend as legitimately binding? Does friendship ever entitle us to make an exception to such a general rule?

Like so many other things, friendship is in that part of human nature that isn't rational.

Friendship itself, yes. Its ethics, not so clearly.

You don't have to be a loner, I'm not one as well.

Only, I do not trust 'friends'.
Then you don't have any.

Why? You don't have to feel sad, 'cause I don't trust them.

Maybe I'm all wrong, but till now, I never met any person that I could trust.

Sooner or later they all cheat on you, f*ck your wife, steal your money, take your job, eat your food or commit whatever harmful action.

They all do and always will do, sooner or later. I feel very good by knowing that all people will do it. This is making life much easier for me.

Somebody's bitter.

While I do believe that the law should be based on reciprical obligations, I doubt that it could be based fully on mutual friendship in a legal system that covers at least thousands of individuals.Perhaps not, but wouldn't this indicate a potential flaw in the law?

If a friend robs a 711 and wishes to hide out at your place for a few days would saying no be betraying him?No.
Turning him in to the police would be, though.

Most of us probably agree that there are some laws ("Don't hide Jews") that we have no moral duty to obey. But what about the laws that, in ordinary cases, we would defend as legitimately binding? Does friendship ever entitle us to make an exception to such a general rule?Entitled to? No. While we might be obligated to do so out of friendship, we might have a stronger obligation to not do so.

If a friend robs a 711 and wishes to hide out at your place for a few days would saying no be betraying him?

I don't think so, though I personally would let them crash at my place.

Three questions for the good people of NSG.

Good questions.


1.NO. "Amicitia" (latin for friendship) shares the same root with "amor" (love). Love and friendship aren't based on rationality: hence, they cannot be pursued honestly as moral good. Friendship happens between people. Friendship can lead to good deeds, or to evil deeds. Of course, being in what we call "friendly" terms with many people is a different thing, and this can (and should) be pursued, because it makes life better (basically, less strife between humans).

2.NO. Just inclined. Of course, not helping a friend when the need arises can lead to the loss of friendship, but this is another thing.

3.NO. About the example: it is understandable to shelter a friend from the law (assuming of course a just law), but it isn't morally justified. This is because friendship is about the relationship between a small number of people, while the law is about the relationship between all people (or at least, all the people forming the society). Hence, a just law conveys a "greater good" than friendship. Also, would a true friend ask such a thing?

I don't think this is by any means obvious. For instance, as a believer in human equality I could argue that humans are equally entitled to favor their friends and family (and other people with whom they have personal connections). As long as I accept this right in others as well as in myself, I'm not sure there is any necessary conflict here.

Meh, I was talking more about the first two concepts than equality, which is such a subjective term. In any case, I meant that in the abstract there does appear to be a conflict,and it to resolve the conflict, such as you explained one way above

Perhaps not, but wouldn't this indicate a potential flaw in the law?

Not particularly. The law generally is called in when there are dealings between two or more parties who do not have a personal relationship or, if they do, the relationship has broken down. Its not really a system of mutual friendship, which relies less on formal obligations than the law.


No.
Turning him in to the police would be, though.


Why? If you were robbed wouldn't you want someone to turn in the robber?

In as mch as the emotional considerations arising from friendship can induce a certain morality in decisions, yes, "friendship" is moral. However, such morality as I can percieve in friendship arises from its application to circumstances, not as any inherent moral benefit.

In as mch as the emotional considerations arising from friendship can induce a certain morality in decisions, yes, "friendship" is moral. However, such morality as I can percieve in friendship arises from its application to circumstances, not as any inherent moral benefit.

What about by building friendships, you learn how to get along with your fellow man, I would say there is a moral implication there.

What about by building friendships, you learn how to get along with your fellow man, I would say there is a moral implication there.

Indeed. I don't dispute that "friendship" can have moral implications in a range of areas, however, there is no certitude in this.

Morality is also rather subjective; were the proposition whether "friendship" is socially beneficial or some such, that would be rather better than simply "moral". Too nebulous.

Exclusive friendship does indeed run contrary to concepts of universality, equality and impartiality. I don't particularly mind, though, because people cannot be truly be friends to everyone, and the net gain derived from several deep friendships significantly outweighs the net gain from many, many superficial relationships.

Humans are wired for a preference for a significant preference for close relationships in small groups--it's an artifact of our hunter-gatherer heritage, and the small, clan-groups that our ancestors traveled in. Truthfully, being "friends to everybody" is an alienating experience, and the net social and psychological loss is immense.

Somebody's bitter.

Indeed...:gas: What's even more unfortunate is that not everyone will betray you.

Indeed...:gas: What's even more unfortunate is that not everyone will betray you.

Enough will so that you can't totally shake the fear that any given person might.

Good questions.

Thank you.

Also, would a true friend ask such a thing?

Someone else has mentioned this, I think. I'd certainly agree that it can be an expression of friendship to refuse to make serious demands upon your friends. But it is also an expression of friendship to offer, and offer sincerely, without having been requested--and, on the other side, to be willing to accept the gifts you are given in love. (Assuming the offer is sincere rather than merely polite, anyway.)

Truthfully, being "friends to everybody" is an alienating experience, and the net social and psychological loss is immense.

So you'd say that this is a psychologically necessary departure from the ideal?

Imagine that instead we did have the psychological capacity to be friends with everyone, or with a great many people, at least if we worked at it a bit--would we be justified in looking askance at someone who kept himself or herself comparatively socially isolated nonetheless?