Description
(1000 – 1250 words): Students compose an essay outlining their position, attitude or intention towards the specified topic. The student’s position must be clearly identified, discussed and supported with evidence from reliable sources. The student must take a position that applies belief and reasoning systems to concepts of ethics and/or knowledge (DBR 200.1) and applies said systems of knowledge and/or ethics to issues in society, history, faith, spirituality, and/or one’s own life from a global perspective (DBR 200.2).So-for this specific assignment-students will use one of the first three discussion topics as described generally below: (Discussion Four to make an argument about the ethics of using AI’s to supplement/replace human friendships!)Disc 4-Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethic (the ethical limits of friendship and technology)-argue whether technology undermines human relations-especially friendships-or can augment or improve them using Aristotelian ethics as the measure of good or useful or perfect friendships
10 attachmentsSlide 1 of 10attachment_1attachment_1attachment_2attachment_2attachment_3attachment_3attachment_4attachment_4attachment_5attachment_5attachment_6attachment_6attachment_7attachment_7attachment_8attachment_8attachment_9attachment_9attachment_10attachment_10
Unformatted Attachment Preview
11:39 PM Sun Jan 23
92%
that apply to friendship as well; should a man neither be friendless
nor have an excessive number of friends?
To friends made with a view to utility this saying would seem
thoroughly applicable; for to do services to many people in return is
a laborious task and life is not long enough for its performance.
Therefore friends in excess of those who are sufficient for our own
life are superfluous, and hindrances to the noble life; so that we
have no need of them. Of friends made with a view to pleasure,
also, few are enough, as a little seasoning in food is enough.
actually impossible to be a great friend to many people. This is why
one cannot love several people; love is ideally a sort of excess of
friendship, and that can only be felt towards one person; therefore
great friendship too can only be felt towards a few people. This
seems to be confirmed in practice; for we do not find many people
who are friends in the comradely way of friendship, and the famous
friendships of this sort are always between two people. Those who
have many friends and mix intimately with them all are thought to be
no one’s friend, except in the way proper to fellow-citizens, and
such people are also called obsequious. In the way proper to fellow-
citizens, indeed, it is possible to be the friend of many and yet not
be obsequious but a genuinely good man; but one cannot have with
many people the friendship based on virtue and on the character of
our friends themselves, and we must be content if we find even a
5
few such…
Shared Activity with Friends
But as regards good friends, should we have as many as possible,
or is there a limit to the number of one’s friends, as there is to the
size of a city? You cannot make a city of ten men, and if there are a
hundred thousand it is a city no longer. But the proper number is
presumably not a single number, but anything that falls between
certain fixed points. So for friends too there is a fixed number
perhaps the largest number with whom one can live together (for
that, we found, thought to be very characteristic of friendship); and
that one cannot live with many people and divide oneself up among
them is plain. Further, they too must be friends of one another, if
they are all to spend their days together; and it is a hard business
for this condition to be fulfilled with a large number. It is found
difficult, too, to rejoice and to grieve in an intimate way with many
people, for it may likely happen that one has at once to be happy
with one friend and to mourn with another. Presumably, then, it is
well not to seek to have as many friends as possible, but as many
as are enough for the purpose of living together; for it would seem
12. Does it not follow, then, that, as for lovers the sight of the
beloved is the thing they love most, and they prefer this sense to
the others because on it love depends most for its being and for its
origin, so for friends the most desirable thing is living together? For
friendship is a partnership, and as a man is to himself, so is he to
his friend; now in his own case the consciousness of his being is
desirable, and so therefore is the consciousness of his friend’s
being, and the activity of this consciousness is produced when they
live together, so that it is natural that they aim at this. And whatever
180
11:39 PM Sun Jan 23
92%
strangers or any chance persons. Therefore the happy man needs
friends…
in itself one of the things that are pleasant (for life is by nature good,
and to perceive what is good present in oneself is pleasant); and if
life is desirable, and particularly so for good men, because to them
existence is good and pleasant for they are pleased at the
consciousness of the presence in them of what is in itself good);
and if as the virtuous man is to himself, he is to his friend also (for
his friend is another self):– if all this be true, as his own being is
desirable for each man, so, or almost so, is that of his friend. Now
his being was seen to be desirable because he perceived his own
goodness, and such perception is pleasant in itself. He needs,
therefore, to be conscious of the existence of his friend as well, and
this will be realized in their living together and sharing in discussion
and thought; for this is what living together would seem to mean in
the case of man, and not, as in the case of cattle, feeding in the
same place.
If we look deeper into the nature of things, a virtuous friend seems
to be naturally desirable for a virtuous man. For that which is good
by nature, we have said, is for the virtuous man good and pleasant
in itself. Now life is defined in the case of animals by the power of
perception in that of man by the power of perception or thought;
and a power is defined by reference to the corresponding activity,
which is the essential thing; therefore life seems to be essentially
the act of perceiving or thinking. And life is among the things that
are good and pleasant in themselves, since it is determinate and the
determinate is of the nature of the good; and that which is good by
nature is also good for the virtuous man (which is the reason why
life seems pleasant to all men); but we must not apply this to a
wicked and corrupt life nor to a life spent in pain; for such a life is
indeterminate, as are its attributes. The nature of pain will become
plainer in what follows. But if life itself is good and pleasant (which it
seems to be, from the very fact that all men desire it, and
particularly those who are good and supremely happy; for to such
men life is most desirable, and their existence is the most
supremely happy) and if he who sees perceives that he sees, and
he who hears, that he hears, and he who walks, that he walks, and
in the case of all other activities similarly there is something which
perceives that we are active, so that if we perceive, we perceive that
we perceive, and if we think, that we think; and if to perceive that
we perceive or think is to perceive that we exist (for existence was
defined as perceiving or thinking); and if perceiving that one lives is
a
If, then, being is in itself desirable for the supremely happy man
(since it is by its nature good and pleasant), and that of his friend is
very much the same, a friend will be one of the things that are
desirable. Now that which is desirable for him he must have, or he
will be deficient in this respect. The man who is to be happy will
therefore need virtuous friends.
The Ideal Number of Friends
10. Should we, then, make as many friends as possible, or-as in
the case of hospitality it is thought to be suitable advice, that one
should be ‘neither a man of many guests nor a man with none’- will
179
11:39 PM Sun Jan 23
92%
friends we ought to make some allowance for our former friendship,
when the breach has not been due to excess of wickedness…
The Value of Friends
since not everything can be loved, but only what is good. What is
evil neither can nor should be loved; for it is not one’s duty to be a
lover of evil, nor to become like what is bad; and we have said that
like is dear like. Must the friendship, then, be forthwith broken off?
Or is this not so in all cases, but only when one’s friends are
incurable in their wickedness? If they are capable of being reformed
one should rather come to the assistance of their character or their
property, inasmuch as this is better and more characteristic of
friendship. But a man who breaks off such a friendship would seem
to be doing nothing strange; for it was not to a man of this sort that
he was a friend; when his friend has changed, therefore, and he is
unable to save him, he gives him up.
?
But if one friend remained the same while the other became better
and far outstripped him in virtue, should the latter treat the former
as a friend? Surely he cannot. When the interval is great this
becomes most plain, e.g. in the case of childish friendships; if one
friend remained a child in intellect while the other became a fully
developed man, how could they be friends when they neither
approved of the same things nor delighted in and were pained by
the same things? For not even with regard to each other will their
tastes agree, and without this (as we saw) they cannot be friends;
for they cannot live together. But we have discussed these matters.
9. It is also disputed whether the happy man will need friends or
not. It is said that those who are supremely happy and self-sufficient
have no need of friends; for they have the things that are good, and
therefore being self-sufficient they need nothing further, while a
friend, being another self, furnishes what a man cannot provide by
his own effort; whence the saying ‘when fortune is kind, what need
of friends?’ But it seems strange, when one assigns all good things
to the happy man, not to assign friends, who are thought the
greatest of external goods. And if it is more characteristic of a friend
a
to do well by another than to be well done by, and to confer benefits
is characteristic of the good man and of virtue, and it is nobler to do
well by friends than by strangers, the good man will need people to
do well by. This is why the question is asked whether we need
friends more in prosperity or in adversity, on the assumption that
not only does a man in adversity need people to confer benefits on
him, but also those who are prospering need people to do well by.
Surely it is strange, too, to make the supremely happy man a
solitary; for no one would choose the whole world on condition of
being alone, since man is a political creature and one whose nature
is to live with others. Therefore even the happy man lives with
others; for he has the things that are by nature good. And plainly it
is better to spend his days with friends and good men than with
Should he, then, behave no otherwise towards him than he would if
he had never been his friend? Surely he should keep a
remembrance of their former intimacy, and as we think we ought to
oblige friends rather than strangers, so to those who have been our
178
11:39 PM Sun Jan 23
92%
nor delight in each other, and these are thought the greatest
marks of friendship.
One cannot be a friend to many people in the sense of having
friendship of the perfect type with them, just as one cannot be in
love with many people at once (for love is a sort of excess of
feeling, and it is the nature of such only to be felt towards one
person); and it is not easy for many people at the same time to
please the same person very greatly, or perhaps even to be good
in his eyes. One must, too, acquire some experience of the other
person and become familiar with him, and that is very hard. But
with a view to utility or pleasure it is possible that many people
should please one; for many people are useful or pleasant, and
these services take little time…
parents what they ought to render to those who brought them
into the world, and parents render what they should to their
children, the friendship of such persons will be abiding and
excellent. In all friendships implying inequality the love also
should be proportional, i.e. the better should be more loved than
he loves, and so should the more useful, and similarly in each of
the other cases; for when the love is in proportion to the merit of
the parties, then in a sense arises equality, which is certainly held
to be characteristic of friendship.
Unequal Friends
7. But there is another kind of friendship, viz. that which involves
an inequality between the parties, e.g. that of father to son and in
general of elder to younger, that of man to wife and in general
that of ruler to subject. And these friendships differ also from
each other; for it is not the same that exists between parents and
children and between rulers and subjects, nor is even that of
father to son the same as that of son to father, nor that of
husband to wife the same as that of wife to husband. For the
virtue and the function of each of these is different, and so are
the reasons for which they love; the love and the friendship are
therefore different also. Each party, then, neither gets the same
from the other, nor ought to seek it; but when children render to
But equality does not seem to take the same form in acts of
justice and in friendship; for in acts of justice what is equal in the
primary sense is that which is in proportion to merit, while
quantitative equality is secondary, but in friendship quantitative
equality is primary and proportion to merit secondary. This
becomes clear if there is a great interval in respect of virtue or
vice or wealth or anything else between the parties; for then they
are no longer friends, and do not even expect to be so. And this
is most manifest in the case of the gods; for they surpass us
most decisively in all good things. But it is clear also in the case
of kings; for with them, too, men who are much their inferiors do
not expect to be friends; nor do men of no account expect to be
friends with the best or wisest men. In such cases it is not
possible to define exactly up to what point friends can remain
friends; for much can be taken away and friendship remain, but
when one party is removed to a great distance, as God is, the
possibility of friendship ceases. This is in fact the origin of the
question whether friends really wish for their friends the greatest
175
11:38 PM Sun Jan 23
92%
useful; and one of these might return this feeling. These people
seem to bear goodwill to each other; but how could one call them
friends when they do not know their mutual feelings? To be friends,
then, they must be mutually recognized as bearing goodwill and
wishing well to each other for one of the aforesaid reason
Friendships of Usefulness and Pleasure
3. Now these reasons differ from each other in kind; so, therefore,
do the corresponding forms of love and friendship. There are
therefore three kinds of friendship, equal in number to the things
that are lovable; for with respect to each there is a mutual and
recognized love, and those who love each other wish well to each
other in that respect in which they love one another. Now those who
love each other for their utility do not love each other for themselves
but in virtue of some good which they get from each other. So too
with those who love for the sake of pleasure; it is not for their
character that men love ready-witted people, but because they find
them pleasant. Therefore those who love for the sake of utility love
for the sake of what is good for themselves, and those who love for
the sake of pleasure do so for the sake of what is pleasant to
themselves, and not in so far as the other is the person loved but in
so far as he is useful or pleasant. And thus these friendships are
only incidental; for it is not as being the man he is that the loved
person is loved, but as providing some good or pleasure. Such
friendships, then, are easily dissolved, if the parties do not remain
like themselves; for if the one party is no longer pleasant or useful
the other ceases to love him.
Now the useful is not permanent but is always changing. Thus when
the motive of the friendship is done away, the friendship is
dissolved, inasmuch as it existed only for the ends in question. This
kind of friendship seems to exist chiefly between old people (for at
that age people pursue not the pleasant but the useful) and, of
those who are in their prime or young, between those who pursue
utility. And such people do not live much with each other either; for
sometimes they do not even find each other pleasant; therefore they
do not need such companionship unless they are useful to each
other; for they are pleasant to each other only in so far as they rouse
in each other hopes of something good to come. Among such
friendships people also class the friendship of a host and guest. On
the other hand the friendship of young people seems to aim at
pleasure; for they live under the guidance of emotion, and pursue
above all what is pleasant to themselves and what is immediately
before them; but with increasing age their pleasures become
different. This is why they quickly become friends and quickly cease
to be so; their friendship changes with the object that is found
pleasant, and such pleasure alters quickly. Young people are
amorous too; for the greater part of the friendship of love depends
on emotion and aims at pleasure; this is why they fall in love and
quickly fall out of love, changing often within a single day. But these
people do wish to spend their days and lives together; for it is thus
that they attain the purpose of their friendship.
Perfect Friendship (Friendship of Virtue)
Perfect friendship is the friendship of men who are good, and alike
in virtue; for these wish well alike to each other qua good, and they
173
1. Essay lays out the position,
attitude or intention towards the
specified topic. SLO CT 200.2, SLO
WC 200.2
11.11 pts
Excellent
9.39 pts
Above Average
8.28 pts
Average
7.17 pts
Below Average
O pts
Unacceptable
view longer description
threshold: 8.28
2. Introduction has an engaging
attention getter and cohesive thesis
statement, covering all of the essay’s
arguments. SLO IL 200.1
11.11 pts
Excellent
9.39 pts
Above Average
8.28 pts
Average
7.17 pts
Below Average
O pts
Unacceptable
view longer description
threshold: 8.28
3. Belief and reasoning systems
are applied to concepts of ethics
and/or knowledge. SLO DBR 200.1
11.11 pts
Excellent
9.39 pts
Above Average
8.28 pts
Average
7.17 pts
Below Average
O pts
Unacceptable
view longer description
threshold: 8.28
4. Concepts of knowledge and/or
ethics are applied to issues in society,
history, faith, spirituality, and/or one’s
own life from a global perspective.
SLO DBR 200.2
11.11 pts
Excellent
9.39 pts
Above Average
8.28 pts
Average
7.17 pts
Below Average
O pts
Unacceptable
view longer description
threshold: 8.28
5. Information is properly
organized within and between
paragraphs.
9.39 pts
11.11 pts
Excellent
8.28 pts
Average
7.17 pts
Below Average
O pts
Unacceptable
Above Average
view longer description
threshold: 8.28
C) 6. Direct and indirect quotes,
examples, and evidence are used to
support all claims. SLO CT 200.3;
SLO IL 200.2
O pts
11.11 pts
Excellent
9.39 pts
Above Average
8.28 pts
Average
7.17 pts
Below Average
Unacceptable
view longer description
threshold: 8.28
7. Conclusion is engaging, with
fully reviewed thesis and main ideas.
O pts
11.11 pts
Excellent
9.39 pts
Above Average
8.28 pts
Average
7.17 pts
Below Average
Unacceptable
view longer description
threshold: 8.28
8. Format, layout, citations, and
references are in correct APA style.
SLO IL 200.4; SLO TL 200.1
O pts
11.11 pts
Excellent
9.39 pts
Above Average
8.28 pts
Average
7.17 pts
Below Average
Unacceptable
view longer description
threshold: 8.28
9. Essay is grammatically correct,
and written for an academic audience
with author’s unique voice. SLO WC
200.3
11.12 pts
Excellent
9.39 pts
Above Average
8.28 pts
Average
7.17 pts
Below Average
O pts
Unacceptable
view longer description
threshold: 8.28
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Explanation & Answer:
1000 words
Tags:
Human Relations
Aristotles Nichomachean Ethic
reasoning systems to concepts of ethics
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool’s honor code & terms of service.
