This is a paper I wrote for my Contemporary Moral Issues Class. I turned it in a class period late, which meant I lost ten points. My final grade, after the point deduction? 90! Better to turn a good paper in late, than a bad paper on time.
I haven't looked at this since I got it back a week ago. I would appreciate feed back. I want my writings to be accesible. If you feel completely lost reading this, it only proves a failure on my part to adequately communicate my ideas. Let me know what you think!
Among other things, Aristotle is known for writing the first book dealing entirely with ethical philosophy. In section nine of this book,
Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle speaks of self-love and friendship, and argues that when friendship calls for sacrifice, whether it is wealth, a position of power, or ultimately one’s own life, a self-loving person will give up these things for the betterment of his friend. A self-lover sacrificing himself? This appears contradictory, but if one distinguishes between the good and bad self-lover, and the gains that accompany sacrifice, one will be able to fully understand why the virtuous self-lover would indeed make sacrifices for a friend.
To begin, one must distinguish between the bad lover of self (the selfish person) and the virtuous self-lover. Following in the footsteps of Aristotle, we will begin with the former.
According to Aristotle the selfish person is one who rewards himself in the best way possible, mostly out of need to “gratify [his] appetites and in general [his] feelings and the non-rational part of the soul” (254, handout).
His chief concern is not necessarily his personal well being or long term objectives, but rather satisfying his immediate desires. A high-profile drug dealer may be able to fit this description. The dealer is not concerned with others; after all he is selling a product that harms his customers. He is not concerned with reputation, since he is blatantly disobeying the law. Neither he is concerned with his future, since he does not set up a trust fund or invest in stock. What he desires is money to buy material goods to satisfy extravagant taste, such as a glamorous house or an expensive car. Aristotle agrees that “this type of self-lover, then, is justifiably reproached.”
The good self-lover may in fact have several amenities that the selfish man has, but the motivation and the way in which they are acquired are vastly different. As stated before, the selfish man (bad self-lover) seeks to satisfy temporary cravings, where as the “decent man” uses his rational mind to direct his course of action. He excels in “doing just or temperate actions or any others expressing the virtues.”
An example of this is found in the book of Genesis with the patriarch Abraham. He was a man concerned with justice, as seen when he retrieves his nephew
Lot from three powerful kings, but he also happened to be wealthy (Genesis 14).
A person who acquires good things while living a virtuous life is not usually despised by the people around him.
When speaking of sacrifice, Aristotle claims that “the excellent person labours for his friends and for his native country, and will die for them if he must… For he will choose intense pleasure for a short time over mild pleasure for a long time.” Aristotle believes that sacrifice is more noble than any other virtue, and thus is worth doing above all else. Through sacrifice one “gains what is fine and so he rewards himself the greater good.” It is not explicitly stated what this “fine” thing is, but it is clearly more important than “honors and offices.”
Although it is praiseworthy, it is different from honors and offices, because honors and offices are things that are bestowed upon men by men. Think of a newly crowned king. The peasants may cheer at his coronation, but their praise did not make him king. It was a title received independent of their response. In the same way, the “fine” is praised by other men, but not a gift from men.
First and foremost, an objection could be raised in regards to friendship. If a virtuous person is a self-lover, wouldn’t all friendships be of utility? We would seek others only because they can provide good council in times of need, or because they have a good work ethic to help achieve some higher end.
Aristotle would say in response to this that in the best of friendships, the individuals’ concern is not just with themselves, but there is a mutual and acknowledged feeling of good will. One simply wishes the best for the other, at no advantage to himself.
Difficulties still arise with the idea of a self-lover giving up his own life for another. At first glance, shortening one’s life is not in the best of self interest. Upon further examination, it can be understood to be logical for a good self-lover to make sacrifices. Aristotle claimed that the good self-lover “gratifies the most controlling part of himself, obeying it in everything.” This means that the good self-lover values reason the most, and reason causes him to pursue virtuous action because of its intrinsic value. It can be argued that he may even allow his logic to follow Kantian manner of thought, asking what is most beneficial not only for himself, but for society around him, and thus establishing a sort of categorical imperative, and thus a line of principles to follow. The decent man is a lover of self in that he wants good for himself, but that does not imply that he desires good solely for himself. He desires
the Good, of which he is only a part. If this answer is insufficient, or if it is argued that the good self-lover will not bother himself with Kantian logic, self-sacrifice would still be an act he would carry out if given the chance. Since sacrifice offers an award higher than honors and offices, and is something that cannot be bestowed by men, but only applauded by them, then it would make sense to aspire for this greatest good that transcends all else.
It is possible that conflict between friends could arise in a dire situation – which friend would be allowed to sacrifice? When considering the ultimate sacrifice, loss of life, usually the one who is the recipient of a longer life was in no position to give up his own life, since he would end up being the victim of a murder regardless of the presence of the friend. Thus he could not be bitter about his friend’s sacrifice, but only grateful. If it were lesser things, such as power, then there could be a series of sacrifices over a period of time. One friend gives up something in January, and the other performs the same action a few months later, in that way they both attain what is “fine” throughout the duration of the friendship.
It is conceivable that a serial killer abducts two friends, and threatens to kill only one of them, sparing the other, but the choice would be left in their hands, and both needed to agree to the decision. This would nullify the idea that only one person is in a position to sacrifice. Would this result in a Dumb and Dumber-esque situation, where the friends yell till their red in the face arguing over who will receive the bullet? According to Aristotle, no. A person may “sacrifice actions to his friends, since it may be finer to be responsible for his friend’s doing the action than to do it himself.” In other words, the man who ended up living would also gain some of what is fine by allowing his friend to achieve what is fine.
In conclusion, it is logical for a virtuous self-lover to give himself up for his friends when the need arises. Aristotle’s proposition of sacrifice can be daunting to unravel, but with intense investigation and serious though, one realizes that the good self-lover can indeed give things up for those around him. He is still concerned for himself in that he desires the highest of goods, yet this self-concern does not exclude his friends. Although Aristotle’s argument had been around for centuries, it still holds water and can still convince even the modern person the worth of loving self as well as the good that can be found in self-sacrifice.
