Conclusion: It is impossible to have both love and respect
in a friendship.
Premises:
1. Perfect friendship is ideal, but unattainable.
a. Perfect
friendship is when two people are connected with equal mutual love
and respect
(46/470)
b. It is a person’s
moral duty, a duty of love, to tell a friend his/her faults (46/470)
c. Telling a
friend his/her faults lead to lack of respect (46/470)
2. It is difficult to distinguish between feeling for duty
and feeling for the other person (46/470)
a. Feeling for
duty=feeling of benevolence (general love of mankind, 27/451)
b. Feeling for
other person=respect (duty of virtue, 25/450)
c. If one person
loves the other more, it is not possible to have both equal mutual
love and respect
(i)
3. Friendship cannot be maintained when one person benefits
from the other (i)
a. There is still
equality in love (46/471)
b. However, there
is no equality in respect, because the person who benefitted
simply sees
himself/herself as not yet unable to return the gesture (46/471)
4. Friend of mankind in general is taking a general interest
in the well-being of everyone (47/473)
a. Based on
obligation (47/473)
b. Relationship
of protector and of one being protected is a relationship of mutual
love, but cannot
be friendship because respect is not equal
5. Moral friendship exists, but is based only in respect
(47/472)
a. Moral friendship
is when the two persons feel confident about sharing and
being open with
their ideas toward each other (47/472)
b. This openness
is based on respect, but not necessarily on mutual love (i)
In your first premise, it might be helpful to clarify why love and respect are incompatible, thus making perfect friendship unattainable. I think Kant is saying there is a limitation of love by respect. Kant seems to call this a “restriction of intimacy” (46/470). Further, he refers to love as “attracting” and respect as “repelling.” Parts B and C of your first premise might serve as a good example of this. Your third premise might also be considered an example of this. I like your second premise and how you reflect on Kant’s earlier assertions to support your point. Kant states here that friendship cannot be left to rest upon feelings or emotion… why is this? Your fourth premise is very clear, but I was wondering if it is important to expand on 4a: “one’s being obligated to others at the same time he obligates them through his beneficence” (47/473). Fifth premise is also very clear! Good job!!
ReplyDeleteI thought this argument outline was really good. I do agree with Laura about your first premise though. Something that I thought was really interesting and could add to your first premise was in the footnote. It reads, "It is easy to see that friendship is a mere idea...but still to be striven for (as a maximum of good sentiment toward one another)" (46^16). Here Kant explains one reason why perfect friendship is unattainable because it is simply an idea. He also expands on this and adds that it should remain striven for although it cannot be reached. On another hand, even though it doesn't apply to your first premise, this gives a good definition of perfect friendship. Good job on the outline, I just thought this was a good hidden statement that could be added.
ReplyDeleteI believe that your argument outline was quite helpful. I concur with the above two points regarding the first premise-- it may be possible to make it more clear by paying close attention to context. In (46/470) we see this great contrast portrayed, such that perfect friendship is not possible because friends are somehow morally obligated to tell each other their faults, yet this can cut both ways and prove detrimental to the friendship. My question is, why are they morally obligated to tell each other faults? To be honest? Is withholding hurtful information inherently dishonest? I'd like to see some proof from Kant that argues for/against this particular point, because it is difficult to follow his logic without it. Additionally, in the third premise, it reads, "friendship cannot be maintained when one friend benefits from the other." Does this mean that it must be mutually beneficial, or no benefits must be exchanged at all? I think I have a good idea after reading this section of the book, but if it was clarified in the outline, it would make for a stronger premise.
ReplyDeleteThe only real question that I would like to expound on is the idea of a moral friendship. You say that the only moral friendship one can have is out of respect but what about the friendships of love? Certainly respect and love might be incompatible with each other, but cannot one have a moral friendship out of love? If someone takes the role of protector and displays general caring and love fore everyone, I find it hard to see that as not being moral. Also, the tension that exists between respect and love is interesting, but I don't think it necessarily leads to an imperfect friendship.
ReplyDeleteOverall I think this is a good argument. Your premises really support your conclusion. I believe that your first premise is the strongest though. You explain what perfect friendship is, how Kant thinks it is ideal and then why it is unattainable. It makes sense how telling a friend his/her faults leads to a lack of respect because I think it is something that many of us have experienced. For your third premise, I think it may have been possible to expand a little more. You state that there is no equality in respect but you say that this is because the person who benefits from it is the one who is not unable to return the favor. But how is this so? Did you mean to say that the person is just unable to return the favor? Because Kant states that in their inequality of respect, the one who benefitted from the other "sees himself plainly as a step lower, inasmuch as he is obligated and yet not reciprocally able to obligate" (Kant, 471).
ReplyDeleteI really like this argument outline because it is clear and concise, very easy to understand. I think you could probably flesh some of these premises out a little more, especially premise 3. I think you succeed in making this outline concise, but try not to shy away from adding necessary explantation and detail within the sub-premises. Also, I think premise 4 (especially 4b) could use a little more explaining. You state that " Relationship of protector and of one being protected is a relationship of mutual love, but cannot be friendship because respect is not equal," but what about similar "friendships" to a protector-one being protected?
ReplyDeleteOverall, great outline!
This argument is really good! I'm just pretty confused about premise number three, I don't understand how points A and B prove that "Friendship cannot be maintained when one person benefits from the other." I'm just not sure why this is the case, especially if both benefit from the other and it is not just a one person benefiting from the other, so I do agree with Mairead in that premise three can be explained better. I do love how simple you keep the rest of the outline though, it is very easy to understand and very clear. I also agree with Eric when he says that your first premise is the strongest, but in the end I think all your points back up your conclusion really well.
ReplyDelete