Our class today focused
on the relationship between the individual and community, specifically in the
form of friendships. What is fascinating about the role friendship plays within
community is that the bonds created between two (or more) people can create isolation
between those included in the relationship and the community. It also can
create a conflict of moral obligation between duties to community and friends.
When taken contextually in Marx’s critique of capitalist society, the
suggestion of isolation from both other individuals and the community as a
whole creates an unfulfilling existence. Yet there are inherently difficulties
in establishing relationships between individuals- Although Aristotle would suggest
that friendship based on similarities and recognition of another virtue would
be beneficial to man, Shakespeare, and modern society, expects our leaders to
put their professional duties above friends. This extreme isolation would suggest that the
most virtuous and upstanding members of society would also be the most separated
from it. If our leaders were the most separated emotionally from our society,
what kind of implications would this hold for those seeking public office or holding
power? Is it realistic to expect those in power to be held to such a standard,
or is raising the bar of power to an incredibly isolating position only setting
us up for failure?
If we use Aristotle's idea that recognition of virtue defines friendship, I believe that a politician would not be putting professional duties over their friends' requests. This is because in most situations the reason that one chooses the professional is because the request of the friend is often not virtuous, which cannot be recognized by the politician. The politician will always have friends that see the virtue in his/her professional decisions therefore truly supporting Aristotle's definition without creating isolation.
ReplyDeleteI would say that there is no need to put the bar at such an impossibly high point. Where what I, at least, would say the problem lies is the assumption that the friend must be placed above the good of the country. The two are not equal in value, and the position of politician carries with it this implicit rule. Thus, if a politician does break this implicit rule, they have essentially betrayed their position and those depending on them. A simple way to regard this would be to use the trolley problem, but allow the one person on the track to be the friend. For a politician, how many people would it take before he chooses to sacrifice his friend?
ReplyDelete