en he distinguishes between friendships of utility or pleasure and friendships of virtue. Are we as human beings capable of doing a completely unselfish act? Can we truthfully say that we are friends with someone not for our own sake but for the sake of the friends? Personally I disagree with Aristotle on this. Take the example of Mr Jones giving Mr Smith a gift, lets say a CD. Is he giving Ms Smith this gift because he knows Mr Smith will like it or because Mr Smith will think better of Mr Jones, or because he hopes that Mr Smith will get him a nice gift sometime? There can be any number of reasons why Mr Jones would give Mr Smith a gift but in my opinion the most feasible reasons would be ones where Mr Jones expects to get some form of repayment, even if that is only Mr Smith liking Mr Jones as a person more. No act is completely selfless, take an old lady about to cross a busy road, would you help her because she needs help or because you would feel a great deal of self-satisfaction by helping her. In my opinion, even if only a small part of the reason why you would help her, self-satisfaction would play a part in youre reasoning to help her. We are inherently selfish beings. There is always a degree of self-interest. Therefore Aristotles definition of friendship of virtue is wrong, in my opinion, or at least too exclusive.Kant also has problems with Aristotles definition of friendship. Kant believed that an act could only have moral value if and only if you were not the primary beneficiary of the act. According to Kant with Aristotles theory of friendship it seems the friendship can not be a moral goal. A friendship is morally neutral. It does not say anything about your moral character. Of course Aristotle would disagree he would say having a friend of virtue is a goal that every moral person should strive for (John L. Fjellstad).Kant believes that people dont seek friendship for friendships sake but to satisfy needs...
