Aristotle view friendship Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Aristotle view friendship - Essay Example According to Tutuska, Aristotle described friendship of utility as the one that is for the old and that it is easily dissolved. He also described it as acquaintance since it is based on something that is introduced into the relationship by the other person. He described friendship of pleasure as the one that is normally built among the young people as it has great influences from the pleasures and passions that are in their lives. Tutuska explains that these types of friendship are unstable and that they are bound to change with time which leads to dissolving of the friendship. Aristotle explains that the only difference between friendship of utility and that of pleasure is that people in friendship of pleasure seeks for something that is pleasant to them at the moment whereas those seeking friendship of utility are looking for a business deal or long term benefits. It can also be identified that the bonds between individuals in friendship of utility are very weak and this leads to i t being easily dissolved. Tutuska goes ahead to describe the third type of friendship as that friendship of virtue. Aristotle termed this as the highest friendship that one can achieve as it is based on the fact that a person wishes the best their friends regardless of utility or pleasure. Aristotle calls it as a sort that is complete as it exists between people who are good and are alike in virtue. He terms it as a friendship that is long lasting and that it is tough to obtain as these types of people are hard to come by as it takes someone to do a lot of work to have virtuous friendship. Virtuous friendship requires a lot of time and care to be spent and therefore it limits the number of friends that can be found in it. Friendship of virtue is felt among the good people and that it is resistant to slander. The main reasons that Aristotle values friendship so much is that friendship supersedes honour and justice. He argues that there is no any person who would wish to stay without a friend. He also says that those people who are in leadership and are given a great deal of power are in dire need of friendship and that law makers tend to take friendship with a lot of seriousness than justice. He terms friendship as glue that holds cities together and that it is beautiful by itself. Aristotle also argues that friendship can be enjoyed since it is choiceworthy for its own sake and that it is something that is much greater that being honoured (Tutuska 353-355). Aristotle explains that it takes character to maintain virtuous friendships which helps in maintaining a solid community as communities are built around friendship. He also argues that virtuous friendships are very few and that friendships of utility and that of pleasure are the ones that keep the cities together. This makes it clear to us that there is still the need to retain honour and justice within friendships. Ways in which friendship shape our public activity Friendship can be termed as a relationshi p that exists among people who are in good terms with each other as explained above. This means that when handling any activity in public, a person will be keen to take care of the feeling of other people. Therefore, people will avoid any speech or activity that can lead to any form of violence among the co-existing communities. This helps in the development of any nation as the environment that will be created in a peaceful nation will

Humanitarian Interventionism Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Humanitarian Interventionism - Essay Example Military interventions have a long history both prior to and during the Cold War, and even at the turn of the decade it was not apparent that they might no longer be undertaken in the future. These interventions were justified on moral grounds, or on the grounds of international law, or as selfless acts. On October 7, 2001, the U.S. launched a massive military assault on Afghanistan that effaced its political structure and created an enormous refugee situation. From the middle of 2002, the U.S. threatened to do the same thing to Iraq, running through a spectrum of reasons that changed as each previous argument collapsed. After giving up on efforts of U.N. inspectors to find weapons of mass destruction in that country, the Bush administration's inability to do so dissolved that pretext as well. The assault on Afghanistan, mounted in response to the events of September 11, 2001, was part of a two-decade-long series that included Grenada (1982), Panama (1989), Iraq (1991), and Yugoslavia (1999). Each assault had its own peculiarity, and violated certain principles of democracy and international law; yet, each received overwhelming support in the U.S., at institutional and popular levels. Though its moments differ, they reveal a common structure and the series as a whole poses an envelo ping question concerning its general acceptability. After the 9/11 After the 9/11 attacks, though no one took credit for this coordinated act of destruction, the U.S. government immediately claimed, without evidence, that a Saudi expatriate allegedly living in Afghanistan was responsible, and that 19 men of Middle Eastern origin, whose names the FBI published two days later, had committed this act of collective suicide and mass murder. International law provides the right to defend against terrorist attacks, but not to retaliate without going through certain international channels and procedures, which the U.S. ignored. Though in violation of international law (the Geneva Accords and U.N. Charter), the military assault on Afghanistan constituted the first act in what was declared to be an "endless war." The massive bombing of Afghanistan created a civilian death count considerably beyond that of the World Trade Center; whole villages were obliterated, and an already critical refugee and starvation situation was exacerbated, stretching well into Paki stan. In place of the Taliban organization, an interim government was invented. Though objection to this assault in the U.S. was small, it was repressed: public figures who spoke against the attack were vilified, people were fired, students suspended from school, social programs closed, university professors sanctioned, etc. to arrest one man. The assault on Afghanistan, according to military experts, would have required at least three months of logistical preparation; indeed, plans for the assault had begun the previous July. (Stan Goff) If so, the arrest of bin Laden was merely a legalistic pretext for a prior political project, the change of regime in Afghanistan. This raises two issues. The first is the use of international legalism to symbolize rather than explain or authorize an intervention, the pursuit of which violates international and U.S. law. The second is the structure of popular acceptance that likewise ignores illegality (the violation of a treaty, of international codes, and the principle of national sovereignty). The U.S. invaded Panama