The phenomenon of friendship is explained in two very different ways by Aristotle and the Fransiscan philosopher John Duns Scotus. This difference arises from their different ehtical systems. While Aristotle holds that friendship is based on love of the self, Scotus bases friendship on a love that is selfless. There are important practical and theoloretical implications of these views of friendship, especially concerning how each understands the self.

I. Aristotle

Ethics: Eudaimonism. Jonathan Lear says, "The genuine pursuit of happiness and the virtuous life are, for Aristotle, one and the same." Happines, eudaimonia, results from fulfilling one’s nature. This is also the highest good at which one may aim one’s actions.

Friendship: "[A person] is related to his friend as to himself, (for his friend is another self)" (Ethics, 1166a, 30). Trued friendship is based on love of the good and is only possible as long as both friends are virtuous and wish the good for each other.

II. Scotus

Ethics: Divine Command Theory. Free will is based upon the dual existence of the desire for happiness and the desire for justice. Virtue is the ranking of justice over happiness in one’s actions. Virtue aims not at the good, but at conformity to God’s will. So, one can desires omething beyond one’s greatest happiness, that is, to obey the will of God.

Friendship: True friendship occurs when we relate to our friend as we do not relate to ourselves. Friendship love is completely the other-focused and is therefore considered more virtuous as a result of its selflessness. This type of love ultimately has God as its object. (Lucifer fell from heaven because he had friendship love for himself, and inordinate love).

III. Evaluation

Practical Concerns: Which is better, easier, more practical: requiring a person to relate to her friend as to herself, or to relate to her friend as she never would to herself?

• The first requires extreme self-knowledge and avoidance of all self-destructive behavior.
• The second appears to lack a point of reference in understanding the needs of others.

Theoretical comparison: Gender theorist Nancy Chodorow contrasts "feminine" and "masculine" self-boundaries as permeable vs. Impermeable. How do Aristotle’s and Scotus’ views of the self compare to this dichotomy?

• Aristotle’s expansion of the self to include the friend relates to the permeabel self-boundary of the mother to her child. High level of awareness of the other’s needs.
• Scotus’ self-emptying love relates to the rigid self of the father. Care is based on an objective goal rather than on personal wants.

IV. Conclusion

Does the analogy illuminate the essential difference between Aristotle and Scotus on the issue of friendship love? I argue that the above comparison brings to light the issue of an objective standard according to which one may love others.

• For Aristotle this standard is the good, which is theoretically attainable by each living thing in its own way.
• For Scotus the standard for love and virtue is not an impersonal ideal but the will of God.