Book 9 / Chapter 3
Paragraph 2 - The Limits of Friendship and Goodness
Explanation - Part By Part
"But if one accepts another man as good, and he turns out badly and is seen to do so, must one still love him? Surely it is impossible, since not everything can be loved, but only what is good."
Aristotle is asserting here that love and friendship are built upon the perception of goodness in another person. If someone believed another person to be good but later realizes that they are not, it becomes impossible—or at least unreasonable—to continue loving them. Aristotle emphasizes that love is naturally directed toward what is good, because goodness is what makes someone worthy of love and affection. Loving something or someone that is truly bad would contradict the very nature of love, as well as one's own sense of morality and values.
"What is evil neither can nor should be loved; for it is not one's duty to be a lover of evil, nor to become like what is bad; and we have said that like is dear like."
In this part, Aristotle emphasizes that it is neither appropriate nor reasonable to love something that is evil or harmful. He argues that it's not anyone's responsibility to form an attachment to or develop affection for what is morally bad. Furthermore, he connects love and likeness, suggesting that we naturally seek relationships with people who reflect qualities we value or aspire to in ourselves. Loving something evil would risk drawing us toward those negative traits, and since "like attracts like," it would contradict the fundamental nature of virtuous friendships, which are based on shared goodness and mutual growth. Loving evil, therefore, goes against both reason and moral duty.
"Must the friendship, then, be forthwith broken off? Or is this not so in all cases, but only when one's friends are incurable in their wickedness?"
Aristotle is questioning whether a friendship should immediately come to an end when a friend turns bad or immoral. However, he considers whether this applies universally or only in cases where the friend's faults are so deep and entrenched that they cannot be changed or repaired ("incurable in their wickedness"). He is essentially asking if there is hope or room for intervention to help the friend reform, or if the friendship must inevitably dissolve when the friend becomes irredeemably corrupt.
"If they are capable of being reformed one should rather come to the assistance of their character or their property, inasmuch as this is better and more characteristic of friendship."
Aristotle is emphasizing here that true friendship involves more than just enjoying someone's presence or benefiting from them; it also includes a moral responsibility to support them when they falter. If a friend is struggling with bad behavior or actions but has the potential to improve or "be reformed," the right thing to do—what aligns with the deeper purpose of friendship—is to help them. This might mean helping them correct their character (their inner moral qualities) or even their external circumstances (like their material or societal well-being).
By saying this is "better and more characteristic of friendship," Aristotle suggests that genuine friendship isn’t only about shared enjoyment or convenience but also about caring for the other person’s growth and well-being. Essentially, true friendship combines affection with a willingness to help each other become better, especially when things go wrong.
"But a man who breaks off such a friendship would seem to be doing nothing strange; for it was not to a man of this sort that he was a friend; when his friend has changed, therefore, and he is unable to save him, he gives him up."
This part explains that it’s not unreasonable or surprising for someone to end a friendship if the other person has fundamentally changed in a negative way. The friendship was originally based on a certain perception of the person—a belief that they were good or had admirable qualities. If that person becomes someone entirely different, particularly someone morally corrupt or harmful, and they cannot be helped or guided back to a better path, then it’s natural for the friendship to dissolve. Essentially, the relationship was never with the “new” version of the person who has become wicked; it was with the person they used to be. If saving them is no longer an option, it’s justified to let the friendship go.