Book 9 / Chapter 3
Paragraph 4 - The Obligation to Former Friends
Explanation - Part By Part
"Should he, then, behave no otherwise towards him than he would if he had never been his friend?"
Aristotle is asking whether, once a deep friendship fades or dissolves (due to one person changing significantly, such as becoming more virtuous or growing apart), the person should now treat the former friend as if they were just any random stranger. Should the bond they once shared mean absolutely nothing now? He's raising this question to explore whether the history of friendship creates any lingering duties or emotional ties, even when the mutual connection is no longer alive in the present.
"Surely he should keep a remembrance of their former intimacy, and as we think we ought to oblige friends rather than strangers,"
Aristotle is saying that if a friendship has changed or even dissolved, it doesn’t mean we should treat the person as a complete stranger. The shared bond and history of the friendship still matter. We naturally feel a stronger sense of responsibility or kindness toward someone we once called a friend compared to someone we’ve never been close to. Even if the dynamic has shifted, that past connection remains significant and can influence how we treat the person going forward.
"so to those who have been our friends we ought to make some allowance for our former friendship, when the breach has not been due to excess of wickedness."
Aristotle is saying that even if a friendship has faded or dissolved because of changes in character, virtue, or circumstances, we still owe some respect and consideration to the memory of that past friendship—as long as the relationship didn’t end due to something seriously terrible or immoral on the part of the other person. It’s about recognizing that the bond you once shared holds some moral weight, even if you’ve grown apart. This means treating your former friend with more kindness or gratitude than you would a total stranger, out of respect for what you shared in the past.