Positive psychologists such
as Haidt and Seligman stress the importance of association and friendship in
making us happy. Lonely people are often unhappy. It might appear to follow that
one way an unhappy lonely person can improve his happiness is by making
friends. In this posting I will argue this is not easy. I will argue the nature
of friendship means if someone attempts to make friends solely in order to
improve his happiness that his attempt will fail. I will however suggest that
association can increase our happiness and may lead to friendship.
I will argue first that the
nature of friendship means someone cannot simply choose to become friends with
someone else. Let us assume that our lonely unhappy person chooses to become
friends with someone else simply in order to boost his happiness. Let us
further assume he attempts to share his potential friend’s interests and that she
shows no inclination to respond. The resulting relationship is not one of
friendship. Our unhappy person might be described as an admirer, a hanger on or
perhaps even as a fan but certainly not as a friend. Intuitively it makes sense
to talk of unrequited love but it makes no sense at all to talk about
unrequited friendship, see Helm . Friendship is
of necessity a two way relationship. Someone may attempt to become friends
with someone else but he cannot choose to become friends with
another in order to make himself happier.
Let us now assume that when our
unhappy person chooses to become friends with someone else simply in order to
boost his happiness that his potential friend reciprocates. The relationship
has now become a two way one. However I will once again argue the nature of
friendship means that his attempt will still fail. This relationship can be characterised
as one in which the unhappy person is simply attempting to use the other as a
means to achieve his own ends. According to Kantian ethics this attempt is
morally wrong. However I am not interested in morality here. I am interested in
whether such an attempt could actually lead to friendship? According to
Aristotle the answer to this question would appear to be yes as he includes
friends of utility in his classification of types of friends. However I would
suggest that intuitively friends must ‘care about’ each other. It is clear that
our unhappy person does not ‘care about’ his potential friend, he cares about
being happy. It follows if we accept our intuitions then our unhappy person’s
attempt to make friends must fail.
At this point let us assume that
the unhappy person further modifies his behaviour and attempts to ‘care about’
his potential friend in order to improve his prospects of achieving friendship
and hence boost his happiness. Surely at this point our unhappy person has done
enough to become friends and hence boost his happiness. Once again I will argue
he has not. I will argue that the nature of caring means this attempt will also
fail. Frankfurt argues if someone cares about
something then he identifies himself with what he cares about in the sense that
he makes himself vulnerable to losses and susceptible to benefits depending
upon whether what he cares about is diminished or enhanced (1). Caring about so
defined is a form of love. At this point someone may object that loving and ‘caring
about’ something are not equivalent and suggest that whilst I may love my wife that
I only ‘care about’ eating ice cream. It is important to have a clear
understanding of what it means to ‘care about’. I would suggest I simply like
ice cream and point out there is a difference between liking and ‘caring about’.
There is also a difference between ‘caring for’ and ‘caring about’. A good
nurse must ‘care for’ her patients but she need not ‘care about’ her patients.
Indeed it might be argued a good nurse or doctor should not ‘care about’ her
patients too much. In a clinical setting a nurse or doctor must remain detached
or else she might suffer emotional burnout. However if a nurse is also a mother
she should ‘care about’ her children. A good mother should identify with her
children and if they are harmed she should feel harmed. Caring about in this
way is a form of love. However love is not simply a matter of choice. We cannot
simply choose to love someone. It follows we cannot simply choose to ‘care about’
someone. It further follows our unhappy person cannot simply modify his
behaviour in order to ‘care about’ his potential friend and so improve his
prospects of achieving friendship and hence boost his happiness. This
conclusion seems to concur with our intuitions that someone cannot force or
simply will friendship.
Even if we cannot simply will
or force friendship it nonetheless plays an important part in making us happy.
What can someone do if he cannot simply will friendship? He should place
himself in circumstances that cultivate friendship. In order to do so he must
be active and join in association with others. So doing should increase his
happiness irrespective of whether it helps him make friends or strengthen any existing
friendships because activity alone seems increase happiness. Activity is a form
of engagement and engagement helps increase happiness, see Haybron (2) and see also my
previous posting. Secondly even if he cannot simply will friendship then
perhaps he can attempt to form limited friendships and this limited form might
in the right circumstances lead to full friendship. However if this proposal is
to be meaningful it must make sense to talk of limited friendship, see Helm’s
idea of ordinary friendship (3). If I play golf once a week with someone and we
share an interest in playing golf are we limited friends? I would suggest we
are perhaps very limited friends. It is important to note the difference
between this limited friendship and the attempted friendship of the unhappy
person above. The unhappy person attempts to ‘care about’ someone only in order
to improve his prospects of achieving friendship and hence boosting his
happiness. By playing golf with my golf partner we share an interest in golf.
If it rains and we cannot play golf both his interests and mine are frustrated.
We ‘care about’ the same thing however modest this caring may be. The same does
not apply to the unhappy person who attempts to make a friend simply boost his
happiness. He simply ‘cares about’ being happy. Limited friends are persons who
‘care about’ the same things such as playing golf or doing philosophy. Limited
friends have common interests. True friends are persons who ‘care about’ each
other in addition to ‘caring about’ each other’s interests. If ‘caring about’
and loving are equivalent then true friends are persons who love each other.
True friends have a common interest in each of them flourishing. If limited
friends and true friends are as suggested above then it seems feasible that
limited friendship may in time become true friendship. It might also help
explain what Aristotle meant by the friendship of utility and why it is of
value.
Throughout this posting I
have assumed that friendship helps make someone happy. I have argued that love
or ‘caring about’ is an important element of friendship. I have also argued
above limited friends or friends of utility may be of value because they lead
to true friendship. What is it about friendship that makes someone happy? I
would suggest it is because he loves or ‘cares about’ his friend. I would
further suggest that loving something makes someone happy. This last suggestion
would explain why people keep pets. Accepting these suggestions might mean
friendship is important not because it makes someone happy directly but rather
because it gives him something, or in this case someone, to love. Loving
something is what really makes us happy not friendship. If we accept
the above then two things follow. Firstly limited friendship or friendships of
utility assume greater importance because they give us an opportunity to love.
Secondly accepting the above tells us something about our concept of happiness. Or the relative importance of the various components of happiness. Daniel Nettle suggests that there
are three levels to happiness. First there are momentary emotions such as joy
or pleasure next there are judgments about feelings such as satisfaction and
lastly the quality of someone’s life over time (4). Let us assume what
is important for happiness is loving rather than friendship and that loving is
connected to satisfaction. Someone can’t love something that dissatisfies him.
It appears to follow that satisfaction is more important than momentary emotions such as joy or pleasure
and even the quality of life in making someone happy.
- Daniel Haybron, 2008, The Pursuit of Unhappiness,
- Bennett Helm, 2010, Love, Friendship & the Self,
- Daniel Nettle, 2005, Happiness; The Science Behind Your Smile,
