What Aristotle’s views of Friendship means to the Social Media Generation

In the age of social media, friendships have grown from a handle of friends right around the corner to hundreds of friends from around the world.  According to Aristotle this new version of friendship is not a Complete Friendship.  Aristotle’s friendships are broken down into three areas, Friendships of Utility, Friendships of Pleasure, and Complete friendships. Aristotle believes anyone can be in a friendship of utility or pleasure; only virtuous people can be in a Complete Friendship. In order to become be in a complete friendship, they must have to be good or virtuous people. For only Virtuous People can become Complete Friends. They must also have reciprocating good feelings for each other and want each other to succeed. Each must know how the other feels.  And they need to enjoy each other’s company without having to have an activity. These three criteria to have complete friendships are also going to be the criteria These facts brings question to whether in the age of social media, have people lost the ability to become Complete Friends or have real meaningful friendships. People go through life with Twitter, Facebook, and other ways to communicate increasing the amount of people to communicate with but decrease the amount of meaningful conversation.  These social media associates know little to personal information about each other.  Even less have seen each other’s houses or families.  While these social media outlets have brought good things and brought old friends back together.  It has set aside the want to have a close friend, friends that come over and hang out just to sit around and be in the company of each other.

The criteria for judging whether or not having true friendships in social media are if the friendship has reciprocating good feelings for each other, if they enjoy spending time with each other online, and whether both people in the friendship are virtuous people.

What makes a law just?

        During Stephanie's presentation she said that in order for a law to be just, it must steer people to become more just.  This is interesting to me and made me think about certain laws that I break everyday.  Speeding happens to be a big one that I break everyday and I have no concerns about doing it. Disclaimer I rarely go more than 5 over but 5 over is still breaking the law.  And since the chance of getting a ticket does not make me obey the law, the question that I raise is whether I am a bad citizen for not following the law or is the law unjust? My opinion is its a little of both.  I am a less than upstanding citizens (lets leave the bad citizens for the drivers who are putting others in danger: drunk drivers, people who go 100+ mph, etc.) and I do not lead a good example for others but I am not alone. Anyone who breaks any law set forth by the society is wrong at that time, though there is times in history where there have been immoral and unjust laws and appropriate legal action should be used to change the law. Civil Rights Movement and Gay rights are two major examples in the past half century. (some of the actions taken during the Civil Rights Movements were not appropriate legal action)
        And as for the law being unjust, it does seem it would be more advantageous for people if speed limits did not exist, maybe on city streets with lots of traffic but on a highway in west Texas, where nobody lives, is this law necessary or important.
        My second stem from this is that speed limits are important and Just for one main reason and this reason is what makes all laws just in my opinion.  The speed limit posted keeps people safe from themselves and other drivers whether they are walking along the road or driving.  A just law must make the society safer or more advantageous to the whole than if the law was not in place and it must not take rights away from people in the society. A just law must protect the rights of the people and the people from others that would wish them harm inadvertently or on purpose.
        This summer I will be working at a law firm that does employment law. The laws that are in place for employment law keep the employers from taking advantage of the employees and interviewees.  This makes the laws just because even though they disadvantage the few in this case the employers who already have a large advantage over the employee, they increase the aggregate advantage of the society.