Interpreting Danielle Allen - Talking to Strangers

[Ohad Kozminsky]

Hi all

I hope you're all enjoying the break.

I've started reading through the year 12 readings as I may be assigned year 12 next year (we didn't run it this year). Have just read through the Danielle Allen text and then through Books V and VIII from the Ethics. 

I really like her argument, and I like how she brings together the discussion of justice and the discussion of friendship. That said, I have some issues with how she draws from Aristotle at some points, and I'm hoping someone can either confirm my interpretation, or show me where I've misunderstood her text or Aristotle.

Separately, there is the pedagogical question. Given that students are required to know her text and not these parts of Aristotle's text, perhaps this kind of nitpicking doesn't matter so much, and I can just teach to Allen. 

Here are my quibbles (I'm going off the Beresford translation of the Ethics)

Book V - Justice

1.   Allen says that for Aristotle "Justice in its universal aspect is the ability to act in accord with all the virtues." My reading of Book V Section 2 is a bit different. What I read is that the universal sense of justice is conformity to the law insofar as the law encourages us to act in accordance with all the virtues. I think it is important to emphasise the law, as Allen later goes on to claim (drawing in a persuasive way from the discussion of friendship) that law does not create the social bond (page 24). 

Perhaps it doesn't matter too much, but I guess it looks to me that she is overlooking an interesting tension in Aristotle's argument (Is virtue created top-down or bottom-up? Maybe it is both?)

2. Allen includes the right to vote as an example of 'straightening-out justice' (Beresford calls it 'compensatory fairness'). This example of arithmetic equality overlooks Allen's own acknowledgement that in Aristotle's account this form of justice "straightens out private transactions that have gone bad between two people." She is extending the concept, which is fine, but she isn't acknowledging that this concept doesn't quite fit with Aristotle's account (and of course in Aristotle's account, the right to vote isn't equally distributed). Or perhaps I'm being uncharitable?

Book VIII - Friendship

1. Allen describes friendship as a 'second self relationship', because such relationships involve willing sacrifice. I get something by giving something up precisely because I identify my wellbeing/flourishing with the wellbeing of my friend. I'm pretty sure that this is her terminology and not Aristotle's, which is fine, but I think she also uses the term "second self" on page 22 when discussing family relationships. This is significant as Aristotle makes a very different argument about family relationships (they are by their nature asymmetrical, and more connected to distributive justice). She doesn't go into these different forms of relationship very much, and I understand that this isn't her focus, but it does muddy the waters and it limits the connections that can be made between Book V and Book VIII.

2. Allen introduces the the same citation on page 22 as an answer to the question "what about utility friends?". This is strange to me, as the passage invokes "family and comrades...and citizens." It says nothing about utility friends. What am I missing?

Thank you in advance to anyone who takes the time to read or respond!

Ohad