Friendship at its best in full bloom is most extraordinary. There is a mutual understanding between the friends that is perhaps without equal. There is a trust between them that is surpassed only by the gods. For this very reason, friendship at its best involves extraordinary self-discipline on the part of both parties to the friendship.
With friendship at its best, not only would neither friend harm one another, neither friend would ever do anything that would even have the appearance of harming the other. And this each friend knows about the other rather like a person knows the very back of his hand. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that we do not have friendship at its best if we do not have that level of self-discipline on the part of each friend; for if we do not equal self-discipline that what unequivocally follows is that we do not have equal trust between the two individuals.
By this account, friendship at its best is indeed ever so rare. To be sure, there are lots of friendships which very much veer in the direction of friendship at its best, but precious few ever reach fruition in this regard.
Now, the surprise in this regard is that there is a very real sense in which friendship at its best is unforgiving. Let me explain.
We all make petty mistakes. We all do and say stupid things. Alas, we can make all sorts of mistakes without ever coming even close to violating the core trust that a person has in us. Suppose that I did not return the book when promised. Barring some special story that faux pas is essentially annoying—not a deep violation of trust. The same holds if, on some occasion, I did not call when I say that I would. And so on. Only a fool would hold on to these mistakes and not forgive the friend.
Alas, I think that there are mistakes that a friend can make that are simply unforgivable—not in the sense of holding a grudge against the person forever, but in the sense that the depth of the friendship is, in all likelihood, permanently destroyed.
So suppose that you and I are the very best of friends and I spread the rumor that you acted in a most inappropriate way sexually with your students. Now, to begin with, what is important here is that we do not have a simple mistake in this instance. It can indeed be a mistake that I not return a book when promised or that I not make a phone call as promised. However, it cannot be a mistake that I spread the rumor that you have acted in a most inappropriate way sexually with your students. For it is not as if there is some admirably decent thing that I might have been trying to say about you and, merely as a result of getting tongue-tied, I ended up saying that you acted in a most inappropriate way sexually with your students. What is more, in the absence of a lobotomy I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that the above mentioned rumor horrendously tarnishes your character.
Putting the foregoing considerations together, we get the conclusion that spreading such a rumor has an unqualified willfulness to it. Therein lies the reason why such behavior on the part of a friend is essentially unforgivable in that the extraordinary friendship that once was there has simply vanished—and in all likelihood the friendship is simply unrecoverable. For if a person could spread such a venomous rumor on one occasion, then there is simply no reason to believe that she or he could not spread such a venomous rumor on another occasion. And that is the problem of the betrayal of trust playing itself out ad infinitum.
Now, friendship at its best requires that each friend exercises the requisite foresight in order to be true to the trust that the friend has in or him. This brings out the significant point that exercising foresight involves a tremendous measure of self-discipline: Before one acts, one carefully examines the situation. It is thus no accident that when we have deep friend of the same sex (as I have been assuming throughout) and one of them is married, then the other friend exercises considerable—nay excruciating—circumspection with respect to the friend’s spouse. This is done in order to avoid the very appearance of evil and, moreover, to eliminate even the very possibility that something might go wrong. It also affirms to one’s deep friend that one is eternally mindful of the sacredness of her or his marriage. Indeed, if one loves the friend, how could one not be eternally mindful of the sacredness of her or his marriage?
The last point of the preceding paragraph is part of the explanation for why it is so painful to have it turn out that one’s spouse and one’s best friend end up having a sexual fling. The trust that one has in each has been betrayed. Surely if the marriage should last, the friendship cannot be as it once was.
I distinguish between eternally harboring resentment and drawing a decisive line in the moral sand. With friendship at its best there are decisive lines in the moral sand. The very trust of such friendships is inextricably tied to there being such boundaries.
Now let me ask a question. Which would you prefer: To have your best friends have an affair with your spouse or to have your best friend spread the vicious rumor that you acted in a most inappropriate manner sexually with your students? I would not dream of hazarding an answer. Still, I thought I would ask the question.
I end with what might be a startling insight. I suspect that while much lip service is paid to the good of friendship at its best, there are some who do not want such a friendship. Perhaps there are many who do not. This is because friendship at its best is so very morally demanding. And as so often the case in life, people are willing to settle for second-best. To that simple truth, friendship is not the exception to the rule.
Pingback: Giving a gift vs. losing a friendship? | Friendship Gifts