Skip to main content

Flourishing on facebook: virtue friendship & new social media


The widespread and growing use of new social media, especially social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, invites sustained ethical reflection on emerging forms of online friendship. Social scientists and psychologists are gathering a wealth of empirical data on these trends, yet philosophical analysis of their ethical implications remains comparatively impoverished. In particular, there have been few attempts to explore how traditional ethical theories might be brought to bear upon these developments, or what insights they might offer, if any. In attempting to address this lacuna in applied ethical research, this paper investigates the ethical significance of online friendship by means of an Aristotelian theory of the good life, which holds that human flourishing is chiefly realized through ‘complete’ friendships of virtue. Here, four key dimensions of ‘virtue friendship’ are examined in relation to online social media: reciprocity, empathy, self-knowledge and the shared life. Online social media support and strengthen friendship in ways that mirror these four dimensions, particularly when used to supplement rather than substitute for face-to-face interactions. However, deeper reflection on the meaning of the shared life (suzên) for Aristotle raises important and troubling questions about the capacity of online social media to support complete friendships of virtue in the contemporary world, along with significant concerns about the enduring relevance of this Aristotelian ideal for the good life in the 21st century.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. While philosophers began reflecting upon the ethical significance of the Internet more than a decade ago, the first wave of insights from thinkers such as Borgmann (1999) and Dreyfus (2001) was met by the broader community of philosophers in the field of applied ethics with a degree of engagement that can be described as weak at best. Today, rigorous ethical analyses of information technologies, and especially new social media, are vanishingly few and confined mostly to specialty or interdisciplinary journals.

  2. For evidence of this shift, see pp. 2–3 of The Nielsen Company’s (2009) online report.

  3. For a careful review of this debate and a compelling argument for the adequacy of existing frameworks, see Tavani (2005). See also Brey (2007).

  4. Text references for Aristotle in the body of this paper are distinguished by the abbreviation NE for the Nicomachean Ethics, EE for the Eudemian Ethics, MM for the Magna Moralia, and P for the Politics. My translations generally follow the Revised Oxford translation in Aristotle (1984).

  5. See Feenberg (1999) on this point.

  6. Psychosocial goods actually divide into two subcategories: goods such as ‘social capital’ belong to what Aristotle termed ‘external goods’, while ‘life satisfaction’ and ‘self-esteem’ are mental states accompanied by pleasurable feeling, or passions (NE 1105b23); yet both types of good are highly contingent upon external factors, are inappropriate objects of moral praise, and are carefully distinguished by Aristotle from dispositions of character such as virtues. (NE 1098b20, 1105b20-30) The virtues, while highly dependent upon external factors for their initial generation (NE 1103a20), are defined as stable, ingrained and praiseworthy traits far more resistant to external contingency (NE 1105a33).

  7. See Stern-Gillet (1995, 160–161) on this point.

  8. This is the objection of those who would argue that existing ethical norms, as context-dependent outgrowths of cultural practices, cannot coherently be employed as standards to judge emerging cultural practices that will, presumably, issue their own new ethical norms. Unlike deontologists or utilitarians holding to context-independent conceptions of moral obligation, we virtue ethicists are particularly boxed in here, since the embeddedness of ethical norms in concrete praxis cannot simply be denied.

  9. This presupposition clearly rests on an essentially naturalistic theory of human flourishing, one which cannot be adequately presented or defended here but is heavily indebted, along with several other aspects of my argument, to the naturalistic virtue ethics developed by MacIntyre (1999).

  10. MacIntyre (1999) helpfully points out that this cannot be interpreted as “strict” reciprocity, for many human contexts of giving and receiving are notably asymmetrical (100); nevertheless, I argue that reciprocal flow remains normative at the level of the social network which constitutes a given community, and asymmetries in giving and receiving are ethically justified by their ability to perpetuate this flow and direct it toward genuine human needs.

  11. It is important to note here that Aristotle defines friendship in terms of reciprocity that is mutually recognized (NE 1156a5); it cannot be a matter of a blind coincidence of mutual goodwill, but must be grasped by both parties as such.

  12. This phenomenon was a frequently reported experience of subjects in a 2010 study, “A Day Without Media” conducted by Moeller et al. of the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda. The study asked students at the University of Maryland to give up all media for 24 hours and blog about their experiences.

  13. See Valenzuela et al. (2009) for a helpful review of the evidence and the scholarly disputes surrounding this issue.

  14. Here we confront a new methodological difficulty: what would evidence of such exchange look like? How would we verify its presence? Exchanges of pleasure are, in a sense, transparent; when a user reports gaining pleasure from an online interaction, she could be lying, but we are unlikely to think she is mistaken. We would also be surprised to hear a user say that she didn’t know if she got pleasure from Facebook exchanges. Exchanges of utility might be slightly more difficult to verify, but not greatly so. For Aristotle, however, the highest form of reciprocity is the one in which what is given, and received, is virtue; two persons help each other to become better, more excellent in their thoughts and actions. (NE 1155a15) Verification of such exchanges is likely to demand a more probing inquiry.

  15. See NE 1167a5-20, where Aristotle describes as a precondition of friendship the finding in each other of some excellence or worth to admire, which under certain conditions evolves from mere goodwill into the rare love and empathy between two people that typifies virtue friendship (NE 1171a5-15).

  16. Some current theories in neuroscience hypothesize mirror neurons as critical to empathy; in primates such neurons are known to be activated by sensory perceptions of bodily motions of other primates. See for example Preston and de Waal (2001).

  17. For a rich discussion of affective and bodily dimensions of virtue, especially empathy, see Cates (1997).

  18. For an interesting discussion of the tensions between the Magna Moralia and the Nicomachean Ethics on this point, see Cooper (1999, 281–285).

  19. I leave open here the question of whether Aristotle is correct that empathy, in the cultivated form we defined above as a virtue, can only be felt among complete friends of virtue. If so, then friendships facilitating empathy will face the same requirements as those facilitating self-knowledge. However, there are significant reasons to question Aristotle’s assumption.

  20. For studies of this phenomenon, see Barnes (2001, 181–188) and Beaudoin and Tao (2007).

  21. MacIntyre (1999) claims that a primary function of mirrored self-knowledge is the ability of friends to help each other “imagine the range of alternative possible futures…futures that it would be realistic for them to attempt to make their own.” (94). Yet in order to properly identify this range, I must have an integrated perception of my unique set of capacities, talents, interests and limitations, along with the specific and unique social context in which I must develop these. Certainly, a large and extremely diverse set of friends can expand my sense of life’s possibilities—but not necessarily in a way that helps me identify from those possibilities that are realistic for me, here and now. Only those with whom I share my life, in the more robust and concrete sense described below, can help me to frame these abstract possibilities in terms of what can be realized in my situation.

  22. See Sherman (1989)’s excellent analysis of the centrality of the shared life for Aristotle’s conception of eudaimonia (128–136).

  23. In addition to Lenhart et al. (2010) and O’Brien et al. (2010), there are troubling indications along these lines in Hampton et al. (2009), which suggests that in contrast with mobile phone and general Internet use, use of social networking services is associated with a 30% drop in the likelihood that users will know at least some of their neighbors. (The study was controlled for demographic differences such as age). There could be many reasons for this result, but it is worth noting that friendship with neighbors typically exposes one to the potential for obligations of assistance and support beyond one’s control; I can typically ignore a Facebook distress call with far lower cost than ignoring a knock at my door.


  • Anderson, J. Q. & Rainie, L. (2010). The future of social relations. Pew Internet and American Life Project, Accessed 7 July 2010.

  • Aristotle (1984). The complete works of Aristotle: Revised Oxford translation. In J. Barnes (Ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Barnes, S. (2001). Online connections: Internet interpersonal relationships. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaudoin, C., & Tao, C. C. (2007). Benefiting from social capital in online support groups: An empirical study of cancer patients. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 10(4), 587–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, L. (1986). Reciprocity. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgmann, A. (1999). Holding on to reality: The nature of information at the turn of the millenium. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brey, P. (2007). Is information ethics culture-relative? International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 3(3), 12–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briggle, A. (2008). Real friends: How the Internet can foster friendship. Ethics and Information Technology, 10(1), 71–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cates, D. F. (1997). Choosing to feel: Virtue, friendship and compassion for friends. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, J. M. (1999). Friendship and the good in Aristotle. In N. Sherman (Ed.), Aristotle’s ethics: Critical essays (pp. 277–300). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, H. (2001). On the Internet. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, N. B., Steinfeld, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), article 1. Accessed 4 November 2009.

  • Families and Work Institute (2009). The state of health in the American workforce. Accessed 4 November 2009.

  • Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampton, K. N., Sessions, L. F., Her, E. J., & Rainie, L. (2009). Social isolation and new technology: How the Internet and mobile phones impact Americans’ social networks. Pew Internet and American Life Project,–Social-Isolation-and-New-Technology.aspx. Accessed 8 July 2010.

  • Ito, M., Horst, H. A., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Herr-Stephenson, B., Lange, P. G., Pascoe, C. J., & Robinson, L. (2008). Living and learning with new media: Summary of findings from the digital youth project. Accessed 4 November 2009.

  • Ledbetter, A. M., Griffin, E., & Sparks, G. G. (2007). Forecasting friends ‘forever’: A longitudinal investigation of sustained closeness between best friends. Personal Relationships, 14, 343–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media and mobile internet use among teens and young adults. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Accessed 6 July 2010.

  • MacIntyre, A. (1999). Dependent rational animals. Chicago: Open Court Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moeller, S., Chong, E., Golitsinski, S., Guo, J., McCaffrey, R., Nynka, A., & Roberts, J. (2010). A day without media. International Center for Media and the Public Agenda. Accessed 9 July 2010.

  • O’Brien, E., Hsing, C., & Konrath, S. (2010). Changes in dispositional empathy over time in American college students: A meta-analysis. Accessed 10 July 2010.

  • Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2001). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rainie, L., Horrigan, J., Wellman, B., & Boase, J. (2006). The strength of Internet ties. Pew Internet and American Life Project, Accessed 4 November 2009.

  • Schor, J. B. (1992). The overworked American: The unexpected decline of leisure. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, N. (1989). The fabric of character: Aristotle’s theory of virtue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, N. (1993). The virtues of common pursuit. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 53(2), 277–299.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A., Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. (2009). The Internet and civic engagement. Pew Internet and American Life Project,–The-Internet-and-Civic-Engagement.aspx. Accessed 8 July 2010.

  • Stern-Gillet, S. (1995). Aristotle’s philosophy of friendship. Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subrahmanyam, K., & Lin, G. (2007). Adolescents on the Net: Internet use and well-being. Adolescence, 42(168), 659–677.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subrahmanyam, K., Reich, S. M., Waechter, N., & Espinoza, G. (2008). Online and offline social networks: Use of social networking sites by emerging adults. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 420–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavani, H. T. (2005). The impact of the Internet on our moral condition: Do we need a new framework of ethics? In R. J. Cavalier (Ed.), The impact of the Internet on our moral lives (pp. 215–237). Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Nielsen Company (2009). Global faces and networked places. Accessed 29 October 2009.

  • Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is there social capital in a social network site? Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust and participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 875–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valkenburg, P. M., Jochen, P., & Schouten, A. P. (2006). Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents’ well-being and social self-esteem. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 9(5), 584–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallor, S. (2010). Social networking technology and the virtues. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(2), 157–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellman, B., Haase, A. Q., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001). Does the Internet increase, decrease or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 436–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittkower, D. E. (forthcoming). Friend is a verb. In B. J. Fogg & D. Berdichevsky (Eds.), The psychology of Facebook.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shannon Vallor.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vallor, S. Flourishing on facebook: virtue friendship & new social media. Ethics Inf Technol 14, 185–199 (2012).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • New social media
  • Virtue friendship
  • Aristotle
  • Reciprocity
  • Empathy
  • The shared life