Problematic Friendships

Rambam (Maimonides) Avot 1:6
If someone is unknown to you and you do not know whether he is a righteous man or an evil one -- If they do an act or say something that could be interpreted as either positive or negative, judge them favorably and do not think of them as having done wrong.

If one was well known as a righteous person with good deeds -- Even if you see them do an action whose every aspect seems to be bad, and the only way of considering it good is through really stretching things and assuming a very remote possibility, it is still obligatory to interpret it as good based on that possibility.

Likewise, if a person was evil and their deeds were well known -- If we see them do something which looks from all aspects as positive and there is only some remote possibility that it was bad, one must be cautious of them, and not believe that it is good, based on that possibility that it is bad. This is based on the verse, ‘When he supplicates with his voice do not believe him for seven are the abominations of his heart.’ (Proverbs 26:25)

If one is unknown and the act could be interpreted in one of two ways, it is a pious obligation to judge them in the more favorable of the two ways.

Rabbi Ovadiah of Bartenura on Avot 1:7
“Keep your distance from an evil neighbor” -- so that you will not learn from his actions. And additionally, so that you will not be harmed with him at his downfall, for woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor.

“and do not befriend a wicked person” -- for such said the Sages: Anyone who sticks to the wicked, even though he does not act according to their actions, collects a reward similar to theirs. What can this be compared to? To one who enters the house of a tanner; even though he does not buy a thing, even so he collects an evil odor and brings it out with him.

“and do not despair about suffering-for-wrongs” -- do not say that this wicked person’s deeds are successful, and I will stick with him since the time fancies him. Therefore he said, “and do not despair about suffering-for-wrongs”, meaning: know that very quickly suffering will come, because his calamity will come suddenly.

Rambam, Hilchot De'ot 6:1 (Dispositions)
It is natural for a man's character and actions to be influenced by his friends and associates and for him to follow the local norms of behavior. Therefore, he should associate with the righteous and be constantly in the company of the wise, so as to learn from their deeds. Conversely, he should keep away from the wicked who walk in darkness, so as not to learn from their deeds. This is [implied by] Solomon's statement (Proverbs 13:20): "He who walks with the wise will become wise, while one who associates with fools will suffer." Similarly, [Psalms 1:1] states: "Happy is the man who has not followed the advice of the wicked."

A person who lives in a place where the norms of behavior are evil and the inhabitants do not follow the straight path should move to a place where the people are righteous and follow the ways of the good.

If all the places with which he is familiar and of which he hears reports follow improper paths, as in our times, or if he is unable to move to a place where the patterns of behavior are proper, because of [the presence of] bands of raiding troops, or for health reasons, he should remain alone in seclusion as [Eichah 3:28] states: "Let him sit alone and be silent." If they are wicked and sinful and do not allow him to reside there unless he mingle with them and follow their evil behavior, he should go out to caves, thickets, and deserts [rather than] follow the paths of sinners as [Jeremiah 9:1] states: "Who will give me a lodging place for wayfarers, in the desert."

Rambam, Hilchot De'ot 6:6
When one person wrongs another, the latter should not remain silent and despise him... Rather, he is commanded to make the matter known and ask him: "Why did you do this to me?", "Why did you wrong me regarding that matter?" as [Leviticus 19:17] states: "Rebuke, yes rebuke your colleague."

Rambam, Hilchot De'ot 6:7
It is a mitzvah for a person who sees that his fellow Jew has sinned or is following an improper path [to attempt] to correct his behavior and to inform him that he is causing himself a loss by his evil deeds as [Leviticus 19:17] states: "Rebuke, yes rebuke your counterpart."

A person who rebukes a colleague - whether because of a [wrong committed] against him or because of a matter between his colleague and God - should rebuke him privately. He should speak to him patiently and gently, informing him that he is only making these statements for his colleague's own welfare, to allow him to merit the life of the world to come.

If he accepts [the rebuke], it is good; if not, he should rebuke him a second and third time. Indeed, one is obligated to rebuke a colleague who does wrong until the latter strikes him and tells him: "I will not listen."

Whoever has the possibility of rebuking [sinners] and fails to do so is considered responsible for that sin, for he had the opportunity to rebuke.

Furthermore, friendship, once it is established, involves a kind of commitment that means (in the Faulknerian formula) you care about your friends in spite of their faults as much as because of their virtues. Indeed, in certain advanced circles, the approved line is that we should all consider ourselves recovering racists, sexists, homophobes and so forth.

There are other complications. You may have a Mormon friend whose personal generosity toward homeless people, say, awes and humbles you, but who, respectful of the church’s position, isn’t on board with same-sex marriage. There are people I know and love from West Africa whose views on gender and sexuality are far from what I think are the right ones. Maybe because we no longer live in the same community, it’s easier to overlook one another’s heresies.

You might feel less bad about your friend’s failings if they were not really her fault. She grew up in a racist society, where the sort of thinking she is engaged in was routine. She picked it up the same way she picked up many of her good habits, through normal socialization. Yet that’s surely true of you and your other friends too, so it’s possible to escape these errors. It’s not simply that she has these blinkered views, then; it’s that she won’t reconsider them.

Friendship can and should err on the side of tolerance, but big-enough vices — beams rather than motes — can be an obstacle to it. The key point that Aristotle got right is that friendship is a morally freighted relationship; a friend’s character matters to a friendship. And what’s most disquieting is your friend’s view that our moral responsibilities to our fellow humans and to our fellow citizens are ones we have as whites and as Blacks, and not as human beings.

To be sure, our racial identities can be relevant to what we do in a society like ours. A white person, noting that she has been served first at a counter points out that a Black person was there first, thereby putting her race to antiracist uses. But the treatment owed to George Floyd as a citizen didn’t depend, as your friend apparently believes, on how some other Black people behaved or how he behaved in the past. Your friend presumably doesn’t feel accountable for the racist misdeeds of other white people and would balk at being mistreated for this reason.

Let’s grant that, in Aristotle’s sense, you can’t be the best kind of friend with this woman. Is it worth being any kind of friend at all? You might want to stick it out longer to see if you can bring her around. That’s the sort of thing an established friend might feel she ought to try to do. Still, when it comes to someone who, in this day and age, has remained attached to such views, I am not hopeful. If you withdraw from this friendship, it’s clear you won’t be doing so for a programmatic reason; you’ll be doing so for reasons of the heart. At the same time, what most effectively discourages the expression of backward views isn’t rational argument but social sanction. A loss to you could ultimately be a gain for others.