Nicomachean Ethics

Let us speak next about liberality. It seems to be the mean concerned with wealth; for the liberal person is praised not in military matters, nor in those in which the temperate person is praised, nor again in lawsuits, but concerning the giving and taking of wealth, and more in the giving. And we call “wealth” everything whose value is measured by money. Prodigality and illiberality are also excesses and deficiencies concerned with wealth; and we always attach illiberality to those who care more than they ought about wealth, but we sometimes bring in prodigality by combining it; for we call those who are incontinent and spendthrift on licentiousness “prodigal”. Therefore they also seem to be most base; for they have many vices at the same time. But they are not addressed in their proper sense; for “prodigal” wishes to mean the person who has a single vice, that of destroying his substance; for a prodigal is one who is ruined through himself, and the destruction of one’s substance seems to be a certain ruin of oneself, as living is by means of these things. In this way, then, we understand prodigality. Now, of things which have a use, it is possible to use them both well and badly; and wealth is of the useful things; and each thing is used best by the one who has the virtue concerned with it; and so wealth will be used best by the one who has the virtue concerned with wealth; and this is the liberal person. And the use of wealth seems to be spending and giving; but taking and keeping are rather acquisition. Therefore it is more characteristic of the liberal person to give to whom he ought than to take from where he ought and not to take from where he ought not. For it is more characteristic of virtue to do good than to be done good to, and to do noble deeds more than not to do shameful ones; and it is not unclear that doing good and doing noble deeds follow upon giving, while being done good to or not doing shamefully follow upon taking. And gratitude is to the giver, not to the one who does not take, and praise also is more. And it is easier not to take than to give; for people yield what is their own less than they do not take what belongs to another. And those who give are called liberal; but those who do not take are praised not for liberality, but no less for justice; and those who take are not praised very much at all. And the liberal are loved perhaps most of all those who are loved because of virtue; for they are beneficial, and this is in giving. But actions according to virtue are noble and for the sake of the noble. And the liberal person, therefore, will give for the sake of the noble and rightly; for he will give to whom he ought, and as much as, and when, and all the other things that follow upon right giving; and these things pleasantly or painlessly; for what is according to virtue is pleasant or painless, and least of all painful. But he who gives to whom he ought not, or not for the sake of the noble but for some other cause, will be called not liberal but something else. Nor will he who gives painfully; for he would rather choose wealth over the noble action, and this is not characteristic of a liberal person. Nor will he take from where he ought not; for such taking is not characteristic of one who does not value wealth. Nor would he be inclined to ask; for it is not characteristic of one who does good to be easily benefited. But from where he ought, he will take, for instance from his own possessions, not as being noble but as being necessary, so that he may have something to give. Nor will he neglect his own possessions, since he wishes by means of these to assist some people. Nor will he give to any random people, so that he may have something to give to whom he ought, and when, and where it is noble. And it is highly characteristic of a liberal person even to exceed in giving, so as to leave less for himself; for not looking out for oneself is characteristic of a liberal person.