Nicomachean Ethics

​Benefactors seem to love those whom they have benefited more than those who have received the benefits love those who did them, and this is investigated as something that happens contrary to reason. To most people, then, it appears that the latter owe a debt while the former are owed. Therefore, just as in the case of loans, those who owe wish that those to whom they owe did not exist, whereas those who lent even care for the safety of those who owe, so too those who have benefited wish those who received the benefit to exist in the expectation of recovering gratitude, while to the latter, returning the favor is of no concern. Epicharmus, then, might say that people who say this are looking at it from a bad point of view, but it seems to be human; for most people are forgetful, and desire to receive benefits rather than to confer them. But the cause would seem to be more natural, and not at all like that of the lenders; for there is no loving in their case, but only a wish for the other’s preservation for the sake of recovery. On the other hand, those who have done well by others love and cherish those who have received their benefits, even if they are of no utility now and could never become so in the future. This is indeed what happens in the case of craftsmen; for every craftsman loves his own work more than he would be loved by the work if it became alive. This happens perhaps most of all in the case of poets; for they love their own poems to excess, cherishing them like children. The case of benefactors, then, resembles this; for he who has received the benefit is their work. Therefore, they love this work more than the work loves its maker. The cause of this is that to exist is for all people choice-worthy and lovable, and we exist in activity (for we exist by living and acting), and the maker of a work exists, in a way, in activity through his work; he cherishes the work, then, because he cherishes his own existence. And this is natural; for what exists in potentiality, the work reveals in activity. At the same time, to the benefactor there belongs what is noble in the action, so that he rejoices in the person in whom this is realized, whereas to the recipient there is nothing noble in the doer, but at most what is advantageous; and this is less pleasant and less lovable. What is pleasant is the activity in the present, hope for the future, and memory of the past; but the most pleasant thing is that which is in activity, and it is likewise lovable. For the maker, then, the work remains (for what is noble is long-lasting), but for the recipient, the utility passes away. And the memory of noble things is pleasant, whereas that of useful things is not at all so, or is less so; but expectation seems to be the reverse. Also, loving resembles active making, while being loved resembles passive undergoing; and loving and friendly relations follow those who excel in action. Furthermore, everyone cherishes more those things that have been acquired with labor, just as those who have made their own money cherish it more than those who have inherited it; and receiving benefits seems to be effortless, while conferring them is laborious. For these reasons, mothers are also more fond of their children; for giving birth is more laborious, and they know more clearly that the children are their own. This would seem to be characteristic of benefactors as well.