Section 1: Generosity

Let us speak next of generosity. It seems to be the mean with regard to wealth. For the generous person is praised not in respect of military matters, nor of those in respect of which the temperate person is praised, nor of judicial decisions, but with regard to the giving and taking of wealth, and especially _[25] in respect of giving. By “wealth” we mean all the things whose value is measured by money.

Wastefulness and stinginess are excesses and defects with regard to wealth. And stinginess we always impute to those who care more than they ought for wealth. But we sometimes apply the word “wastefulness” in a complex sense, _[30] since we people who spend money because they lack self-control and are intemperate wasteful. Hence, they are also considered the basest people, since they combine multiple vices. Therefore, the application of the word “wasteful” to them is not its proper use. For “wasteful” applies properly to a person who has a single bad quality, that of wasting his resources. For a wasteful person is one who is ruined by his own fault, _[1120a1] and the wasting of resources is thought to be a sort of ruining of oneself, life being held to depend on their possession. This, then, is what we mean by “wastefulness.”

Now things that have a use may be used either well or badly. And wealth is a useful thing. And the best user of each thing _[5] is the person who has the virtue concerned with that thing. Wealth, therefore, will be used best by the person who has the virtue concerned with wealth. And this is the generous person.

Spending and giving seem to be the using of wealth. Taking and keeping, in contrast, are the possession of wealth. Hence it is more the mark of the generous person to give to the right people than to take from the right sources _[10] and not to take from the wrong sources. For it is more characteristic of virtue to do good than to have good done to one, and more characteristic to do what is noble than not to do what is base. But it is not hard to see that giving implies doing good and doing what is noble, and taking implies having good done to one or not acting shamefully. And gratitude _[15] is felt towards the person who gives, not towards the person who does not take. Likewise, praise also is bestowed more on person who gives. It is easier, also, not to take than it is to give. For people more typically are hesitant to give away what is theirs than to take what is someone else’s. Similarly, people who have are called “generous.” But those who do not take are not praised for generosity but rather for justice; _[20] while those who take are hardly praised at all. And the generous are almost the most loved of all virtuous characters, since they are useful; and this depends on their giving.

Virtuous actions are noble and done for the sake of the noble. Therefore, the generous person, like other virtuous people, will give and give rightly for the sake of the noble. For the generous person will give to the right people, the right amounts, at the right time, and with all the other qualifications that accompany _[25] right giving. And they will give with pleasure or without pain, since that which is virtuous is pleasant or free from pain–least of all will it be painful.

But someone who gives to the wrong people or not for the sake of the noble but for some other reason, will be called not generous, but will be called by some other name. Nor is someone generous who gives with pain. For he would prefer the wealth to the noble action, _[30] and this is not characteristic of a generous person.

And the generous person will not take from wrong sources, since such taking is not characteristic of the person who doesn’t pay honor to wealth. Nor will he be a ready asker. For it is not characteristic of a person who confers benefits to accept them lightly. But he will take from the right sources–for example, from his own possessions–not as something noble but as a necessity, _[1120b1] that he may have something to give. Nor will he neglect his own property, since he wishes by means of this to help others. And he will refrain from giving to anybody and everybody, that he may have something to give to the right people, at the right time, and where it is noble to do so.

It is highly characteristic of a generous person to go to excess in giving, so that he leaves _[5] less for himself. For it is the nature of a generous person not to look to himself. The term “generosity” is used relative to a person’s resources. For generosity resides not in the quantity of the gifts, but in the disposition of the giver, and this is relative to the giver’s resources. There is, therefore, nothing to prevent a person who gives less from being more generous than someone who gives more, if _[10] the one who gives less has less to give.

Those are thought to be more generous who have not made their wealth but inherited it. For, in the first place, they have no experience of want, and secondly, everyone is fonder of their own productions, as are parents and poets. It is not easy for the generous person to be rich, since he is not apt either at taking or at keeping, but at giving away, _[15] and does not value wealth for its own sake but as a means to giving. Hence comes the charge that is brought against luck, that those who deserve riches most get it least. But it is not unreasonable that it should turn out so. For someone cannot have wealth, any more than anything else, if he does not take pains to have it.

The generous person will not give to the wrong people nor at the wrong time, and so on; _[20] since he would no longer be acting in accordance with generosity, and if he spent on these, he would have nothing to spend in the right way. For, as has been said, he is generous who spends according to his resources and on the things he should. And he who exceeds is wasteful. Hence we do not call tyrants “wasteful,” since it _[25] does not seem easy for them to give and spend beyond the amount of their possessions.

Since, then, generosity is a mean with regard to the giving and taking of wealth, the generous person will both give and spend the right amounts and on the right objects, alike in small things and in great, and that with pleasure. He will also take the right amounts and from the right sources. _[30] For, the virtue being a mean with regard to both, he will do both as he should. For this sort of taking accompanies proper giving, and that which is not of this sort is contrary to it, and accordingly the giving and taking that accompany each other are present together in the same person, while the contrary kinds evidently are not.

But if he happens to spend in a manner contrary to what is right and noble, _[1121a1] he will be pained, but moderately and as he should. For it is the mark of virtue both to be pleased and to be pained at the right objects and in the right way. Further, the generous person is easy to deal with in money matters. For he can be got the better of, since he sets no store by money, _[5] and is more annoyed if he has not spent something that he should have than pained if he has spent something he should not have, and does not agree with the saying of Simonides.

The vices opposed to generosity: wastefulness and stinginess

The wasteful errs in these respects also. For he is neither pleased nor pained at the right things or in the right way. This will be more evident as we go on. We have said that wastefulness and stinginess are _[10] excesses and deficiencies, and in two things, in giving and in taking, since we include spending under giving. Now wastefulness exceeds in giving and not taking, while stinginess falls short in giving, and exceeds in taking, except in small things. _[15]

The characteristics of wastefulness are not often combined, since it is not easy to give to all if you take from none. Private persons soon exhaust their resources with giving, and it is to these that the name of “wasteful” is applied–though a person of this sort would seem to be in no small degree better than a stingy person. For he is easily cured both by age _[20] and by poverty, and thus he may move towards the middle state. For he has the characteristics of the generous person, since he both gives and refrains from taking, though he does neither of these in the right manner or well. Therefore, if he were made to do so by habituation or in some other way, he would be generous. For he will then give to the right people, and will not take from the wrong sources. This is why he is thought to have not a bad character. _[25] It is not the mark of a wicked or ignoble person to go to excess in giving and not taking, but only of a foolish one. The person who is wasteful in this way is thought much better than the stingy person both for the aforesaid reasons and because he benefits many while the other benefits no one, not even himself.