Book 4 / Chapter 1
Paragraph 5 - The Characteristics and Comparisons of Prodigality and Meanness
Explanation - Part By Part
"The characteristics of prodigality are not often combined; for it is not easy to give to all if you take from none; private persons soon exhaust their substance with giving, and it is to these that the name of prodigals is applied- though a man of this sort would seem to be in no small degree better than a mean man."
Aristotle begins by highlighting that the extremes of "prodigality"—excessive giving and not taking from others—are rarely found together in one person. This is because it's not sustainable for someone to give generously to everyone while refusing to replenish their resources by receiving or taking from others. Individuals who behave this way often quickly deplete what they have, which is why they are labeled as "prodigals." Despite their impracticality, Aristotle considers these people significantly better than those who are "mean" (stingy or selfish).
"For he is easily cured both by age and by poverty, and thus he may move towards the middle state."
Aristotle is saying that a prodigal person—someone who spends too much or gives excessively—can be "easily cured" of this behavior as they grow older or face financial hardship (poverty). These life experiences naturally teach restraint and moderation, pushing them closer to the more balanced "middle state" of virtue. In essence, circumstances like running out of money or the wisdom gained with age help correct the prodigal's excessive habits and guide them toward a healthier balance in giving and taking.
"For he has the characteristics of the liberal man, since he both gives and refrains from taking, though he does neither of these in the right manner or well."
Here, Aristotle is pointing out that the prodigal person shares some similarities with the "liberal" or generous person. Specifically, the prodigal both gives freely and avoids taking from others, which are traits of generosity. However, the key difference is how the prodigal person approaches these actions: while generosity requires balance, wisdom, and doing these things correctly—to the right people, in the right amounts, and for the right reasons—the prodigal person lacks this sense of balance or proper judgment. They give and refrain from taking, but not in the "right manner or well." Their actions are excessive or misguided, which sets them apart from the truly virtuous, balanced liberal person.
"Therefore if he were brought to do so by habituation or in some other way, he would be liberal; for he will then give to the right people, and will not take from the wrong sources."
This part highlights the idea that if a prodigal person (someone who gives excessively and irresponsibly) can be guided or trained through habit or another method, they can potentially become "liberal." In Aristotle's sense, being "liberal" means having the virtue of generosity—giving to the right people, in the right way, and for the right reasons, while also knowing when and how to refrain from taking. Essentially, Aristotle is saying that while the prodigal person's behavior is flawed, it has the potential to be reshaped into genuine generosity through proper guidance and practice. The key is redirecting their energy toward balanced and thoughtful giving.
"This is why he is thought to have not a bad character; it is not the mark of a wicked or ignoble man to go to excess in giving and not taking, but only of a foolish one."
Aristotle is saying here that a prodigal person—someone who gives excessively without taking anything in return—is not inherently a bad or immoral person. Their actions are not driven by malice or wickedness but rather by a lack of wisdom or good judgment. In other words, their flaw lies more in foolishness or poor decision-making than in any deep moral failing or dishonor.
"The man who is prodigal in this way is thought much better than the mean man both for the aforesaid reasons and because he benefits many while the other benefits no one, not even himself."
Aristotle is comparing two types of flawed behavior—prodigality (excessive giving and not taking) and meanness (stinginess, or taking too much and giving too little). He argues that someone who is prodigal is generally considered better than a mean person. Why? Because, while the prodigal person gives too much and does so unwisely, at least they are benefiting many people through their generosity, even if their actions are reckless or foolish. On the other hand, the mean person benefits no one—not others, because they don’t give enough, and not even themselves, because their stinginess often leads to a joyless or unfulfilling life. In short, prodigality is flawed, but it’s still more virtuous than being miserly.