Book 8 / Chapter 13
Paragraph 4 - The Measure of a Service in Friendship
Explanation - Part By Part
"It is disputable whether we ought to measure a service by its utility to the receiver and make the return with a view to that, or by the benevolence of the giver."
This statement raises a question about how we evaluate and repay a favor or a service. Should the value of the service be measured by how much it benefits the person receiving it ("utility to the receiver")? Or should it be measured by the goodwill and effort of the person giving it ("benevolence of the giver")? In other words, the dilemma is whether repayment should depend on what the receiver got out of it or on the intention and sacrifice of the giver.
"For those who have received say they have received from their benefactors what meant little to the latter and what they might have got from others-minimizing the service."
Aristotle is pointing out a common tendency among people who receive help or benefits from others: they often downplay the value of the assistance they received. They argue that what was given to them didn’t cost the giver much or wasn’t particularly significant, implying that it wasn’t a big deal. Furthermore, they might assert that the same help could have been easily obtained from someone else, further reducing the perceived importance of the act. Essentially, recipients may "minimize the service" to diminish their sense of obligation to the giver or to make it seem less significant than it actually might have been.
"While the givers, on the contrary, say it was the biggest thing they had, and what could not have been got from others, and that it was given in times of danger or similar need."
Aristotle is pointing out that givers often emphasize the significance of what they have given, framing it as the most valuable thing they could offer—something irreplaceable. They may also highlight the context, such as providing aid during a critical moment of danger or great need. Essentially, this contrasts with the recipient’s tendency to downplay the gift. The giver, in their perspective, sees their act as extraordinary and deeply meaningful, particularly because it was offered in a situation where help was vital and perhaps unavailable elsewhere. This difference in perception between giver and receiver is central to understanding the potential for misunderstandings or disputes in such relationships.
"Now if the friendship is one that aims at utility, surely the advantage to the receiver is the measure."
This part is highlighting that if a friendship is primarily based on utility—essentially mutual benefit—then the value of the interaction should be measured by how much the receiving party benefits from it. In practical terms, this means that the usefulness or the advantage gained by the person receiving the benefit becomes the standard by which the exchange is judged. This kind of friendship revolves around what each person gets out of it, rather than being about deep personal bonds or moral virtue. The relationship is transactional in nature.
"For it is he that asks for the service, and the other man helps him on the assumption that he will receive the equivalent; so the assistance has been precisely as great as the advantage to the receiver, and therefore he must return as much as he has received, or even more (for that would be nobler)."
Aristotle is explaining how to define fairness in situations where one person provides a service or assistance to another, specifically in friendships based on utility (relationships formed for mutual benefit). He says that the person who receives help typically asks for it because they need it, and the one who provides the help does so with the expectation they will get something in return. The value of that assistance, Aristotle argues, should be measured by how much it benefited the person who received it.
Thus, the receiver has a responsibility to "repay" the giver with an equivalent value of what they gained—or, ideally, even more—because going above and beyond in what you return is the more honorable or virtuous thing to do. Essentially, Aristotle is saying that true decency lies not just in balancing the scales, but in showing extra generosity when you can. This idea emphasizes fairness but also the potential for nobility in how we handle exchanges with others.
"In friendships based on virtue on the other hand, complaints do not arise, but the purpose of the doer is a sort of measure; for in purpose lies the essential element of virtue and character."
Aristotle is saying that when friendships are rooted in virtue—where the bond is about mutual respect, shared values, and each person wanting the best for the other—there's no room for complaints or disputes about repayment or fairness. Why? Because in those relationships, it's not about keeping score or measuring who owes what. Instead, the focus is on the intention or purpose behind an action.
For someone acting virtuously, the motivation to help or give comes from their moral character and desire to do what’s right, not from a calculated expectation of getting something in return. In other words, the act’s purpose reflects their inner goodness, and in such friendships, people value and trust one another without worrying about obligations or "trade-offs."
So, these kinds of friendships are more harmonious because they aren’t transactional—they’re driven by genuine virtue and generosity of spirit.