Book 8 / Chapter 14
Paragraph 3 - Justice and Reciprocity in Relationships
Explanation - Part By Part
"It seems to be so in constitutional arrangements also; the man who contributes nothing good to the common stock is not honoured; for what belongs to the public is given to the man who benefits the public, and honour does belong to the public."
Aristotle is pointing out that in societies or political systems ("constitutional arrangements"), people who do not contribute anything valuable to the community are not given honor or recognition. Honor is treated as a public reward and is reserved for those who provide some benefit to the collective good. In essence, he’s saying that society naturally acknowledges and values individuals who bring something meaningful to the table, while those who don’t contribute are not celebrated or respected.
"It is not possible to get wealth from the common stock and at the same time honour. For no one puts up with the smaller share in all things; therefore to the man who loses in wealth they assign honour and to the man who is willing to be paid, wealth, since the proportion to merit equalizes the parties and preserves the friendship, as we have said."
Aristotle is explaining how resources, whether material (like money) or intangible (like honor), are distributed in a way that maintains fairness and balance in relationships, especially within a community or society. He's saying that it isn’t practical or reasonable for a person to receive both wealth and honor from the same shared source ("common stock”) because people would feel unfairly treated. No one likes being short-changed across the board.
To resolve this, the system assigns different rewards to different people based on the role they play and what they contribute. For instance:
- The person who sacrifices wealth (maybe by serving without pay or donating resources) is compensated with honor—a recognition of their virtue or generosity.
- The person who is paid (in wealth) for their efforts does not also get honor because they are already compensated materially.
This balance ensures that relationships don’t feel one-sided; it preserves fairness and prevents resentment. The idea is that what each person receives should match their contribution or role in a way that feels just, fostering harmony, whether in friendships or broader social arrangements.
"This then is also the way in which we should associate with unequals; the man who is benefited in respect of wealth or virtue must give honour in return, repaying what he can."
Aristotle is addressing how relationships between people of unequal status—whether in terms of wealth, virtue, or ability—should be managed to maintain fairness and harmony. He argues that if someone benefits from another person’s wealth, virtue, or excellence, they are morally obligated to give something back in return. This repayment may not necessarily be material or equal in value to what they’ve received but should instead take a form they are capable of offering, such as honor, respect, or gratitude.
In essence, those who receive wealth or help should express their appreciation by recognizing the giver’s efforts or character. Aristotle recognizes that direct equality isn’t always possible in unequal relationships, but fairness can still be achieved by giving back in ways that reflect what the recipient is able to contribute.
"For friendship asks a man to do what he can, not what is proportional to the merits of the case; since that cannot always be done, e.g. in honours paid to the gods or to parents; for no one could ever return to them the equivalent of what he gets, but the man who serves them to the utmost of his power is thought to be a good man."
Here, Aristotle is emphasizing that in certain relationships, like those with the gods or one's parents, it is impossible to fully "repay" or equate what one has received. These relationships involve such great benefits—like life itself from parents or divine favor from the gods—that there is no way to provide a completely proportional return.
However, what matters is not perfect equivalence but effort and intention. Friendship, in this context, requires someone to do the best they can, even if they can’t match what they've received. This is seen as virtuous behavior—a “good man” is someone who acknowledges their debt to others (like parents or gods) and strives to honor or repay them to the fullest extent of their ability, even if it falls short in absolute terms.
The key takeaway is that in friendships or relationships based on obligation, acting in good faith and giving your best effort carries more moral weight than achieving perfect balance or fairness.
"This is why it would not seem open to a man to disown his father (though a father may disown his son); being in debt, he should repay, but there is nothing by doing which a son will have done the equivalent of what he has received, so that he is always in debt."
Aristotle is making a profound point about the parent-child relationship, specifically focusing on the bond between a father and son. He suggests that a son can never truly "repay" the debt he owes his father for giving him life, raising him, and providing for him. No matter how much a son does to honor or support his father, it will never fully equal the magnitude of what the father has done for him simply by bringing him into existence and nurturing him. Because this debt is infinite in a sense, it becomes inappropriate or unthinkable for a son to "disown" his father—it would go against the natural obligations tied to this intrinsic debt.
However, Aristotle makes a distinction here: while a son cannot separate himself from this responsibility, a father may choose to "disown" his son if the son is morally corrupt or unworthy. The father is in a position of authority and can decide to sever the bond, but the son, being in perpetual moral "debt," doesn’t hold that same right or freedom. This reflects the imbalance in the relationship—a father’s role in giving life creates a lifelong obligation for the child that cannot be fully canceled.
"But creditors can remit a debt; and a father can therefore do so too."
In this part, Aristotle is making an analogy between financial debt and the moral or existential "debt" a child owes to their parents. Just as a creditor (someone to whom money is owed) can choose to forgive or cancel a debt, a father, who is owed a kind of debt by his child for the care and life he has provided, has the ability to let go of this obligation if he wishes.
The point being emphasized here is that the father holds a position of authority and moral discretion—he can decide to release the child from the obligation of repaying him in full, much like a creditor can absolve a borrower. This reflects the unequal nature of the relationship: the child is perpetually indebted to the parent for what has been given (life and upbringing), but the parent has the moral capacity to forgive this "debt" due to their superior position in the bond.
It highlights the responsibility and leniency that often accompany a parental role.
"At the same time it is thought that presumably no one would repudiate a son who was not far gone in wickedness; for apart from the natural friendship of father and son it is human nature not to reject a son's assistance."
This part reflects Aristotle's view on the bond between a parent and a child, specifically the relationship between a father and a son. He suggests that there is a natural and innate affection in this relationship, which makes it unlikely for a father to sever ties with his son unless the son has committed extreme and serious acts of wrongdoing ("far gone in wickedness"). In other words, Aristotle acknowledges that this bond is deeply rooted in human nature, and it inclines parents to remain connected to their children and accept their support or assistance, even in challenging circumstances.
The underlying idea here is that this natural familial connection is hard to break because it is both biological and emotional. It reinforces the value of family relationships and the expectation of mutual responsibility between parent and child.
"But the son, if he is wicked, will naturally avoid aiding his father, or not be zealous about it; for most people wish to get benefits, but avoid doing them, as a thing unprofitable."
Aristotle is pointing out something about human nature here: people tend to prefer receiving help or benefits over giving them, especially when giving appears to bring no immediate advantage or profit to them. In the specific case of a father-son relationship, if the son is "wicked" (selfish, ungrateful, or lacking in virtue), he will naturally shy away from helping his father or may only assist reluctantly or halfheartedly. This lack of zeal stems from a general tendency in people to prioritize their own gain over offering assistance to others, particularly when that assistance feels like a burden or a one-sided obligation.
"-So much for these questions."
Aristotle is exploring the dynamics of relationships between people who are unequal in status, virtue, or contributions. He asserts that in such cases, balance in the relationship is achieved not by strict equivalence but by actions that reflect the individual's capacity to give—whether that be honor, wealth, or other benefits. Here's the core idea in simpler terms:
When people are unequal, like in skill, virtue, or material wealth, each person contributes differently to balance the relationship. For example:
- The one who is wealthier or more virtuous might receive honor in return for what they give.
- The one who benefits from the wealth or virtue gives back in the best way they can—such as showing respect or gratitude.
Aristotle applies this principle to various relationships:
- In society: Contributions to the "common stock" (what benefits the community) are rewarded. People are honored for helping the public good, while others may receive material rewards instead. Both can't possess all the rewards, so society balances these based on what each offers.
- In the family: A son can never fully repay his parents for what they've done for him since the debt is immeasurable (life, care, upbringing). Instead, a "good" son does the best he can to repay his parents through service and respect.
Interestingly, Aristotle highlights that while a father might "release" a child from the obligation (like forgiving a debt), the reverse isn't accepted—a son can't dismiss or disown his father unless the father acts extremely unjust. This reflects the natural bond and societal expectations of parental authority and generational duty.
Lastly, Aristotle acknowledges that humans often prefer receiving benefits to giving them, as giving may feel costly or burdensome. This tendency can lead to imbalances in relationships, especially when one party isn't willing to give back as much as they receive. This human tendency to prioritize self-interest over reciprocation is a persistent challenge in maintaining equitable and virtuous relationships.
In summary, Aristotle emphasizes the importance of proportional reciprocity and doing what one can to sustain relationships, recognizing the limits of strict equality in duties and contributions between unequals.