Book 9 / Chapter 2

Paragraph 2 - The Complexity of Deciding Just Actions and Reciprocity

Explanation - Part By Part

Part 1
Original Text:

"All such questions are hard, are they not, to decide with precision? For they admit of many variations of all sorts in respect both of the magnitude of the service and of its nobility necessity."

Aristotle is highlighting the complexity of deciding moral duties in certain situations. These questions are difficult because they vary greatly depending on the specific details, such as how significant the favor or act is (the magnitude of the service) and how morally admirable or urgent it might be (its nobility or necessity). In other words, not every scenario allows for a clear, one-size-fits-all rule—it depends on context and the specific circumstances involved.

Part 2
Original Text:

"But that we should not give the preference in all things to the same person is plain enough; and we must for the most part return benefits rather than oblige friends, as we must pay back a loan to a creditor rather than make one to a friend."

Aristotle is saying that it's clear we shouldn't always prioritize the same person in every situation. Instead, we should generally focus on paying back benefits or obligations, similar to how we prioritize repaying a debt to someone who loaned us money over lending money to a friend. The idea is that fulfilling our existing obligations typically takes precedence over creating new ones, even if the new obligation involves someone close to us.

Part 3
Original Text:

"But perhaps even this is not always true; e.g. should a man who has been ransomed out of the hands of brigands ransom his ransomer in return, whoever he may be (or pay him if he has not been captured but demands payment) or should he ransom his father? It would seem that he should ransom his father in preference even to himself."

Aristotle is grappling with the complexity of moral obligations and how they should be prioritized in real life, where situations vary greatly and absolute rules often don't apply. Here, he presents a specific example to illustrate this point: Imagine a man has been rescued from being held hostage by someone who ransomed him. Now, this man has to decide between repaying the favor by ransoming (or compensating) his rescuer if they are captured or need payment, or using his resources to ransom his father if his father is also in danger.

Aristotle suggests that, in this case, the man's obligation to his father should take priority—even over himself. This fits with the values of ancient Greek culture, where filial piety (the respect and duty owed to one’s parents, especially fathers) was considered a fundamental moral obligation. The father represents not only a close familial bond but also a critical figure deserving of loyalty and sacrifice.

In short, Aristotle is saying that while paying back someone who has helped you is important, there are situations where other, stronger obligations—like duty to family—take precedence. This highlights the nuanced nature of ethical decision-making, where straightforward repayment of debts isn't always the highest good.

Part 4
Original Text:

"As we have said, then, generally the debt should be paid, but if the gift is exceedingly noble or exceedingly necessary, one should defer to these considerations."

Aristotle is saying that, as a general rule, we should repay our debts or return the favors we’ve received from others. However, sometimes there are circumstances that might outweigh this obligation. For example, if the favor or gift is exceptionally honorable (exceedingly noble) or urgently needed (exceedingly necessary), these values can take priority over strict repayment. In essence, morality is not always a rigid system; sometimes situational factors—such as nobility or necessity—demand flexibility in how we act.

Part 5
Original Text:

"For sometimes it is not even fair to return the equivalent of what one has received, when the one man has done a service to one whom he knows to be good, while the other makes a return to one whom he believes to be bad."

Aristotle is saying that fairness in returning favors is not always about simple equality or strict repayment. The context and the character of the people involved matter. For instance, if someone does you a good deed because they believe you're a good person, it's not necessarily fair to return the same kind of favor toward someone you consider morally bad or unworthy. This means that the quality of the recipient—whether they're a good or bad person—plays a role in determining whether returning the favor is truly just or appropriate. It’s not just about reciprocating but also about evaluating who deserves that reciprocity.

Part 6
Original Text:

"For that matter, one should sometimes not lend in return to one who has lent to oneself; for the one person lent to a good man, expecting to recover his loan, while the other has no hope of recovering from one who is believed to be bad."

Aristotle is saying that reciprocity isn't always straightforward or obligatory—it depends on context. For example, if someone lent money to a trustworthy and honorable individual, it would make sense that they expect to be repaid. But if someone who is seen as unreliable or immoral has lent you money, the expectation of returning a loan might not carry the same weight, because the risks and intentions involved in that act of lending were different. Essentially, the moral obligation to reciprocate can be influenced by the character and intentions of the people involved.

Part 7
Original Text:

"Therefore if the facts really are so, the demand is not fair; and if they are not, but people think they are, they would be held to be doing nothing strange in refusing."

Aristotle is saying here that fairness in repaying a debt or fulfilling an obligation depends on the underlying circumstances. If the facts of a situation make it clear that a repayment or action is genuinely unfair—for instance, if the original service was extended in good faith to someone trustworthy but now the repayment is demanded by someone unsuitable or undeserving—then fulfilling that demand would not be just.

Furthermore, even if the actual facts do not completely align with this perception, but people believe them to be true (that the demand seems unjust in their understanding), others would not find it odd or unreasonable for the person to refuse repayment or obligation in such a scenario. Essentially, perception of fairness can sometimes hold as much weight as the actual circumstances in shaping what is considered acceptable or moral behavior.

Part 8
Original Text:

"As we have often pointed out, then, discussions about feelings and actions have just as much definiteness as their subject-matter."

Aristotle is emphasizing here that when we talk about decisions, emotions, and actions, the clarity and precision of our reasoning will always depend on the nature of what we’re discussing. Human decisions, especially those involving ethical dilemmas or personal relationships, are not like mathematical problems with fixed answers. They are messy, complex, and dependent on the specific context of each situation. In other words, the "definiteness" or exactness of such discussions can only go as far as the complexity of real-life circumstances allows. Life isn’t black and white, and neither are the judgments we make about it.