Ethics

A >> Aristotle >> Ethics

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26

For this reason it may be judged never to be allowable for a son to
disown his father, whereas a father may his son: because he that owes
is bound to pay; now a son can never, by anything he has done, fully
requite the benefits first conferred on him by his father, and so is
always a debtor. But they to whom anything is owed may cast off their
debtors: therefore the father may his son. But at the same time it must
perhaps be admitted, that it seems no father ever _would_ sever himself
utterly from a son, except in a case of exceeding depravity: because,
independently of the natural Friendship, it is like human nature not to
put away from one's self the assistance which a son might render. But to
the son, if depraved, assisting his father is a thing to be avoided, or
at least one which he will not be very anxious to do; most men
being willing enough to receive kindness, but averse to doing it as
unprofitable.

Let thus much suffice on these points.

BOOK IX

I

[Sidenote: 1164a] Well, in all the Friendships the parties to which are
dissimilar it is the proportionate which equalises and preserves the
Friendship, as has been already stated: I mean, in the Social Friendship
the cobbler, for instance, gets an equivalent for his shoes after a
certain rate; and the weaver, and all others in like manner. Now in
this case a common measure has been provided in money, and to this
accordingly all things are referred and by this are measured: but in
the Friendship of Love the complaint is sometimes from the lover that,
though he loves exceedingly, his love is not requited; he having perhaps
all the time nothing that can be the object of Friendship: again,
oftentimes from the object of love that he who as a suitor promised any
and every thing now performs nothing. These cases occur because the
Friendship of the lover for the beloved object is based upon pleasure,
that of the other for him upon utility, and in one of the parties the
requisite quality is not found: for, as these are respectively the
grounds of the Friendship, the Friendship comes to be broken up because
the motives to it cease to exist: the parties loved not one another but
qualities in one another which are not permanent, and so neither are the
Friendships: whereas the Friendship based upon the moral character of
the parties, being independent and disinterested, is permanent, as we
have already stated.

Quarrels arise also when the parties realise different results and not
those which they desire; for the not attaining one's special object is
all one, in this case, with getting nothing at all: as in the well-known
case where a man made promises to a musician, rising in proportion to
the excellence of his music; but when, the next morning, the musician
claimed the performance of his promises, he said that he had given him
pleasure for pleasure: of course, if each party had intended this, it
would have been all right: but if the one desires amusement and the
other gain, and the one gets his object but the other not, the dealing
cannot be fair: because a man fixes his mind upon what he happens to
want, and will give so and so for that specific thing.

The question then arises, who is to fix the rate? the man who first
gives, or the man who first takes? because, _prima facie_, the man who
first gives seems to leave the rate to be fixed by the other party.
This, they say, was in fact the practice of Protagoras: when he taught
a man anything he would bid the learner estimate the worth of the
knowledge gained by his own private opinion; and then he used to take so
much from him. In such cases some people adopt the rule,

"With specified reward a friend should be content."

They are certainly fairly found fault with who take the money in advance
and then do nothing of what they said they would do, their promises
having been so far beyond their ability; for such men do not perform
what they agreed, The Sophists, however, are perhaps obliged to take
this course, because no one would give a sixpence for their knowledge.
These then, I say, are fairly found fault with, because they do not what
they have already taken money for doing.

[Sidenote: 1164b] In cases where no stipulation as to the respective
services is made they who disinterestedly do the first service will not
raise the question (as we have said before), because it is the nature of
Friendship, based on mutual goodness to be reference to the intention of
the other, the intention being characteristic of the true friend and of
goodness.

And it would seem the same rule should be laid down for those who are
connected with one another as teachers and learners of philosophy; for
here the value of the commodity cannot be measured by money, and, in
fact, an exactly equivalent price cannot be set upon it, but perhaps it
is sufficient to do what one can, as in the case of the gods or one's
parents.

But where the original giving is not upon these terms but avowedly for
some return, the most proper course is perhaps for the requital to be
such as _both_ shall allow to be proportionate, and, where this cannot
be, then for the receiver to fix the value would seem to be not only
necessary but also fair: because when the first giver gets that which is
equivalent to the advantage received by the other, or to what he would
have given to secure the pleasure he has had, then he has the value from
him: for not only is this seen to be the course adopted in matters of
buying and selling but also in some places the law does not allow of
actions upon voluntary dealings; on the principle that when one man has
trusted another he must be content to have the obligation discharged in
the same spirit as he originally contracted it: that is to say, it is
thought fairer for the trusted, than for the trusting, party, to fix the
value. For, in general, those who have and those who wish to get things
do not set the same value on them: what is their own, and what they give
in each case, appears to them worth a great deal: but yet the return
is made according to the estimate of those who have received first, it
should perhaps be added that the receiver should estimate what he has
received, not by the value he sets upon it now that he has it, but by
that which he set upon it before he obtained it.

II

Questions also arise upon such points as the following: Whether one's
father has an unlimited claim on one's services and obedience, or
whether the sick man is to obey his physician? or, in an election of
a general, the warlike qualities of the candidates should be alone
regarded?

In like manner whether one should do a service rather to one's friend or
to a good man? whether one should rather requite a benefactor or give to
one's companion, supposing that both are not within one's power?

[Sidenote: 1165a] Is not the true answer that it is no easy task to
determine all such questions accurately, inasmuch as they involve
numerous differences of all kinds, in respect of amount and what is
honourable and what is necessary? It is obvious, of course, that no one
person can unite in himself all claims. Again, the requital of benefits
is, in general, a higher duty than doing unsolicited kindnesses to one's
companion; in other words, the discharging of a debt is more obligatory
upon one than the duty of giving to a companion. And yet this rule may
admit of exceptions; for instance, which is the higher duty? for one who
has been ransomed out of the hands of robbers to ransom in return his
ransomer, be he who he may, or to repay him on his demand though he has
not been taken by robbers, or to ransom his own father? for it would
seem that a man ought to ransom his father even in preference to
himself.

Well then, as has been said already, as a general rule the debt
should be discharged, but if in a particular case the giving greatly
preponderates as being either honourable or necessary, we must be swayed
by these considerations: I mean, in some cases the requital of the
obligation previously existing may not be equal; suppose, for instance,
that the original benefactor has conferred a kindness on a good man,
knowing him to be such, whereas this said good man has to repay it
believing him to be a scoundrel.

And again, in certain cases no obligation lies on a man to lend to one
who has lent to him; suppose, for instance, that a bad man lent to him,
as being a good man, under the notion that he should get repaid, whereas
the said good man has no hope of repayment from him being a bad man.
Either then the case is really as we have supposed it and then the claim
is not equal, or it is not so but supposed to be; and still in so acting
people are not to be thought to act wrongly. In short, as has been
oftentimes stated before, all statements regarding feelings and actions
can be definite only in proportion as their object-matter is so; it is
of course quite obvious that all people have not the same claim upon
one, nor are the claims of one's father unlimited; just as Jupiter does
not claim all kinds of sacrifice without distinction: and since the
claims of parents, brothers, companions, and benefactors, are all
different, we must give to each what belongs to and befits each.

And this is seen to be the course commonly pursued: to marriages men
commonly invite their relatives, because these are from a common stock
and therefore all the actions in any way pertaining thereto are common
also: and to funerals men think that relatives ought to assemble in
preference to other people, for the same reason.

And it would seem that in respect of maintenance it is our duty to
assist our parents in preference to all others, as being their debtors,
and because it is more honourable to succour in these respects the
authors of our existence than ourselves. Honour likewise we ought to pay
to our parents just as to the gods, but then, not all kinds of honour:
not the same, for instance, to a father as to a mother: nor again to a
father the honour due to a scientific man or to a general but that
which is a father's due, and in like manner to a mother that which is a
mother's.

To all our elders also the honour befitting their age, by rising up in
their presence, turning out of the way for them, and all similar marks
of respect: to our companions again, or brothers, frankness and free
participation in all we have. And to those of the same family, or tribe,
or city, with ourselves, and all similarly connected with us, we should
constantly try to render their due, and to discriminate what belongs to
each in respect of nearness of connection, or goodness, or intimacy:
of course in the case of those of the same class the discrimination is
easier; in that of those who are in different classes it is a matter of
more trouble. This, however, should not be a reason for giving up
the attempt, but we must observe the distinctions so far as it is
practicable to do so.

III

A question is also raised as to the propriety of dissolving or not
dissolving those Friendships the parties to which do not remain what
they were when the connection was formed.

[Sidenote: 1165b] Now surely in respect of those whose motive to
Friendship is utility or pleasure there can be nothing wrong in breaking
up the connection when they no longer have those qualities; because they
were friends [not of one another, but] of those qualities: and, these
having failed, it is only reasonable to expect that they should cease to
entertain the sentiment.

But a man has reason to find fault if the other party, being really
attached to him because of advantage or pleasure, pretended to be so
because of his moral character: in fact, as we said at the commencement,
the most common source of quarrels between friends is their not being
friends on the same grounds as they suppose themselves to be.

Now when a man has been deceived in having supposed himself to excite
the sentiment of Friendship by reason of his moral character, the other
party doing nothing to indicate he has but himself to blame: but when he
has been deceived by the pretence of the other he has a right to find
fault with the man who has so deceived him, aye even more than with
utterers of false coin, in proportion to the greater preciousness of
that which is the object-matter of the villany.

But suppose a man takes up another as being a good man, who turns out,
and is found by him, to be a scoundrel, is he bound still to entertain
Friendship for him? or may we not say at once it is impossible? since
it is not everything which is the object-matter of Friendship, but only
that which is good; and so there is no obligation to be a bad man's
friend, nor, in fact, ought one to be such: for one ought not to be a
lover of evil, nor to be assimilated to what is base; which would be
implied, because we have said before, like is friendly to like.

Are we then to break with him instantly? not in all cases; only where
our friends are incurably depraved; when there is a chance of amendment
we are bound to aid in repairing the moral character of our friends
even more than their substance, in proportion as it is better and
more closely related to Friendship. Still he who should break off the
connection is not to be judged to act wrongly, for he never was a friend
to such a character as the other now is, and therefore, since the man is
changed and he cannot reduce him to his original state, he backs out of
the connection.

To put another case: suppose that one party remains what he was when
the Friendship was formed, while the other becomes morally improved and
widely different from his friend in goodness; is the improved character
to treat the other as a friend?

May we not say it is impossible? The case of course is clearest where
there is a great difference, as in the Friendships of boys: for suppose
that of two boyish friends the one still continues a boy in mind and the
other becomes a man of the highest character, how can they be friends?
since they neither are pleased with the same objects nor like and
dislike the same things: for these points will not belong to them as
regards one another, and without them it was assumed they cannot be
friends because they cannot live in intimacy: and of the case of those
who cannot do so we have spoken before.

Well then, is the improved party to bear himself towards his former
friend in no way differently to what he would have done had the
connection never existed?

Surely he ought to bear in mind the intimacy of past times, and just as
we think ourselves bound to do favours for our friends in preference to
strangers, so to those who have been friends and are so no longer we
should allow somewhat on the score of previous Friendship, whenever the
cause of severance is not excessive depravity on their part.

IV

[Sidenote: II66a] Now the friendly feelings which are exhibited towards
our friends, and by which Friendships are characterised, seem to have
sprung out of those which we entertain toward ourselves. I mean, people
define a friend to be "one who intends and does what is good (or what
he believes to be good) to another for that other's sake," or "one who
wishes his friend to be and to live for that friend's own sake" (which
is the feeling of mothers towards their children, and of friends who
have come into collision). Others again, "one who lives with another and
chooses the same objects," or "one who sympathises with his friend in
his sorrows and in his joys" (this too is especially the case with
mothers).

Well, by some one of these marks people generally characterise
Friendship: and each of these the good man has towards himself, and all
others have them in so far as they suppose themselves to be good. (For,
as has been said before, goodness, that is the good man, seems to be a
measure to every one else.)

For he is at unity in himself, and with every part of his soul he
desires the same objects; and he wishes for himself both what is, and
what he believes to be, good; and he does it (it being characteristic
of the good man to work at what is good), and for the sake of himself,
inasmuch as he does it for the sake of his Intellectual Principle which
is generally thought to be a man's Self. Again, he wishes himself And
specially this Principle whereby he is an intelligent being, to live and
be preserved in life, because existence is a good to him that is a good
man.

But it is to himself that each individual wishes what is good, and no
man, conceiving the possibility of his becoming other than he now is,
chooses that that New Self should have all things indiscriminately: a
god, for instance, has at the present moment the Chief Good, but he has
it in right of being whatever he actually now is: and the Intelligent
Principle must be judged to be each man's Self, or at least eminently so
[though other Principles help, of course, to constitute him the man he
is]. Furthermore, the good man wishes to continue to live with himself;
for he can do it with pleasure, in that his memories of past actions are
full of delight and his anticipations of the future are good and such
are pleasurable. Then, again, he has good store of matter for his
Intellect to contemplate, and he most especially sympathises with his
Self in its griefs and joys, because the objects which give him pain and
pleasure are at all times the same, not one thing to-day and a different
one to-morrow: because he is not given to repentance, if one may so
speak. It is then because each of these feelings are entertained by the
good man towards his own Self and a friend feels towards a friend as
towards himself (a friend being in fact another Self), that Friendship
is thought to be some one of these things and they are accounted friends
in whom they are found. Whether or no there can really be Friendship
between a man and his Self is a question we will not at present
entertain: there may be thought to be Friendship, in so far as there are
two or more of the aforesaid requisites, and because the highest degree
of Friendship, in the usual acceptation of that term, resembles the
feeling entertained by a man towards himself.

[Sidenote: 1166b] But it may be urged that the aforesaid requisites are
to all appearance found in the common run of men, though they are men of
a low stamp.

May it not be answered, that they share in them only in so far as they
please themselves, and conceive themselves to be good? for certainly,
they are not either really, or even apparently, found in any one of
those who are very depraved and villainous; we may almost say not
even in those who are bad men at all: for they are at variance with
themselves and lust after different things from those which in cool
reason they wish for, just as men who fail of Self-Control: I mean, they
choose things which, though hurtful, are pleasurable, in preference to
those which in their own minds they believe to be good: others again,
from cowardice and indolence, decline to do what still they are
convinced is best for them: while they who from their depravity have
actually done many dreadful actions hate and avoid life, and accordingly
kill themselves: and the wicked seek others in whose company to spend
their time, but fly from themselves because they have many unpleasant
subjects of memory, and can only look forward to others like them when
in solitude but drown their remorse in the company of others: and as
they have nothing to raise the sentiment of Friendship so they never
feel it towards themselves.

Neither, in fact, can they who are of this character sympathise with
their Selves in their joys and sorrows, because their soul is, as it
were, rent by faction, and the one principle, by reason of the depravity
in them, is grieved at abstaining from certain things, while the other
and better principle is pleased thereat; and the one drags them this way
and the other that way, as though actually tearing them asunder. And
though it is impossible actually to have at the same time the sensations
of pain and pleasure; yet after a little time the man is sorry for
having been pleased, and he could wish that those objects had not given
him pleasure; for the wicked are full of remorse.

It is plain then that the wicked man cannot be in the position of a
friend even towards himself, because he has in himself nothing which can
excite the sentiment of Friendship. If then to be thus is exceedingly
wretched it is a man's duty to flee from wickedness with all his might
and to strive to be good, because thus may he be friends with himself
and may come to be a friend to another.

[Sidenote: V] Kindly Feeling, though resembling Friendship, is not
identical with it, because it may exist in reference to those whom we
do not know and without the object of it being aware of its existence,
which Friendship cannot. (This, by the way, has also been said before.)
And further, it is not even Affection because it does not imply
intensity nor yearning, which are both consequences of Affection. Again
Affection requires intimacy but Kindly Feeling may arise quite suddenly,
as happens sometimes in respect of men against whom people are matched
in any way, I mean they come to be kindly disposed to them and
sympathise in their wishes, but still they would not join them in any
action, because, as we said, they conceive this feeling of kindness
suddenly and so have but a superficial liking.

What it does seem to be is the starting point of a Friendship; just as
pleasure, received through the sight, is the commencement of Love: for
no one falls in love without being first pleased with the personal
appearance of the beloved object, and yet he who takes pleasure in it
does not therefore necessarily love, but when he wearies for the object
in its absence and desires its presence. Exactly in the same way men
cannot be friends without having passed through the stage of Kindly
Feeling, and yet they who are in that stage do not necessarily advance
to Friendship: they merely have an inert wish for the good of those
toward whom they entertain the feeling, but would not join them in
any action, nor put themselves out of the way for them. So that, in
a metaphorical way of speaking, one might say that it is dormant
Friendship, and when it has endured for a space and ripened into
intimacy comes to be real Friendship; but not that whose object is
advantage or pleasure, because such motives cannot produce even Kindly
Feeling.

I mean, he who has received a kindness requites it by Kindly Feeling
towards his benefactor, and is right in so doing: but he who wishes
another to be prosperous, because he has hope of advantage through his
instrumentality, does not seem to be kindly disposed to that person but
rather to himself; just as neither is he his friend if he pays court to
him for any interested purpose.

Kindly Feeling always arises by reason of goodness and a certain
amiability, when one man gives another the notion of being a fine
fellow, or brave man, etc., as we said was the case sometimes with those
matched against one another.

[Sidenote: VI] Unity of Sentiment is also plainly connected with
Friendship, and therefore is not the same as Unity of Opinion,
because this might exist even between people unacquainted with one
another.

Nor do men usually say people are united in sentiment merely because
they agree in opinion on _any_ point, as, for instance, on points
of astronomical science (Unity of Sentiment herein not having any
connection with Friendship), but they say that Communities have Unity of
Sentiment when they agree respecting points of expediency and take the
same line and carry out what has been determined in common consultation.

Thus we see that Unity of Sentiment has for its object matters of
action, and such of these as are of importance, and of mutual, or, in
the case of single States, common, interest: when, for instance, all
agree in the choice of magistrates, or forming alliance with the
Lacedaemonians, or appointing Pittacus ruler (that is to say, supposing
he himself was willing). [Sidenote: 1167_b_] But when each wishes
himself to be in power (as the brothers in the Phoenissae), they quarrel
and form parties: for, plainly, Unity of Sentiment does not merely imply
that each entertains the same idea be it what it may, but that they do
so in respect of the same object, as when both the populace and the
sensible men of a State desire that the best men should be in office,
because then all attain their object.

Thus Unity of Sentiment is plainly a social Friendship, as it is also
said to be: since it has for its object-matter things expedient and
relating to life.

And this Unity exists among the good: for they have it towards
themselves and towards one another, being, if I may be allowed the
expression, in the same position: I mean, the wishes of such men are
steady and do not ebb and flow like the Euripus, and they wish what is
just and expedient and aim at these things in common.

The bad, on the contrary, can as little have Unity of Sentiment as they
can be real friends, except to a very slight extent, desiring as they
do unfair advantage in things profitable while they shirk labour and
service for the common good: and while each man wishes for these things
for himself he is jealous of and hinders his neighbour: and as they
do not watch over the common good it is lost. The result is that they
quarrel while they are for keeping one another to work but are not
willing to perform their just share.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26