Liberality Rules, Prodigality Drools

Liberality, prodigality, and stinginess are all presented in book four in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics as he discusses wealth and how to use this wealth appropriately. Leading up to his analysis of these vices and virtue, he discusses happiness which, he says, is “among the most divine things” (1099b16). In order to achieve happiness as a state of being, Aristotle believes happiness comes through practicing both intellectual and moral virtues. One of the moral virtues Aristotle examines is liberality, giving and taking correctly, in regards to money. Because liberality is one of the virtues responsible for achieving this happiness, Aristotle argues that prodigality, an excess of giving, is not virtuous because it does not honor money, and it uses up all of one’s resources.

Aristotle explains that liberality is spending, specifically giving, in accordance with one’s resources. He says that an individual should give and take the right amount of money to and from the right people at the right time. Essentially, liberality is balance and moderation in regards to wealth. Because the liberal person is consistent in giving, they are “loved most…and advantageous to others” (1120a23-24). Liberality encourages one to be conscious of how he gives; therefore, he honors money, not “for its own account, but rather for the sake of giving it away” (1120b17-18). They always give correctly, with pleasure, and choose noble action over love for money. While liberality is the mean, deficiency and excess are on the opposite ends of the scale. Stinginess, Aristotle says, can be separated into two different categories, a “deficiency in giving and excess in taking” (1121b18-19). Both result from the “shameful greediness for gain” and love for money (1122a2). On the other hand, Aristotle explains that wastefully spending or giving is a characteristic of a foolish person. 

Although giving excessively, which Aristotle defines as prodigality, may appear to be noble, he argues that it is not as virtuous as liberality. Generously giving is a sign that indicates a lack of self-restraint (1119b32). Whereas the liberal person “is not careless with his own possessions,” the prodigal person gives extravagantly and will eventually run out of money (1120b3). Because prodigality depletes the resources necessary for living, it is described as a “kind of self-destruction” where an individual is “destroyed by his own doing” (1120a1-2). After he gives away all of his money and possessions, he will then become the person in need and is likely to take money from others. The liberal person, however, also wishes to help people monetarily, but he “does not give to just anyone” (1120b3). Essentially, he does not give for the sole reason of giving or waste his money on issues where his money will not be used well. Giving selectively allows him to give nobly to people who legitimately need support; thus, he is actually able to help more people. An example of not giving correctly is presented in Luke 15 with the story of the Prodigal Son. In the story, a son inherits his father’s money and spends it extravagantly to entertain himself and his friends. He soon finds he has no money, is destitute, and left to starve. Although he is able to return to his gracious father, he has wasted his inheritance and requires financial care. Prodigal people, Aristotle points out, are “lavish in their licentious pursuits” and easily tempted to follow the path to pleasure no matter the cost (1121b9-10). In contrast, liberal people know when to refrain from spending as well as when to properly give money. 

Although the prodigal person is better than the stingy person because people tend to practice stinginess more often, prodigality has “one vice, namely ruining his own resources” (1119b35-1120a1). This vice directly interferes with Aristotle’s belief that a “certain kind of living well and good action,” leads to happiness (1098b21-22). Instead of wastefully spending like the prodigal person is compelled to do, it is imperative that he properly manage his resources and give to others. According to Aristotle, choosing prodigality instead of liberality could very well mean the difference between happiness and unhappiness.