On the other hand, the needy man and the less virtuous
advance the opposite claim: they urge that “it
is the very business of a good friend to help those
who are in need, else what is the use of having a good
or powerful friend if one is not to reap the advantage
at all?”
[Sidenote: 1163b] Now each seems to advance a
right claim and to be entitled to get more out of
the connection than the other, only not more of
the same thing: but the superior man should
receive more respect, the needy man more profit:
respect being the reward of goodness and beneficence,
profit being the aid of need.
This is plainly the principle acted upon in Political
Communities: he receives no honour who gives
no good to the common stock: for the property
of the Public is given to him who does good to the
Public, and honour is the property of the Public;
it is not possible both to make money out of the Public
and receive honour likewise; because no one will put
up with the less in every respect: so to him who
suffers loss as regards money they award honour, but
money to him who can be paid by gifts: since,
as has been stated before, the observing due proportion
equalises and preserves Friendship.
Like rules then should be observed in the intercourse
of friends who are unequal; and to him who advantages
another in respect of money, or goodness, that other
should repay honour, making requital according to
his power; because Friendship requires what is possible,
not what is strictly due, this being not possible
in all cases, as in the honours paid to the gods and
to parents: no man could ever make the due return
in these cases, and so he is thought to be a good man
who pays respect according to his ability.
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.
