Comments on Book IV of the Nicomachean Ethics – Part 1
Liberality and Its Opposites: Avarice and Prodigality
In Book IV of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle presents the concept of liberality as the just mean in the use of wealth. Unlike other virtues connected to the body or to justice, it relates to giving and receiving material goods, above all giving, which is the noblest use of wealth.
The liberal, virtuous man gives rightly: to the proper persons, at the proper time, in the proper amount, and for a noble reason. He does not give out of self-interest, but out of recognition that wealth must be an instrument of virtue. His action is performed with joy, for he who suffers in giving shows that he still prefers money to the good.
This virtue is not measured by the amount given, but by the disposition of character. Someone with little may be more liberal than another with much, if he acts proportionally. For this reason, Aristotle observes that heirs tend to be more liberal than those who earned their own fortune, since they do not know necessity and are not attached to the fruit of toil.
Thus, the liberal man is seldom rich, for he does not accumulate, but uses his goods for the sake of the common good. Even so, he maintains balance: he suffers moderately if he spends badly, but rejoices when he spends well. He is easy to live with, for he does not idolise money and prefers to regret not having spent when he should, rather than to repent for having spent too much.
Nevertheless, it must be emphasised that liberality is the concept of the virtue, and every virtue is associated with its opposites, the vices.
Prodigality (Excess)
Prodigality is the vice of excess. The prodigal spends and gives without discernment, sometimes to those who do not deserve it, and in a disordered and excessive way. He refrains from receiving, but imprudently, which quickly leads him to lose his possessions and even to seek resources from unworthy sources to sustain his vice.
Even so, prodigality may be regarded as less serious than avarice, for the prodigal shares something of the liberal disposition: he enjoys giving and is not attached to money. His errors stem from folly, not malice. For this reason, he may be corrected by time, by poverty, or by discipline.
Avarice (Deficiency)
Avarice is the vice of deficiency, and for Aristotle it is more serious and more common than prodigality. The miser does not give what he ought, keeps everything for himself, and always seeks to receive, often from any source, however unworthy.
The avaricious take various forms: sometimes penny-pinchers and misers, who do not spend even on the smallest things, though not necessarily by stealing; at other times greedy opportunists, who seek profit everywhere, even illicitly, such as usurers, exploiters, or practitioners of contemptible trades.
What unites them is a sordid love of gain, preferring ill-repute to the loss of a small profit. Aristotle, however, distinguishes the avaricious from the truly unjust, such as tyrants who plunder cities or profane temples: these are not merely avaricious, but wicked and impious.
Thus, avarice is defined as the direct opposite of liberality. Whilst the liberal man uses wealth as an instrument of honour and nobility, the miser debases himself through his petty attachment to money. Being almost incurable, especially in old age, Aristotle considers it a worse vice than prodigality.
The Parable of the Prodigal Son and the Aristotelian Reading of the Vices
The Parable of the Prodigal Son, narrated in Luke 15, has traditionally been interpreted as a portrayal of God’s mercy towards the repentant sinner. However, it is also possible to read this episode in the light of Aristotle’s moral philosophy, set out in Book IV of the Nicomachean Ethics on the virtue of liberality and its opposite vices, prodigality and avarice. This approach helps us to understand not only the behaviour of the two sons, but above all the perfection of the Father’s love.
The younger son clearly represents the vice of prodigality. He prematurely demands his share of the inheritance and squanders it in pleasures and disorder. The elder son, for his part, embodies the vice of avarice. He remains at home, obeys his father’s commands, and does not squander wealth, yet reveals an excessive attachment to what he considers his “right”. By refusing to enter the feast, the elder son shows precisely this petty hardness, and demonstrates it when his brother returns repentant and the father offers a feast: the elder refuses to take part. His complaint — “You never gave me even a young goat to celebrate with my friends” — shows a closed heart, incapable of rejoicing in the father’s liberality.
Between these two extremes stands the central figure of the parable: the Father, who embodies true liberality. He distributes the inheritance, welcomes the repentant son, gives feasts and gifts, all without suffering or calculation of loss. As Aristotle teaches, the liberal man gives for a noble reason, with joy and not with pain, using material goods as instruments of a greater good. In the Father of the parable, that greater good is gratuitous love, which seeks to restore the life of the lost son and rejoice in the communion regained.
This philosophical reading enriches the theological interpretation: it shows that the parable is not merely about two contrasting sons, but about two opposite vices — prodigality and avarice — which are only overcome in the virtue of liberality, perfectly realised in the Father’s love. Whilst the younger is lost through imprudence and the elder through meanness, the Father shows that the way of virtue is to give oneself wholly, without attachment to wealth and without fear of loss.
Therefore, the Parable of the Prodigal Son may also be understood as a lesson in moral balance: to flee both wastefulness and avarice, and to learn to use wealth as an instrument of love and reconciliation. And, in the Christian horizon, this balance is raised to perfection in the merciful heart of the Father, who reveals that liberality, when lived in fullness, is the very image of divine grace.