FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   964   965   966   967   968   969   970   971   972   973   974   975   976   977   978   979   980   981   982   983   984   985   986   987   988  
989   990   991   992   993   994   995   996   997   998   999   1000   1001   1002   1003   1004   1005   1006   1007   1008   1009   1010   1011   1012   1013   >>   >|  
in his turn the former has conferred on him. Therefore he that first conferred a favor will be bound to a yet greater repayment, and so on indefinitely. Now virtue does not strive at the indefinite, since "the indefinite removes the nature of good" (Metaph. ii, text. 8). Therefore repayment of gratitude should not surpass the favor received. Obj. 3: Further, justice consists in equality. But "more" is excess of equality. Since therefore excess is sinful in every virtue, it seems that to repay more than the favor received is sinful and opposed to justice. _On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 5): "We should repay those who are gracious to us, by being gracious to them return," and this is done by repaying more than we have received. Therefore gratitude should incline to do something greater. _I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 5), gratitude regards the favor received according the intention of the benefactor; who seems be deserving of praise, chiefly for having conferred the favor gratis without being bound to do so. Wherefore the beneficiary is under a moral obligation to bestow something gratis in return. Now he does not seem to bestow something gratis, unless he exceeds the quantity of the favor received: because so long as he repays less or an equivalent, he would seem to do nothing gratis, but only to return what he has received. Therefore gratitude always inclines, as far as possible, to pay back something more. Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (A. 3, ad 5; A. 5), in repaying favors we must consider the disposition rather than the deed. Accordingly, if we consider the effect of beneficence, which a son receives from his parents namely, to be and to live, the son cannot make an equal repayment, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. viii, 14). But if we consider the will of the giver and of the repayer, then it is possible for the son to pay back something greater to his father, as Seneca declares (De Benef. iii). If, however, he were unable to do so, the will to pay back would be sufficient for gratitude. Reply Obj. 2: The debt of gratitude flows from charity, which the more it is paid the more it is due, according to Rom. 13:8, "Owe no man anything, but to love one another." Wherefore it is not unreasonable if the obligation of gratitude has no limit. Reply Obj. 3: As in injustice, which is a cardinal virtue, we consider equality of things, so in gratitude we consider equality of wills. For whi
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   964   965   966   967   968   969   970   971   972   973   974   975   976   977   978   979   980   981   982   983   984   985   986   987   988  
989   990   991   992   993   994   995   996   997   998   999   1000   1001   1002   1003   1004   1005   1006   1007   1008   1009   1010   1011   1012   1013   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

gratitude

 

received

 

gratis

 

equality

 

Therefore

 

return

 
conferred
 

greater

 
repayment
 

virtue


gracious

 
Philosopher
 
repaying
 
bestow
 

obligation

 
Wherefore
 

stated

 
justice
 

indefinite

 

sinful


excess
 

unreasonable

 

things

 

receives

 

parents

 

beneficence

 

cardinal

 

disposition

 
favors
 

Accordingly


effect

 

injustice

 

charity

 

Seneca

 

declares

 

unable

 

father

 

states

 
sufficient
 
repayer

intention
 

opposed

 
Further
 
consists
 

contrary

 
surpass
 

indefinitely

 

strive

 

Metaph

 
nature