|
Objection 1: It seems that there is no vice opposed to meanness.
For great is opposed to little. Now, magnificence is not a vice,
but a virtue. Therefore no vice is opposed to meanness.
Objection 2: Further, since meanness is a vice by deficiency, as
stated above (Article 1), it seems that if any vice is opposed to
meanness, it would merely consist in excessive spending. But those
who spend much, where they ought to spend little, spend little where
they ought to spend much, according to Ethic. iv, 2, and thus they
have something of meanness. Therefore there is not a vice opposed to
meanness.
Objection 3: Further, moral acts take their species from their
end, as stated above (Article 1). Now those who spend
excessively, do so in order to make a show of their wealth, as stated
in Ethic. iv, 2. But this belongs to vainglory, which is opposed
to magnanimity, as stated above (Question 131, Article 2).
Therefore no vice is opposed to meanness.
On the contrary, stands the authority of the Philosopher who
(Ethic. ii, 8; iv, 2) places magnificence as a mean between two
opposite vices.
I answer that, Great is opposed to little. Also little and great
are relative terms, as stated above (Article 1). Now just as
expenditure may be little in comparison with the work, so may it be
great in comparison with the work in that it exceeds the proportion
which reason requires to exist between expenditure and work. Hence it
is manifest that the vice of meanness, whereby a man intends to spend
less than his work is worth, and thus fails to observe due proportion
between his expenditure and his work, has a vice opposed to it,
whereby a man exceeds this same proportion, by spending more than is
proportionate to his work. This vice is called in Greek banausia, so
called from the Greek baunos, because, like the fire in the furnace,
it consumes everything. It is also called apyrokalia, i.e. lacking
good fire, since like fire it consumes all, but not for a good
purpose. Hence in Latin it may be called "consumptio" [waste].
Reply to Objection 1: Magnificence is so called from the great work
done, but not from the expenditure being in excess of the work: for
this belongs to the vice which is opposed to meanness.
Reply to Objection 2: To the one same vice there is opposed the
virtue which observes the mean, and a contrary vice. Accordingly,
then, the vice of waste is opposed to meanness in that it exceeds in
expenditure the value of the work, by spending much where it behooved
to spend little. But it is opposed to magnificence on the part of the
great work, which the magnificent man intends principally, in so far
as when it behooves to spend much, it spends little or nothing.
Reply to Objection 3: Wastefulness is opposed to meanness by the
very species of its act, since it exceeds the rule of reason, whereas
meanness falls short of it. Yet nothing hinders this from being
directed to the end of another vice, such as vainglory or any other.
|
|