Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It seems that the a man is not bound to give thanks to every benefactor. For a man may benefit himself just as he may harm himself, according to Ecclus. 14:5, "He that is evil to himself, to whom will he be good?" But a man cannot thank himself, since thanksgiving seems to pass from one person to another. Therefore thanksgiving is not due to every benefactor.

Objection 2: Further, gratitude is a repayment of an act of grace. But some favors are granted without grace, and are rudely, slowly and grudgingly given. Therefore gratitude is not always due to a benefactor.

Objection 3: Further, no thanks are due to one who works for his own profit. But sometimes people bestow favors for their own profit. Therefore thanks are not due to them.

Objection 4: Further, no thanks are due to a slave, for all that he is belongs to his master. Yet sometimes a slave does a good turn to his master. Therefore gratitude is not due to every benefactor .

Objection 5: Further, no one is bound to do what he cannot do equitably and advantageously. Now it happens at times that the benefactor is very well off, and it would be of no advantage to him to be repaid for a favor he has bestowed. Again it happens sometimes that the benefactor from being virtuous has become wicked, so that it would not seem equitable to repay him. Also the recipient of a favor may be a poor man, and is quite unable to repay. Therefore seemingly a man is not always bound to repayment for favors received.

Objection 6: Further, no one is bound to do for another what is inexpedient and hurtful to him. Now sometimes it happens that repayment of a favor would be hurtful or useless to the person repaid. Therefore favors are not always to be repaid by gratitude.

On the contrary, It is written (1 Thess. 5:18): "In all things give thanks."

I answer that, Every effect turns naturally to its cause; wherefore Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i) that "God turns all things to Himself because He is the cause of all": for the effect must needs always be directed to the end of the agent. Now it is evident that a benefactor, as such, is cause of the beneficiary. Hence the natural order requires that he who has received a favor should, by repaying the favor, turn to his benefactor according to the mode of each. And, as stated above with regard to a father (Question 31, Article 3; Question 101, Article 2), a man owes his benefactor, as such, honor and reverence, since the latter stands to him in the relation of principle; but accidentally he owes him assistance or support, if he need it.

Reply to Objection 1: In the words of Seneca (1 Benef. v), "just as a man is liberal who gives not to himself but to others, and gracious who forgives not himself but others, and merciful who is moved, not by his own misfortunes but by another's, so too, no man confers a favor on himself, he is but following the bent of his nature, which moves him to resist what hurts him, and to seek what is profitable." Wherefore in things that one does for oneself, there is no place for gratitude or ingratitude, since a man cannot deny himself a thing except by keeping it. Nevertheless things which are properly spoken of in relation to others are spoken of metaphorically in relation to oneself, as the Philosopher states regarding justice (Ethic. v, 11), in so far, to wit, as the various parts of man are considered as though they were various persons.

Reply to Objection 2: It is the mark of a happy disposition to see good rather than evil. Wherefore if someone has conferred a favor, not as he ought to have conferred it, the recipient should not for that reason withhold his thanks. Yet he owes less thanks, than if the favor had been conferred duly, since in fact the favor is less, for, as Seneca remarks (De Benef. ii.) "promptness enhances, delay discounts a favor."

Reply to Objection 3: As Seneca observes (De Benef. vi), "it matters much whether a person does a kindness to us for his own sake, or for ours, or for both his and ours. He that considers himself only, and benefits because cannot otherwise benefit himself, seems to me like a man who seeks fodder for his cattle." And farther on: "If he has done it for me in common with himself, having both of us in his mind, I am ungrateful and not merely unjust, unless I rejoice that what was profitable to him is profitable to me also. It is the height of malevolence to refuse to recognize a kindness, unless the giver has been the loser thereby."

Reply to Objection 4: As Seneca observes (De Benef. iii), "when a slave does what is wont to be demanded of a slave, it is part of his service: when he does more than a slave is bound to do, it is a favor: for as soon as he does anything from a motive of friendship, if indeed that be his motive, it is no longer called service." Wherefore gratitude is due even to a slave, when he does more than his duty.

Reply to Objection 5: A poor man is certainly not ungrateful if he does what he can. For since kindness depends on the heart rather than on the deed, so too gratitude depends chiefly the heart. Hence Seneca says (De Benef. ii): "Who receives a favor gratefully, has already begun to pay it back: and that we are grateful for favors received should be shown by the outpourings of the heart, not only in his hearing but everywhere." From this it is evident that however well off a man may be, it is possible to thank him for his kindness by showing him reverence and honor. Wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii, 14): "He that abounds should be repaid with honor, he that is in want should be repaid with money": and Seneca writes (De Benef. vi): "There are many ways of repaying those who are well off, whatever we happen to owe them; such as good advice, frequent fellowship, affable and pleasant conversation without flattery." Therefore there is no need for a man to desire neediness or distress in his benefactor before repaying his kindness, because, as Seneca says (De Benef. vi), "it were inhuman to desire this in one from whom you have received no favor; how much more so to desire it in one whose kindness has made you his debtor!"

If, however, the benefactor has lapsed from virtue, nevertheless he should be repaid according to his state, that he may return to virtue if possible. But if he be so wicked as to be incurable, then his heart has changed, and consequently no repayment is due for his kindness, as heretofore. And yet, as far as it possible without sin, the kindness he has shown should be held in memory, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 3).

Reply to Objection 6: As stated in the preceding reply, repayment of a favor depends chiefly on the affection of the heart: wherefore repayment should be made in such a way as to prove most beneficial. If, however, through the benefactor's carelessness it prove detrimental to him, this is not imputed to the person who repays him, as Seneca observes (De Benef. vii): "It is my duty to repay, and not to keep back and safeguard my repayment."

Articulus 3

Argumentum 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod homo non teneatur ad gratiarum actiones omni homini benefacienti. Potest enim aliquis sibi ipsi benefacere, sicut et sibi ipsi nocere, secundum illud Eccli. XIV, qui sibi nequam est, cui alii bonus erit? sed homo sibi ipsi non potest gratias agere, quia gratiarum actio videtur transire ab uno in alterum.

Ergo non omni benefactori debetur gratiarum actio.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, gratiarum actio est quaedam gratiae recompensatio. Sed aliqua beneficia non cum gratia dantur, sed magis cum contumelia, et tarditate vel tristitia.

Ergo non semper benefactori sunt gratiae reddendae.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, nulli debetur gratiarum actio ex eo quod suam utilitatem procurat. Sed quandoque aliqui aliqua beneficia dant propter suam utilitatem. Ergo eis non debetur gratiarum actio.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, servo non debetur gratiarum actio, quia hoc ipsum quod est, domini est. Sed quandoque contingit servum in dominum beneficum esse. Ergo non omni benefactori debetur gratiarum actio.

Argumentum 5

Praeterea, nullus tenetur ad id quod facere non potest honeste et utiliter. Sed quandoque contingit quod ille qui beneficium tribuit est in statu magnae felicitatis, cui inutiliter aliquid recompensaretur pro suscepto beneficio. Quandoque etiam contingit quod benefactor mutatur de virtute in vitium, et sic videtur quod ei honeste recompensari non potest. Quandoque etiam ille qui accipit beneficium pauper est, et omnino recompensare non potest.

Ergo videtur quod non semper teneatur homo ad gratiarum recompensationem.

Argumentum 6

Praeterea, nullus debet pro alio facere quod ei non expedit, sed est ei nocivum. Sed quandoque contingit quod recompensatio beneficii est nociva vel inutilis ei cui recompensatur. Ergo non semper est beneficium recompensandum per gratiarum actionem.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur I ad Thess. Ult., in omnibus gratias agite.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod omnis effectus naturaliter ad suam causam convertitur.

Unde dionysius dicit, I cap. De div. Nom., quod deus omnia in se convertit, tanquam omnium causa, semper enim oportet quod effectus ordinetur ad finem agentis.

Manifestum est autem quod benefactor, inquantum huiusmodi, est causa beneficiati. Et ideo naturalis ordo requirit ut ille qui suscipit beneficium, per gratiarum recompensationem convertatur ad benefactorem, secundum modum utriusque.

Et sicut de patre supra dictum est, benefactori quidem, inquantum huiusmodi, debetur honor et reverentia, eo quod habet rationem principii, sed per accidens debetur ei subventio vel sustentatio, si indigeat.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Seneca dicit, in V de benefic., sicut non est liberalis qui sibi donat, nec clemens qui sibi ignoscit, nec misericors qui malis suis tangitur, sed qui aliis, ita etiam nemo sibi ipsi beneficium dat, sed naturae suae paret, quae movet ad refutanda nociva et ad appetenda proficua.

Unde in his quae sunt ad seipsum non habet locum gratitudo et ingratitudo, non enim potest homo sibi aliquid denegare nisi sibi retinendo. Metaphorice tamen illa quae ad alterum proprie dicuntur, accipiuntur in his quae sunt ad seipsum, sicut de iustitia philosophus dicit, in V ethic., inquantum scilicet accipiuntur diversae partes hominis sicut diversae personae.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod boni animi est ut magis attendat ad bonum quam ad malum. Et ideo si aliquis beneficium dedit non eo modo quo debuit, non omnino debet recipiens a gratiarum actione cessare. Minus tamen quam si modo debito praestitisset, quia etiam beneficium minus est, quia, ut Seneca dicit, in II de benefic., multum celeritas fecit, multum abstulit mora.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Seneca dicit, in VI de benefic., multum interest utrum aliquis beneficium nobis det sua causa, an sua et nostra. Ille qui totus ad se spectat, et nobis prodest quia aliter sibi prodesse non potest, eo mihi loco habendus videtur quo qui pecori suo pabulum prospicit. Si me in consortium admisit, si duos cogitavit, ingratus sum et iniustus nisi gaudeo hoc illi profuisse quod proderat mihi. Summae malignitatis est non vocare beneficium nisi quod dantem aliquo incommodo afficit.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut Seneca dicit, in III de benefic., quandiu servus praestat quod a servo exigi solet, ministerium est, ubi plus quam a servo necesse, beneficium est. Ubi enim in affectum amici transit, incipit vocari beneficium.

Et ideo etiam servis ultra debitum facientibus gratiae sunt habendae.

Ad 5

Ad quintum dicendum quod etiam pauper ingratus non est si faciat quod possit, sicut enim beneficium magis in affectu consistit quam in effectu, ita etiam et recompensatio magis in affectu consistit.

Unde Seneca dicit, in II de benefic., qui grate beneficium accipit, primam eius pensionem solvit.

Quam grate autem ad nos beneficia pervenerint, indicemus effusis affectibus, quod non ipso tantum audiente, sed ubique testemur.

Et ex hoc patet quod quantumcumque in felicitate existenti potest recompensatio beneficii fieri per exhibitionem reverentiae et honoris.

Unde philosophus dicit, in VIII ethic., quod superexcellenti quidem debet fieri honoris retributio, indigenti autem retributio lucri.

Et Seneca dicit, in VI de benefic., multa sunt per quae quidquid debemus reddere et felicibus possumus, fidele consilium, assidua conversatio, sermo communis et sine adulatione iucundus.

Et ideo non oportet ut homo optet indigentiam eius seu miseriam qui beneficium dedit, ad hoc quod beneficium recompensetur.

Quia, ut Seneca dicit, in VI de benefic., si hoc ei optares cuius nullum beneficium haberes, inhumanum erat votum.

Quanto inhumanius ei optas cui beneficium debes.

Si autem ille qui beneficium dedit in peius mutatus est, debet tamen sibi fieri recompensatio secundum statum ipsius, ut scilicet ad virtutem reducatur, si sit possibile. Si autem sit insanabilis propter malitiam, tunc alter est effectus quam prius erat, et ideo non debetur ei recompensatio beneficii sicut prius. Et tamen, quantum fieri potest salva honestate, memoria debet haberi praestiti beneficii.

Ut patet per philosophum, in IX ethic..

Ad 6

Ad sextum dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, recompensatio beneficii praecipue pendet ex affectu. Et ideo eo modo debet recompensatio fieri quo magis sit utilis, si tamen postea, per eius incuriam, in damnum ipsius vertatur, non imputatur recompensanti.

Unde Seneca dicit, in VII de benefic., reddendum mihi est, non servandum, cum reddidero, ac tuendum.