(Broadie 27). This seems to create a slight problem, which is present when focuses on the notion that one cannot give without another taking. Broadie, however, addresses this concern when she writes that “taking is done only because it is necessary for the sake of giving” (28). This claim seems to miss the mark here, as they depend extremely heavily on each other and cannot exist without the other existing. In this, it seems as though they are inseparable, and therefore, both count as a use of wealth. It is especially perplexing if Broadie is willing to morally criticise those who take money. She states that “taking too much is the mark of avariciousness” (28). This is one of the aforementioned vicious states of being in regards to wealth. …show more content…
It is important to remember that people are in different situations financially from each other, and these dynamics of wealth can come into play. If a person being offered money is extremely wasteful and often cannot control their spending habits and turns down the money, it seems as though both are equally admirable in their action. The person offering the money is admirable in their good intentions to help out a person who is financially in trouble, whereas the person who is wasteful is able to recognize their flaw in their character, and take proactive steps to avoid that behaviour in the future. By cutting the amount of income they receive through charitable friends or family members, they will have to start working for their own money, and will then, supposedly act differently when they next have a reasonable sum of money. One would not want to say that the person who is offering the money is more admirable, due to the implication that they are, perhaps unknowingly, fueling a negative behaviour for the wasteful person. However, one would not want to say that what they are doing is unadmirable either, as they are still willing to make a sacrifice from their own wealth in order to try and assist someone they care about. One would also want to refrain from saying that the person who has denied to take the money is more admirable than the person who offered the money. The person who has refused the money has not fully excused themselves from their wasteful nature, yet they are doing their best to put an end to it. The fact that they are making an effort to curb this behaviour, however, is worthy of some moral praise. It seems as though both agents in this situation have made a conscious effort to be virtuous in this situation, and both are worthy of the same amount of moral