“We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.” – Winston Churchill – British Statesman
This aphorism, attributed to Sir Winston Churchill, encapsulates a fundamental philosophical distinction between two modes of human existence: the transactional and the transcendent. Churchill, the British statesman who led the United Kingdom through its darkest hour during the Second World War, articulated a principle that extends far beyond economics into the realm of human meaning and purpose.
The quote presents a deliberate contrast. To “make a living” suggests the practical necessity of acquiring resources-income, sustenance, security. To “make a life,” by contrast, implies the construction of something far more substantial: a legacy, a character, a contribution to the world. Churchill’s formulation suggests that whilst earning is inevitable and necessary, it is fundamentally insufficient as a measure of a life well-lived.
Winston Churchill: The Man Behind the Words
Leonard Spencer Churchill (1874-1965) was born into the aristocratic Marlborough family, yet his path to prominence was neither predetermined nor straightforward. His early years were marked by academic struggle and a sense of alienation from his emotionally distant parents. This outsider status, paradoxically, may have cultivated in him a distinctive perspective on human value and contribution.
Churchill’s career spanned multiple domains: military officer, war correspondent, politician, author, and painter. He served as Prime Minister during two separate periods (1940-1945 and 1951-1955), with the first tenure coinciding with Britain’s existential struggle against Nazi Germany. His leadership during this period was characterised not merely by strategic acumen but by an unwavering commitment to principles he believed transcended personal gain or national advantage.
Beyond politics, Churchill was a prolific writer and Nobel Prize laureate in Literature (1953). His literary output-including his six-volume history of the Second World War-represented a deliberate attempt to shape historical understanding and moral consciousness. This dual commitment to action and reflection, to immediate necessity and enduring meaning, informed his philosophical outlook.
Churchill’s personal life was marked by significant financial struggles despite his aristocratic background. He wrote prolifically partly out of genuine intellectual conviction, but also from financial necessity. This tension between material need and intellectual purpose may have sharpened his understanding of the distinction between making a living and making a life.
Philosophical Foundations: The Theorists
Aristotle and Eudaimonia
The intellectual genealogy of Churchill’s aphorism traces back to ancient philosophy, particularly Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia-often translated as “flourishing” or “living well.” Aristotle distinguished between mere existence (biological functioning) and the actualisation of human potential through virtue and meaningful activity. The distinction between making a living and making a life echoes this ancient dichotomy between subsistence and flourishing.
For Aristotle, human beings possess a distinctive function (ergon): the exercise of reason in accordance with virtue. A life devoted solely to acquisition-what modern economists might call utility maximisation-falls short of this distinctive human calling. True flourishing requires the development of character, the cultivation of wisdom, and contribution to the common good.
Immanuel Kant and Dignity
The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) provided another crucial theoretical foundation. Kant’s categorical imperative-the principle that one should act only according to maxims one could will as universal laws-establishes a framework wherein human dignity transcends instrumental value. People are not merely means to economic ends; they possess intrinsic worth.
Kant’s distinction between acting from duty and acting from inclination parallels Churchill’s distinction between making a living and making a life. A life of mere acquisition treats oneself and others instrumentally. A life of genuine moral agency involves recognising and honouring the dignity of all persons, which necessarily involves contribution beyond self-interest.
John Stuart Mill and the Quality of Life
The nineteenth-century utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) argued for a qualitative distinction between different types of pleasure and fulfilment. His famous assertion-“It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”-suggests that not all forms of satisfaction are equivalent. A life devoted to intellectual and moral development, even if materially modest, possesses greater value than a life of mere comfort and consumption.
Mill’s harm principle and his emphasis on individual development and self-cultivation provided intellectual scaffolding for the idea that a meaningful life involves more than material acquisition. The pursuit of knowledge, the exercise of faculties, and contribution to human progress constitute essential components of human flourishing.
Viktor Frankl and Meaning
More contemporaneously, Viktor Frankl (1905-1997), the Austrian psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor, developed a comprehensive philosophy centred on the human search for meaning. In his seminal work Man’s Search for Meaning, Frankl argued that the primary human motivation is not pleasure or power, but the discovery and pursuit of meaning.
Frankl identified three primary pathways to meaning: creative work (contributing something of value to the world), experiencing something or someone (love, beauty, nature), and the attitude one adopts toward unavoidable suffering. Notably, none of these pathways is fundamentally about acquisition or material gain. Frankl’s framework provides psychological and existential depth to Churchill’s aphorism: we make a life through meaningful engagement, not through accumulation.
Contemporary Virtue Ethics
Modern virtue ethicists, building on Aristotelian foundations, have emphasised that human flourishing involves the development and exercise of character virtues-generosity, courage, wisdom, justice, and compassion. Philosophers such as Alasdair MacIntyre and Rosalind Hursthouse have argued that contemporary consumer capitalism often undermines the conditions necessary for virtue development and genuine flourishing.
The distinction between making a living and making a life aligns with virtue ethics’ critique of purely instrumental rationality. A life structured entirely around economic maximisation may actually impede the development of the virtues and relationships that constitute genuine human flourishing.
The Broader Intellectual Context
Churchill’s aphorism emerged from a particular historical moment. The mid-twentieth century witnessed unprecedented material prosperity in Western nations, yet also profound existential anxiety. The Second World War had demonstrated both humanity’s capacity for destruction and the possibility of sacrifice for transcendent principles. The post-war period saw growing concern about consumerism, conformity, and the adequacy of material progress as a measure of civilisational health.
Thinkers across the political spectrum-from conservative critics of mass society to socialist theorists of alienation-questioned whether modern industrial capitalism adequately addressed fundamental human needs for meaning, community, and purpose. Churchill’s formulation provided a pithy articulation of this concern, accessible to broad audiences whilst grounded in serious philosophical tradition.
The Psychology of Generosity
Contemporary psychological research has validated the intuition embedded in Churchill’s aphorism. Studies consistently demonstrate that generosity, altruism, and contribution to causes beyond oneself correlate strongly with subjective wellbeing, life satisfaction, and psychological resilience. Conversely, individuals oriented primarily toward material acquisition and status display higher rates of anxiety, depression, and existential dissatisfaction.
The neuroscience of giving reveals that acts of generosity activate reward centres in the brain, producing what researchers term the “helper’s high.” This suggests that human beings are neurologically structured to find meaning and satisfaction through contribution-that giving is not merely a moral imperative imposed from without, but an expression of our deepest nature.
Enduring Relevance
Churchill’s distinction between making a living and making a life remains profoundly relevant in contemporary contexts. In an era of economic precarity, where many struggle to secure basic material needs, the aphorism might seem to privilege the privileged. Yet it can equally be read as a challenge to systems that reduce human beings to economic units, that measure worth by consumption, and that defer meaning to some indefinite future moment of sufficient affluence.
The quote invites reflection on a fundamental question: What constitutes a life well-lived? Is it the accumulation of possessions and status, or the cultivation of character, relationships, and contribution? Churchill’s answer-grounded in classical philosophy, tested through extraordinary historical circumstances, and validated by contemporary psychology-suggests that genuine human flourishing emerges not from what we acquire, but from what we give.
References
1. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/857718-we-make-a-living-by-what-we-get-but-we
2. https://www.lifecoach-directory.org.uk/articles/we-make-a-life-by-what-we-give
3. https://www.passiton.com/inspirational-quotes/7240-we-make-a-living-by-what-we-get-we-make-a-life
