Aristotle’s view on the necessity and danger of money
Intro
Aristotle is widely regarded as the father of practical economic philosophy. His views on moral economic behavior, the economics of the house, the economics of trade, and his thoughts on markets can been read in Economics, Politics and The Politics and Economics of Aristotle. Within these readings we uncover Aristotle’s philosophic thoughts surrounding money. We learn that he considers money to be both dangerous and necessary in ancient Greece. But why is that? An answer will require looking at Aristotle’s writings and philosophy. Specifically we will look at money, or currency in ancient Greece, trade with retailers and between households, and what sort of exchanges Aristotle considers to be natural versus unnatural.
P1 Why is money necessary
Aristotle’s philosophic thoughts on money and economy still influence economists today. In the book The Politics and Economics of Aristotle, we learn that in order to live in a civilized society and purchase goods, a common currency must exist. Land and livestock are not easily traded or appraised without a common medium of exchange. Therefore money, often in the form of gold, can be used to purchase goods. Using gold, the value of any good can be determined and dissimilar items can be exchanged. The ability to trade goods, which are dissimilar, is important in all economies because buyers and sellers are selling different products. This convenient form of exchange is the cornerstone of a prosperous economy. Money is necessary for the common man to engage in commerce, and for the state to collect taxes. Aristotle sees no problem with money when used properly, meaning, when it is used to procure goods that are to be used in the h...
... middle of paper ...
...rd form of trade was retail. In this, a retailer would sell their products at the highest possible price in order to turn a profit. Profiteering was not respectable in ancient Greece and Aristotle thought it was a dangerous thing to engage in.
Why money can be dangerous
Usury is using money to make more money and Aristotle saw this as contemptible. When money is no longer used to allow for exchange, and instead is desired to increase ones wealth, then money is no longer being used properly. Here is where Aristotle thought money, although necessary could also be dangerous. If someone wants to aquire money, there is no natural limit to how much they can want. This want can be insatiable. Aristotle views money as something that is necessary for exchange economies, not for collection by merchants or retailers. These people may use money in a way it was not intended.
In the Humanistic Tradition the author, Gloria Fiero introduces Adam smith as a Scottish moral philosopher, pioneer of political economy, and a key figure in the Scottish Enlightenment. Smith also known as the Father of Political economy, is best known for one of his two classic works An Inquiry into the nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations. Fiero looks at Smith’s work because the division of labor is important. One thing Smith thinks is even more important for creating a wealthy nation, is to interact and have open trade with different countries. Fiero states,“It is necessary, though very slow and gradual, consequence of a certain propensity in human nature which has in view no such extensive utility; the propensity to truck, barter,
Adam Smith has developed and created the most influential works of economic, philosophy and beyond. Adam Smith made an economic model for his theory involving the economic market through his books. Adam Smith produced his own book titled “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” which revolved around morals of humans and mercy toward a person or a community. On the other hand, the book did have a slight vision of the rejection of loving yourself and the slim idea what an individual wants for his or her self. Adam Smith also produced another book titled “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” that was based on the concept of the politics of economy. This book also gave the idea that wealth’s amount is determined by the amount of work not by length. Adam Smith’s book eventually g...
While the idea of money as being so important in daily life in the modern era is not a concept that is given much thought, it is very important to realize that this is not exactly a new concept. It was as important during the medieval period in the time of Saint Francis of Assisi. Wealth, in many cases of modern times and medieval is seen as both the main factor for running the world as well as its downfall. It is something that no matter the period we as humans understand and use to classify the world in both abstract and in more literal ways.
“Men desire to have some share in the management of public affairs chiefly on account of the importance which it gives them.” This famous quote by Adam Smith proves what people in the Enlightenment period wanted the most – free market economy and public services. Adam Smith was, in fact, a Scottish economist, who tried to influence the government and convince the ruler to fulfil people’s wishes and needs. Such craving for an “adjustable” trade, led to the first major economic establishment in the Enlightenment period, laissez faire, which banned the government from interfering with private trade. Adam Smith, its huge supporter, managed to get this concept to disseminate safely with various rules and restrictions attached; otherwise, this method might allow too much freedom. The economy during the Renaissance period, transforming especially with Adam Smith’s innovative theories during the Enlightenment, focused on the urge to limit the government’s ability to interfere with the market.
The goal of human life according to Aristotle is Happiness as he stated in Nicomachean Ethics, “Happiness, then, is apparently something complete and self-sufficient, since it is the end of the things achievable in action.” Aristotle states that happiness is not just about being content in life but that one has to have lived their life rationally, well, and to the fullest of their capabilities. Happiness, according to Aristotle, can only be achieved by focusing on mans’ life as parts of a whole.
Is life really about the 'money', the 'cash', the 'hoes', who has the biggest gold chain or who drives the shiniest or fastest car, who sells the most albums or who has the most respect? Aristotle challenges views, which are similar to the ones held and shown by rap artists such as Jay-Z and the Notorious B.I.G., by observing that everything in the universe, including humans, has a telos, or goal in life. He states that the goal of a human life is to achieve happiness or eudaimonia. I believe that Aristotle is completely correct in his reasoning of the purpose of human nature. He even explains how happiness is different for every person, and each different type of person has a different idea of eudaimonia. He then goes on to talk about how a person must do all things in moderation, not doing the excess but at the same time doing just enough. This idea, called the "golden mean of moderation" was the backbone support to Aristotle's idea of human telos because it concluded that living a virtuous life must be the same for all people because of the way human beings are built.
Locke’s emphasis on the importance of the creation of exchange value as the basis of property is an important rupture from preceding theorizations of property. It exemplifies a change in philosophy of property law that is important to Capitalism. Indeed, the very definition of Capitalism is “a system in which goods and services, down to the most basic necessities of life, are produced for profitable exchange” (Wood 2). Noteworthy is that a century after Locke's Second Treatise, his ideas are expressed and developed by in Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations.
Heilbroner, Robert L. The Worldly Philosophers: the Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999. Print.
...lue and having artificial value really changed the amount of power they felt. Research from Stanford shows that the more money people have, the more addictive it is. This causes a problem when people try to obtain items with emotional value, but end up getting caught up in money.
Few of us can deny the importance and power that money has in our society. It is difficult to think of issues that affect us on a daily basis, that does not involve money. But where does this fixation on money originate...
In his \textit{\NE}, Book IV, Aristotle provides an in depth analysis on the virtues an vices regarding material goods, the vices for which include extravagance and stinginess, and the virtue, generosity. By application of the Doctrine of the mean, the vices represent the excesses and deficiencies in giving respectively, while the virtue of generosity represents the mean of the two vices, or, more generally, the mean of all elements concerning material goods. \ari characterises a generous person as one who gives to the right person, at the right time, for the right reasons and does not take from the wrong sources, at the wrong times, for the wrong reasons. The accepted contemporary definition for generosity generally refers to being altruistic,
With this emergence of money as the social expression of value, money stands, in opposition to commodities, as the abstract always stands in opposition to the particular. We will see value in two forms: as particular commodities, and as money. It is crucial to recognize that this development is latent...
The pivotal second chapter of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, "Of the Principle which gives occasion to the Division of Labour," opens with the oft-cited claim that the foundation of modern political economy is the human "propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another."1 This formulation plays both an analytical and normative role. It offers an anthropological microfoundation for Smith's understanding of how modern commercial societies function as social organizations, which, in turn, provide a venue for the expression and operation of these human proclivities. Together with the equally famous concept of the invisible hand, this sentence defines the central axis of a new science of political economy designed to come to terms with the emergence of a novel object of investigation: economic production and exchange as a distinct, separate, independent sphere of human action. Moreover, it is this domain, the source of wealth, which had become the main organizational principle of modern societies, displacing the once-ascendant positions of theology, morality, and political philosophy.
According to Aristotle, generosity is the mean virtue between wastefulness and ungenerosity. In broad terms, generosity is not ascribed to those who take wealth more seriously than what is right. Since generosity is relating to wealth and anything whose worth is measured by money, anything can be used either well or badly. Hence, in the virtue of generosity, whoever is the best user of something is the person who has the virtue concerned with it, which is the generous person. Whereas the possession of wealth is taking and keeping, using wealth consists of spending and giving, which is why “it is more proper to the generous person to give to the right people than to take from the right sources and not from the wrong sources” (1120a10). Since not taking is easier than giving, more thanks will be given to the giver. The generous person will also aim at the fine in his giving and will give correctly; “for he will give to the right people, the right amounts, at the right time, and all the other things that are implied by correct giving” (1120a25). As a result, it is not easy for the generous person to grow rich, since he is ready to spend and not take or keep,...
Further consideration: Even though money brings about so much misfortune, someone may declare that if we eliminated the existence of money, our life would be chaotic. However, the humanity has never lived in an environment without money. Therefore, it is too hard to determine people 's living conditions by considering whether they have the concept of money. However, the society seems to run well currently; it is seems to be unnecessary to consider the justification for the existence of