In his work “On the Management of the Household and the Perils of Trade”, Aristotle states that goods can be acquired in two ways: the natural form of acquisition, which obtains requisites provided by nature that are necessary for the household, and “the art of acquisition”, which he describes as the procurement of goods through retail trade (Aristotle, 126). In the natural form of acquisition, the goal is to accumulate “true wealth”, a supply of goods limited to what is useful to the household and sufficient for a content life in relation to the art of household management (Aristotle, 128). The art of household management is associated with natural acquisition and is concerned with the use of goods and not with the accretion of goods that …show more content…
Aristotle argues that retail trade, which is the buying of goods from one party and selling those goods to another party at a profit, is not natural because the objective of trade should only be to meet the “requirements of self-sufficiency” and not to make a profit, especially when at the expense of the other party involved (Aristotle, 128). He denounces the use of money in trade as unnecessary and as a means of promoting economic inequality. In this form of acquisition, man views wealth as the amount of currency he obtains, which he believes to have no limit. Regardless of currency’s perceived limitlessness, Aristotle asserts that wealth derived from money is of no worth because currency is “useless for any of the necessary purposes of life” (129). Money, according to Aristotle, is a “non-entity” that is inherently subject to change as it could become worthless if another form of currency becomes favored (Aristotle, 129). Wealth should not be able to be counted in abundance through the use of currency, as true wealth and in fact, all wealth is limited. However, Aristotle states that the seemingly limitlessness of wealth from retail trade promotes man’s belief to “keep [his] wealth in currency” as his “anxiety about livelihood” rather than well-being creates an …show more content…
Locke and Aristotle find money to be ultimately detrimental to society as it allows for man to acquire property in excess, with no limit to their wealth. However, Aristotle’s focus on the acquisition of goods only to fulfill the needs of the household greatly limits man’s ability for acquisition because it implies that man should not seek goods beyond what is sufficient for his household. Locke, on the other hand, claims that God did not intend land to “remain common and uncultivated”, but that God gave land to “the use of the industrious and rational” in order for the earth to be improved upon (91). By stating that labor is the key value in owning property, Locke promotes the limitation of wealth, but also does not constrict “the condition of human life” which he argues, “requires labor and materials to work on” (91). Although Locke believes that currency has had a negative impact on society, he recognizes that due to the introduction of the lasting value of money that allows man to buy other man’s labor, people have agreed that they can hold more land than they can work themselves. In contrast, Aristotle’s argument that “true wealth” can only be found in the goods necessary for human life, denounces labor as a means to procure greater property, as he believes man should
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,
...s his argument by emphasizing the absolute reason on why property is solely for the use to produce goods and provide services by farming one’s land or building infrastructures; nevertheless the overuse of one’s land exhibits what Locke calls waste, whereas the consumption of goods for the use of trade can result in bartering and wealth. The introduction of wealth creates the motivation for people feel compelled to protect their wealth which leads us back to the concept of entering into a civil or political society for security. Locke believes that civil and political society can ensure the stability, security, and social structure of any given society; but he points out that if the government becomes a tyranny or corrupt only than shall the populace exercise their right to question the authority and overthrow if needed.
...with the person that refused to use his labor. The appearance of money played an important role in the mankind's evolution. Money, in some ways, inspired men to work harder and harder to claim and enlarge his wealth then one's labor would incite others contribution to the nonstop progression and development of human beings. That one's wealth is estimated upon the combination of their mind and labor, diligence and creativeness, bravery and desires .... has become the formula for our success in this competitive world. Definitely, the inequalities of wealth are natural and inevitable.
It is stated by John Locke that in the state of nature no man may take more then he can consume. “…make use of any advantage of life before it spoils…whatever is beyond this is more than his share and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy. (Locke 14)” Locke then goes on to say, “God gave the world to man … for their benefit and the greatest conveniences of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the industrious and rational- and labor was to be his title… (Lock 15)”
First, Locke believes that everyone has the opportunity to cultivate the land that they own, which ideally is a proportionate share of the surrounding environment, and nothing more (Locke, Sec. 36). Locke’s theory of property is not just relative to physical entities, it can be an intellectual entity as well. An individual may have certain experiences and knowledge, develop theories and come to their own conclusions. Publishing said works are seen as property in the eyes of Locke as well. Another strength would be the logic of Locke’s argument, if you input your labour, that commodity becomes your own. Truth of this can be seen in section 33 of Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government, when Locke suggests that labour increases the value of land exponentially because when people own land themselves, they are more likely to increase the productivity of that land. According to Locke, the true value of land does not stem from the land, rather the labour invested in it. Locke’s theory however, does not take into account the processes in which someone becomes an owner. One of the main stances Locke outlines in his theory of property is that he equates property to being a natural right. Locke deems the right to private property to be equally important as life and liberty, however they cannot be
At the core of their theories, both Locke and Rousseau seek to explain the origin of civil society, and from there to critique it, and similarly both theorists begin with conceptions of a state of nature: a human existence predating civil society in which the individual does not find institutions or laws to guide or control one’s behaviour. Although both theorists begin with a state of nature, they do not both begin with the same one. The Lockean state of nature is populated by individuals with fully developed capacities for reason. Further, these individuals possess perfect freedom and equality, which Locke intends as granted by God. They go about their business rationally, acquiring possessions and appropriating property, but they soon realize the vulnerability of their person and property without any codified means to ensure their security...
...helter, food, clothing, and fuel for survival. The Market Revolution in the 19th century changed the mindset of copious individuals about their essential needs. With new innovations that make goods cheaper and easily obtainable, people's greed for more possessions grew. However, the incessant growth of one's desires make the individual a "slave" of their desires because they devote their time in earning money to acquire more, thus losing their freedom. Henry David Thoreau agreed that people enslaved themselves to materialistic possessions and often they forget the genuine meaning of living. Faced with the choice of increasing one’s ability to acquire more goods and decreasing one’s needs, Thoreau believed that minimizing one’s desire will lead to favorable account as individuals gain the chance to enjoy the meaning of life and welcome what nature provide them with.
According to Aristotle, if we have all these we are able to live our life to the fullest, which means to live well and to do things well (NE 1098b20). In particular, in this paper I will focus on why Aristotle thinks external goods are necessary for happiness. Aristotle says, “He is happy who lives in accordance with complete virtue and is sufficiently equipped with external goods, not for some chance period but throughout a complete life” (NE 1101a15). It is Aristotle’s explicit view that virtue is necessary, but not sufficient, for happiness. He views external and bodily goods as instruments deemed necessary to live a virtuous life.
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...
John Locke is a seventeenth century philosopher who believed that government should be based around the people rather than the power of one person. Equality and property were two factors that Locke considered to be the key to a great society. Locke begins his writings with a discussion on individual property and how each man body is his own property. This leads Locke into the argument that man can obtain property only by using his own labor. an example Locke gives is the picking of an apple. The apple is the property of the man who used his labor to pick it. He goes on to say “A person may only acquire as many things in this way as he or she can reasonably use to their advantage”. With the discussion of property Locke leads into the discussion of trade and monetary value stating that it is natural of man to w...
Locke theorizeds extensively on property, privatization, and the means an individual can use for increasing his property. Initially, in the state of nature, man did not own property in the form of resources or land. All fruits of the earth were for the use of all men,“and nobody has originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state” (Locke 353). In this state, people could appropriate only what they could make use of. It was unfair for one person to take more than he could use because some of that natural commodity would go to waste unless another man might have made use of it for his own benefit (360). Locke felt that God gave the bounties of nature to the people of earth and they, by default, should treat these bounties rationally. This rationalistic theory discourages waste.
“Proper society did not think about making money, only about spending it.”, said Barbara W. Tuchman. This quote shows our real world, and the people that spend money, but they forget about the value of money. Nowadays people want more that they have. They forget how many things they have, and how much money they spend. Most people when they see other people having something better, and in that moment they want to have it also. Also, people forget how hard they got that money, but how easily and quickly they spend it. In the article “The treadmill of consumption” by Roberts, he says that people are willing to go into debt to buy certain products and brands. That is right that people can do crazy things to buy certain goods.
Smith's formulation transcends a purely descriptive account of the transformations that shook eighteenth-century Europe. A powerful normative theory about the emancipatory character of market systems lies at the heart of Wealth of Nations. These markets constitute "the system of natural liberty" because they shatter traditional hierarchies, exclusions, and privileges.2 Unlike mercantilism and other alternative mechanisms of economic coordination, markets are based on the spontaneous and free expression of individual preferences. Rather than change, even repress, human nature to accord with an abstract bundle of values, market economies accept the propensities of humankind and are attentive to their character. They recognize and value its inclinations; not only human reason but the full panoply of individual aspirations and needs.3 Thus, for Smith, markets give full expression to individual, economic liberty.
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,...
Although it has been said that money is the root of all evil, many people actually believe that they would be happier if they were wealthier. Could this be correct? This essay will support the thesis that not only does the pursuit of wealth not lead to happiness; it may actually make us unhappy.