Aristotle believes that money is a form of justice, and not an end in itself. This has been a controversial perception amongst people for many years; some tend to agree while others have a different belief. From my point of view, Aristotle’s belief was not arbitrary. I support this belief because unfortunately our society is continuously being corrupted by many people who possess the money, wealth, and influence in our current days, are using their means to promote injustice. It is also true among modern thinkers that money might also be the only way to justice. Such perspective leads them to believe that a wealthy person might be a fair person and makes no mistakes because they judge with respect and integrity. In my opinion money is a …show more content…
Aristotle says that
“Money, as a common measure of everything, makes things commensurable and makes it possible to equalize them. He states that it is in the form of money, a substance that has a purpose, that individuals have devised a unit that supplies a measure on the basis of which just exchange can take place. Aristotle thus maintains that everything can be expressed in the universal equivalent of money. He explains that money was introduced to satisfy the requirement that all items must be comparable in some way.”(3)
In addition Aristotle defined the characteristics of money to be durable, portable, divisible, and have an intrinsic value. This is to say, money should not change through time. It should hold a high amount of worth relative to its weight and size it should also be relatively easy to justly separate and recombine. Finally its value should be independent of any other object and contained in the money itself
Secondly, what did Aristotle mean when he said that money is not an end in itself? Here he was trying to tell us that the reason of money is not the sake of having money only or for the sake of accumulating money because that will not make us happy or even a good person. But because Aristotle believes that we have to define things by its purpose and the principle of money is not to have more of it to accumulate more but to use it in good things that will benefit me and my society, as well as it will make me happy.
Money plays an important role in everyone’s life, but having money doesn’t mean you can buy happiness or love. A person being wealthy, having all that money can cause fame and popularity, but true happiness can never be obtained. If you have money you can buy any happiness you want. But no one thinks about the opposite side of it. If you don’t have that money, because money is something you get if you’re destined to have it. Money can be a source of limited happiness, but not for lifetime. Money does have value, but you don’t need that to be happy. It’s not necessary to have money to be happy. Sometimes people with money, can be careless, they don’t care about others. They only think about themselves, only about their happiness. This causes
With the possible exception of Plato, Aristotle is the most influential philosopher in the history of logical thought. Logic into this century was basically Aristotelian logic. Aristotle dominated the study of the natural sciences until modern times. Aristotle, in some aspect, was the founder of biology; Charles Darwin considered him as the most important contributor to the subject. Aristotle’s Poetic, the first work of literary notice, had a string influence on the theory and practice of modern drama. Aristotle’s great influence is due to the fact that he seemed to offer a system, which although lacked in certain respects, was as a whole matchless in its extent.
Money is a main worry for some people. It is a necessity for anyone who is trying to succeed in life. Many believe that the only way to success is to have a
Money is the life force of all of society. In every aspect, money determines the value of good, services, and even people’s lives. As we breathe air to function, society relies on finances to function. And if society, the unity of humanity, relies on money, than the leaders of society want to limit and control it to withhold their power over humanity. They do this by limiting what can be bought and sold, while also controlling how much different things cost. These limitations allow our leaders to control our money and, through that, our value and influence to society.
In his book, “Money and Class in America,” Lewis Lapham states, “The ardor of the American faith in money easily surpasses the intensity achieved by other societies in other times and places.” This notion is the reoccurring theme in Lapham’s book. America is so taken with the idea that without money your achievements do not mean as much as they would if they came with a large sum of cash. We as a society value money over more important qualities such as knowledge or integrity.
The primitive monetary instruments had a profoundly dynamic assistant nature, had no inborn quality. Their operation did not suggest the utilization of any particular item, but rather just the reference to a theoretical money related unit. Regardless of the possibility that the unique money related unit were symbolized by a given particular stock, this stock never took an interest in the operations, since what was implied was to make a conceptual reference to its worth, and not to trade different merchandise for it. Hence, currency was not, subsequently, created by a flash of brilliance, but rather originated from a need, and its development has reflected, at every time, the readiness of man to orchestrate its currency features to the reality of its economy. Perhaps even more importantly, invention of currency was the mother step in a new monetary system that has led to the birth of electronic banking and credit cards. To infer, pretty much as human advancement from viciousness to development has relied on upon the invention of currency, future advancement will rely on another definition and utilization of
There is nothing as influential and powerful as the concept of money. As a medium for exchange, money is value given or received in exchange for anything of value. Because money stands in place for value, why is it that gold has been the scale for evaluating money throughout history? Ted Cruz, in a Republican Presidential Debate, answered a question regarding monetary policy. He thinks “the Fed should get out of the business of trying to juice our economy and simply be focused on sound money and monetary stability, ideally tied to gold” (Cruz 2015). Cruz aligns “sound money” to gold because gold stabilizes pricing and reduces inflation percentages over the long run. The problem with
“Money has never made man happy, nor will it, there is nothing in its nature to produce happiness. The more of it one has the more one wants.” Benjamin Franklin.
There is no doubt that money is pivotal for one to live. The world thinks that happiness is determined by the degree of material possessions these days. It is not a big stretch to state that the strong materialism of modern society makes one think that things can only be done by and with money. However, in a memoire written by Jeannette Walls, evidence to support the quote by Ben Franklin is easily spotted.
Monetary values have changed throughout history because problems presented in each system of commerce. Bartering was among the earliest forms of commerce to present a problem. It did not establish monetary value in anything specific, allowing an individual’s wants or needs to be deemed monetary values. Each seller could make exchange requests based on different things. For example, a starving man could deem grain a commodity if he only manufactures luxury goods. Based on his hunger, the starving man can request to make an exchange of his luxury good with farmers for grain. Given that luxury goods are not a necessity, nor desired by everyone, the farmers can refuse his offer. The man would have to barter with a third party to acquire whatever the farmers were willing to make an exchange for. Inconsistent commodities in bartering made transactions inefficient because it could require multiple exchanges. Standards were established to combat the inefficiency of bartering through establishing value in one set commodity that all would accept. With a standard, the man could obtain grain directly from the farmers because it is mandated that the standard be accepted as debt payment. Therefore, it is more efficient to have a standard which only requires one transaction than to barter. For a matter of convenience, value transferred from virtually any object to specific resources. A common resource used for standards is metal. In early empires and recent nations, gold and/or silver
Aristotle believes that there are two kinds of virtue, one being intellectual and the other being moral virtue. He states that Intellectual virtue comes from being taught meaning we’re not born with it. Moral virtue on the other hand we develop as we grow and gain an understanding of life. “The stone which by nature moves downwards cannot be habituated to move upwards, not even if one tries to train it by throwing it up ten thousand times” (N.E. II.1) Right there he is talking about how if you are designed to do one thing, it is impossible to do the opposite no matter how hard you force it. He talks about how we gain our virtues by practicing them and using them on a regular basis. That is how we learn
Aristotle was one of the most important western philosophers. He was a student of Plato and the teacher of Alexander the Great. He wrote on many subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, politics, government, ethics, biology, and zoology. I found that his biggest impacts on modern society were in the subject areas of ethics, and zoology.
This essay is going to address what money means and its relation to inequality in society.
A: All societies have some form of money because it makes economic transactions much more convenient and efficient. The purpose of money can be simplified into two main concepts including unit of account and store of value. Money serves as a unit of account which means
truths, and forms. He had no room in his views for imagination and what he saw