First, there is the issue of the purpose of money. All three thinkers addressed agreed that currency emerged out of convenience. It became easier to trade using money than bartering because it facilitated both long distance trading (Aristotle, 129) and general long-term savings (Locke, 97) (Taleqani, 90). This means that money essentially takes over as commodities and serves as a long-term placeholder. Since there is general agreement throughout the traditions, the paper will accept that as its purpose. The next issue at play is what is the purpose of commodities. For Aristotle, commodities have two purposes: to be used as intended and to be traded, but not to be sold (Aristotle, 128). However, if this is his basis for rejecting currency, this is not valid. Currency is essentially an extended form of bartering. By trading for money you are ultimately trading for some commodity (or commodities) later on. Taleqani argues that commodities should only help people (Taleqani, 90). However, based on the analysis earlier in this paper, this premise can be rejected as being far to subjective. This leaves us with Locke’s concept of the purpose of commodities. He never explicitly states his position on their purpose, but it can be inferred that he believes their purpose is to serve as property and help the owners (Locke, 91). This suggests that commodities are personal and can be used in whatever way is most useful for the person who possesses it. This is because in Locke’s view the world was given to men “for their benefit and the greatest conveniences” (Locke, 91). Unlike the previous two views, there is neither faulty logic nor is it too subjective. It provides a general rule for all objects, not just some. This view on commodities and objects allows for a universal ethic, which is why it is the best way to approach this
First, there is the issue of the purpose of money. All three thinkers addressed agreed that currency emerged out of convenience. It became easier to trade using money than bartering because it facilitated both long distance trading (Aristotle, 129) and general long-term savings (Locke, 97) (Taleqani, 90). This means that money essentially takes over as commodities and serves as a long-term placeholder. Since there is general agreement throughout the traditions, the paper will accept that as its purpose. The next issue at play is what is the purpose of commodities. For Aristotle, commodities have two purposes: to be used as intended and to be traded, but not to be sold (Aristotle, 128). However, if this is his basis for rejecting currency, this is not valid. Currency is essentially an extended form of bartering. By trading for money you are ultimately trading for some commodity (or commodities) later on. Taleqani argues that commodities should only help people (Taleqani, 90). However, based on the analysis earlier in this paper, this premise can be rejected as being far to subjective. This leaves us with Locke’s concept of the purpose of commodities. He never explicitly states his position on their purpose, but it can be inferred that he believes their purpose is to serve as property and help the owners (Locke, 91). This suggests that commodities are personal and can be used in whatever way is most useful for the person who possesses it. This is because in Locke’s view the world was given to men “for their benefit and the greatest conveniences” (Locke, 91). Unlike the previous two views, there is neither faulty logic nor is it too subjective. It provides a general rule for all objects, not just some. This view on commodities and objects allows for a universal ethic, which is why it is the best way to approach this