Aristotle And The Columbian Exchange

Aristotle’s argument focuses on the evils of currency and ultimately offers a system that allows for greater equality. Aristotle argues first that currency was created merely out of convenience since not all “commodities were not easily portable” (Aristotle, 129). This suggests that he at minimum understands that many can see currency as necessary, which is why he must create such a strong argument against it. His main argument against this “art of acquisition” is that it perverts the purpose of commodities, in that objects do not have the express purpose of being worth an exact value as opposed to having the explicit purpose of giving someone food (Aristotle, 129). This means that he opposes currency because it seems to violate the nature …show more content…
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