This paper reviews Aristotle’s problematic relationship with modern economic theory. It argues that in terms of value and income distribution theory, Aristotle should probably be seen as a precursor to neither classical nor neoclassical economic thought. Indeed, there are strong arguments to be made that Aristotle’s views are completely at odds with all modern economic theory, since, among other things, he was not necessarily concerned with flexible market prices, opposed the use of money to acquire more money, and did not (...) think that the unintended consequences of human activity were generally beneficial. The paper argues however, that this interpretation goes too far. The Benthamite neoclassical theory of choice can be seen as a dumbing down of Aristotle’s theory, applicable to animals, not humans. Adam Smith and Karl Marx were deeply influenced by Aristotle’s work and both started their main economic works with Aristotle: Smith ultimately rejecting, and Marx ultimately developing Aristotle’s views of the use of money to acquire more money. Possibilities for the future development of a new Aristotelian Economics are explored. (shrink)

Aristotle’s thoughts on economic matters are included in his inquiry into the nature of politics. They are certainly ancillary to his thoughts on the education requisite for excellence. Yet this ranking should not cause one to overlook Aristotle’s contributions to the field of normative political economy. To appreciate these contributions, it is helpful to look to the scholarship on Aristotle’s political economy. In this essay such an inquiry is approached through categorizing the scholarship into three stages or waves of interpretation: (...) 1) ‘Aristotle’s Economic Thought’, 2) ‘Aristotle’s “Political” Economy’,, and 3) ‘Aristotle on the Best Possible Political Economy’. The overall goal of this essay is to provide an account of the stages by which it might be useful to think through Aristotle’s political economy. (shrink)

Realism has been a central object of attention among analytical philosophers for some decades. Starting from analytical philosophy, the return of realism has spread into other contemporary philosophical traditions and given birth to new trends in current discussions, as for example in the debates about “new realism.” Discussions about realism focused on linguistic meaning, epistemology, metaphysics, theory of action and ethics. The implications for politics of discussion about realism in action theory and in ethics, however, are not much discussed.

Business ethicists draw extensively on Aristotle’s work in defining the purpose of the business corporation. Insights from ancient authors can be valuable in illuminating contemporary issues, but we should be wary of enlisting their authority for our views without paying careful attention to what they might have intended by what they said in their own social and economic context. Business ethicists have argued that the business corporation should be a community within which its members can live a good life; that (...) its purpose should not be to maximise profits; and that it should integrate itself into a range of wider communities beyond its own boundaries and serve their interests. Aristotle would have agreed that the business corporation should not seek to make as much profit as possible, although he might have accepted that – in the light of modern developments in economic management - it should make enough profit to fund projects that would be beneficial to society. Aristotle’s view that the polis provided the setting in which people could best live a good life does not justify the claim that the business corporation can or should serve a similar purpose. Aristotle believed that people should strive for enough and not too much in several contexts, not only in acquiring wealth, but also in defining the size and scope of the community of which they should be members. Some expansive, contemporary views on the communities into which the business corporation should integrate itself are alien to Aristotle’s thinking. (shrink)

I argue that Aristotle's approach to the proper type of acquisition, use-value, want, and accumulation/storage of wealth is oriented less to excluding commercial activity, such as that of Aristotle's Athens, than to forestalling misordered concupiscence – the taking of an inherendy limited good for the unlimited, or highest, good. That is, his moral aversion to taking a means for an end lies behind his rendering of the sort of wealth that is natural. By stressing the limited nature of natural wealth, (...) Aristode distinguishes such wealth qua limited from an artificial unlimited desire for profit in order to drive home his point that wealth ought not be taken as an objective good. (shrink)

To be monetised, a society requires a unit which measures the values of a wide range of goods. Being thus measurable, the values of goods are mutually commensurable, a point which Aristotle theorised in the _Nicomachean Ethics_ (Book V). But whereas Aristotle gives rise to the impression that the stipulation of a currency unit suffices to make goods commensurable, societies themselves must undergo a process of commensurabilisation whereby people become habituated to valuing goods in terms of a unit of value. (...) This essay examines the development of practices of valuation and commensurability in ancient Greece, paying particular attention to the rule of Solon and his division of the citizenry into census classes according to their yearly income. The assessment of citizens’ income presupposes a unit for measuring income. The stipulation of this unit, it is argued, had a decisive influence in developing practices of valuation and commensurability. (shrink)

This article considers what St. Augustine has to say about administration in The City of God, as well as in The Rule of St. Augustine and in Of the Work of Monks. Rather than focusin...

In just proportional exchange, under Aristotle's theory of reciprocal justice, superior sharers in a community materially assist the weaker, and receive honour as a reward. Aristotle's economic thought is represented with a system of 18 formulae. Explained are: (1) What Aristotle means when he says that it is impossible for two sharers or their erga to be commensurable; (2) The extent to which the variables in Aristotle's proportions can be quantified. (3) What diagonal pairing ( ?ατ δ? ??τ?o? σ ??????) (...) is; (4) How need makes sharers and their erga ?sufficiently' commensurable; and (5) Aristotle's theory of what is just in exchange. (shrink)

The paper explores a general framework for thinking about the idea of the just price. The approach is grounded in a basic aspect of the nature of exchange, namely, that the latter usually occurs when both parties believe they will be better off as a result. Put differently, an exchange is normally performed because both parties stand to gain something from it. The distributive question that arises from this observation is how one ought to divide such gains. The connection with (...) the idea of the just price is not necessarily an obvious one, yet it is relatively straightforward. Assuming that an exchange involves money, the price at which two agents transact will correspond to a specific division of the gains from the transaction. Conversely, any specification of a fair division of the gains from exchange individuates a specific price as the just or fair price. The paper analyzes the main features of this approach to the determination of the just price, explains one of its main virtues, defends it against an alleged weakness and criticizes as inadequate two of its traditional interpretations. The upshot of the discussion is that while the idea that the just price of a transaction depends on how the latter divides the gains from exchange does not suffer from general flaws and is in fact characterized by an important good making feature, the two principal ways in which it has been deployed are implausible. (shrink)

Práce si klade za cíl porovnat vliv filosofického učení na pokrok společnosti a hospodářství s ohledem na vliv náboženství. Vliv filosofie je studován na historickém vývoji společnosti ve starověku a středověku. Jde o období, které bylo nejvíc ovlivněno náboženskými změnami, které vedly k různému společenskému vývoji v závislosti na volnosti v rozhodování. Tato teze je postupně doložena na vývoji antického Řecka, starověké Číny, arabského světa a středověké katolické Evropy. Tyto regiony procházely obdobími hospodářského vzestupu a úpadku podle toho, nakolik se (...) filosofii dařilo držet odstup od náboženských zásahů. Na vývoji Evropy je zároveň poukázáno na fakt, jakým způsobem znalosti antiky procházely dějinami přes jednotlivé regiony, které kladou důraz na rozvoj člověka. (shrink)

The second half of the Fourth Century B.C. was a time of crisis for Greek city states. Aristotle lived through this crisis. He began to reflect on the ideal organization of the polis. In his analyses of ethics (Nicomachean Ethics: NE) and of politics (Politics: P), can be found the conceptual framework for the socio-economic organization of the polis in light of its “development crisis”. In these texts Aristotle distinguishes himself from practitioners of political economics (as, for example, Isocrates and (...) Xenophon) by declaring what could be called the socio-economic paradigm of a school theoretician. (shrink)

Aristotle holds that there must be multiple forms of human being and those forms constitute a genos, this paper argues. Aristotle advances his claim by arguing that the strength of a polis rests on the existence of a spectrum of useful essential differences among its citizens. The paper rejects the notion that eîdos is a homonym, and argues that it signifies `form,' not `species.' Its theses are based on analysis of passages in the Ethics, Metaphysics, Politics and other works. The (...) argument of the paper is compatible with `individual' or `particular' forms. The paper also proposes a solution to the issue of `natural slavery.'. (shrink)

A finales del siglo XVIII, tras la publicación de La Riqueza de las Naciones, se consolida un cambio de paradigma en el modo de concebir la economía, caracterizado por una progresiva “naturalización” o “despersonalización”, que es comúnmente aceptado como la génesis de la ciencia económica. Desde esta perspectiva, la economía se considera un proceso necesario que responde a leyes tan objetivas como las de la física; “descubrirlas” sería la tarea propia del economista. El presente trabajo cuestiona esta visión apodíctica a (...) través de una aproximación a la concepción de la actividad económica en los mismos orígenes del pensamiento filosófico –puntualmente, en las posturas platónica y aristotélica, dos propuestas originales que conforman la génesis del pensamiento económico– con el objeto de mostrar que existe una estrecha relación entre una noción de economía y la concepción antropológica subyacente. In the late eighteenth century, following the publication of The Wealth of Nations, a paradigm shift emerged in the concept of the economy, characterized by a progressive “naturalization” or “depersonalization”, which is commonly accepted as the genesis of economics. From this perspective, the economy is considered a necessary process that responds to laws that are as objective as physical laws and "discovering them" becomes the economist’s proper task. This article challenges this apodictic view through an approach to the conception of economic activity in the very origins of philosophical thought – specifically in Plato and Aristotle, who both offered original proposals that structure the origin of the economic thought. This article thus aims to show that there is a close relationship between the notion of economy and the underlying anthropological conception. (shrink)