What Money Is and Ought To Be

Authors

  • David G. Dick University of Calgary

Keywords:

money, ethics, social ontology, teleology, currency, Aristotle, John Locke, chartalism

Abstract

Teleological thinking about money reasons from what money is for to both how it ought to be used and what forms it should take. One type, found in Aristotle’s argument against usury, takes teleological considerations alone to decisively settle normative questions. Another type, found in Locke’s argument about monetary durability, takes teleological considerations to contribute to the settling of normative questions, but sees them as one consideration among many. This paper endorses the type made by Locke while rejecting the type made by Aristotle, and identifies further teleological tendencies in the work of Adam Smith and other philosophers.

References

Alcantara, C., and C. Dick. 2017. “Decolonization in a Digital Age: Cryptocurrencies and Indigenous Self-Determination in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Law & Society/La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société 32: 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2017.1

Bentham, J. 1818. Defence of Usury. London: Payne and Foss.

Davies, G. 1996. A History of Money. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

Douglas, A. 2015. The Philosophy of Debt. Oxford, New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315681009

Fleischacker, S. 2009. On Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations: A Philosophical Companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400826056

Freeland, C. 1994. “Nourishing Speculation: A Feminist Reading of Aristotelian Science.” In Engendering Origins: Critical Feminist Readings in Plato and Aristotle, edited by BAB On, 145–88. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Fitzpatrick, S., and M. K. Stephen. 2019. “Banking on Stone Money: Ancient Antecedents to Bitcoin.” Economic Anthropology 7: 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/sea2.12154

Gillilland, C. 1975. “The Stone Money of Yap: A Numismatic Survey.” InSmithsonian Studies in History and Technology. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Graeber, D. 2012. Debt: The First 5000 Years. Brooklyn: Melville House.

Guala, F. 2010. “Infallibilism and Human Kinds.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 40: 244–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393109343114

Guala, F. 2016. Understanding Institutions: The Science and Philosophy of Living Together. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400880911

Hindriks, F., and F. Guala. 2015. “Institutions, Rules, and Equilibria: A Unified Theory.” Journal of Institutional Economics 1: 459–80. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137414000496

Hindriks, F., and F. Guala. 2019. “The Functions of Institutions: Etiology and Teleology.” Synthese, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02188-8.

Hubbs, G. 2019. “On the Question ‘What Is Money?’” In Philosophy, Politics & Economics Society Annual Conference. New Orleans: Philosophy Politics & Economics Society.

Ingham, G. 2004. The Nature of Money. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Kelly, P. 1991. Locke on Money: Volume I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Khalidi, M. 2015. “Three Kinds of Social Kinds.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 90: 96–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12020

Knapp, G. 1924. The State Theory of Money. London: MacMillan and Company.

Langholm, O. 1984. The Aristotelian Analysis of Usury. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget AS.

Liddell, H., R. Scott, and H. Jones. 1940. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.

Locke, J. 1980. Second Treatise of Government (1690). Indianapolis: Hackett.

Mankiw, N. G. 2009. Macroeconomics, 7th ed. New York: Worth Publishers.

McKeon, R., ed. 1941. The Basic Works of Aristotle. New York: Random House.

Meikle, S. 1994. “Aristotle on Money.” Phronesis 39: 26–44. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203072691.ch8

Meyer, M. 2018. “The Right to Credit.” Journal of Political Philosophy 26: 304–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12138

Salmon, F. 2009. “When Banknotes Expire.” Also available at http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/22/when-banknotes-expire/.

Searle, J. 1995. The Construction of Social Reality. New York: The Free Press.

Scharding, T. 2019. “National Currency, World Currency, Cryptocurrency: A Fichtean Approach to the Ethics of Bitcoin.” Business and Society Review 124: 219–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12169

Silverstein, M. 2016. “Teleology and Normativity.” Oxford Studies in Metaethics 11: 214–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198784647.003.0009

Smit, J. P., F. Buekens, and S. Du Plessis. 2011. “What Is Money? An Alternative to Searle’s Institutional Facts.” Economics and Philosophy 27: 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267110000441

Smit, J. P., F. Buekens, and S. Du Plessis. 2014. “Developing the Incentivized Action View of Institutional Reality.” Synthese 191: 1813–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-013-0370-5

Smit, J. P., F. Buekens, and S. Du Plessis. 2016. “Cigarettes, Dollars and Bitcoins–An Essay on the Ontology of Money.” Journal of Institutional Economics 12: 327–47. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137415000405

Smith, A. 1976. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. New York: Oxford University Press.

Thomson, J. 2008. Normativity. Chicago: Open Court.

Yermack, D. 2013. “Is Bitcoin a Real Currency? An Economic Appraisal.” In National Bureau of Economic Research Working Papers (2013). Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w19747 https://doi.org/10.3386/w19747

Downloads

Published

2022-03-01

Issue

Section

Symposium on Money, Edited by Frank Hindriks and Joakim Sandberg