Are there moral objections to a life motivated purely by money? How to sway a person from this lifestyle? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Name for this kind of justiceWould Kant choose to sacrifice one life to save another?Understanding of PrideIn Kant's ethics, is it allowed to be richer than other people?How objective can morality be?Is there a name for this meta-moral philosophy?Objections to moral nihilism based on argument from evolution?How can one reconcile moral objection to wage slavery with the societial need for money?ethics for discriminatedHow should I live when there are so many moral philosophies?

What is the term for a person whose job is to place products on shelves in stores?

Is Diceware more secure than a long passphrase?

Raising a bilingual kid. When should we introduce the majority language?

Is Electric Central Heating worth it if using Solar Panels?

With indentation set to `0em`, when using a line break, there is still an indentation of a size of a space

What do you call the part of a novel that is not dialog?

How to use @AuraEnabled base class method in Lightning Component?

All ASCII characters with a given bit count

Married in secret, can marital status in passport be changed at a later date?

My admission is revoked after accepting the admission offer

What is the ongoing value of the Kanban board to the developers as opposed to management

Protagonist's race is hidden - should I reveal it?

Will I lose my paid in full property

Second order approximation of the loss function (Deep learning book, 7.33)

How to avoid introduction cliches

What is /etc/mtab in Linux?

Is a 5 watt UHF/VHF handheld considered QRP?

What was Apollo 13's "Little Jolt" after MECO?

Multiple options vs single option UI

The art of proof summarizing. Are there known rules, or is it a purely common sense matter?

Putting Ant-Man on house arrest

Why didn't the Space Shuttle bounce back into space as many times as possible so as to lose a lot of kinetic energy up there?

PIC mathematical operations weird problem

Suing a Police Officer Instead of the Police Department



Are there moral objections to a life motivated purely by money? How to sway a person from this lifestyle?



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Name for this kind of justiceWould Kant choose to sacrifice one life to save another?Understanding of PrideIn Kant's ethics, is it allowed to be richer than other people?How objective can morality be?Is there a name for this meta-moral philosophy?Objections to moral nihilism based on argument from evolution?How can one reconcile moral objection to wage slavery with the societial need for money?ethics for discriminatedHow should I live when there are so many moral philosophies?










3















Let’s say there’s a person, Z. Z has decided that his goal in life is to get as much money as possible, and at the end, to upload his consciousness into a robot/computer to live forever in his fortunes.



Hence, he eschews all romantic relationships and all thoughts of having a family or children, as he considers them a waste of time. He also doesn’t care about how other people view him (to the extent that they don’t kill him out of hatred, so no huge obvious scandals or anything), so he won’t donate to charity or spend all his money on “frivolous luxuries” like cars, mansions or fashion, or try to become admired, loved, or famous (unless of course it gets him more money)



The only thing that drives him is watching his bank account number going up. If making friends with finance people will make his wealth grow faster, he will make friends with finance people. If going into politics will make him wealthier, he will do so. If starting a reality TV show about his life will increase his wealth, he will start a reality TV show. If marginalizing some group will make him money, he will—- but however, if marginalizing that group of people will cause his business to fail more than it gains or something (at least so far as he can predict), he will not do it. And etcetera.



  1. Are there any moral/philosophical objections to this kind of life? Any social, practical, economic, etc. concerns?

  2. More importantly: Are there reasons/Is it right to convince Person Z to not follow this lifestyle? I don’t think that the Aristotle writings would change Z’s mind.

  3. Is there any degree of wealth where the person who is wealthy is inevitably harmed by his riches? If no, does that mean that there is no way to convince a rich person to give money away?

Sorry if I worded it badly, I can elaborate on whatever you need.



edit: This is not based off of Trump. Person Z does not care about power or popularity or appreciation from a fanbase or pornstars, nor does he care about spending any of his money beyond necessities and small luxuries and further money making schemes; he just wants to live forever with as much money as possible










share|improve this question









New contributor




user39404 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 2





    Seems like a very impoverished life. But if this is supposed to be modeled on Trump, it is off. People who are said to "only care about money" actually care about something else that the money brings: luxury, self-indulgence, ego-stroking, lack of material concerns, power, popularity, etc. There are of course objections from the point of view of standard moral systems with typical virtues, or values, or rules, but that is obvious, so it is a little unclear what you are looking for.

    – Conifold
    6 hours ago






  • 1





    Everyone is running their own race. I see no eason why devoting oneself to the accumulation of wealth would be any different from devoting oneself to any other thing. Though personally.devotion to a single purpose seems wasteful.

    – Richard
    6 hours ago











  • Your second question is off-topic here. We cannot give you personal advice how to convince someone to pursue a certain lifestyle

    – Eliran
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    Regardless of motives, the malignant pursuit of wealth consumes far too much in natural resources, depriving others of shelter, food, water, clean air and soil, etc. It drives inflation, because of the shortage of resources which have been wasted or hoarded by the wealthy. It promotes pollution and destroys the very structure of the planet because of all the mining, transportation, technology, commerce, and industry involved in profiteering. It promotes human trafficking for cheap labor. It's an offense against both God (or Nature) and the human species. It has no redeeming qualities.

    – Bread
    4 hours ago







  • 1





    @user39404 I'm sorry, but I thought this was an ethics question asking about moral objections. Yet, how can it not be harmful for someone who destroys his own society and environment? Are we to believe that such a person could be at all healthy, being completely detached from everything but himself?

    – Bread
    4 hours ago















3















Let’s say there’s a person, Z. Z has decided that his goal in life is to get as much money as possible, and at the end, to upload his consciousness into a robot/computer to live forever in his fortunes.



Hence, he eschews all romantic relationships and all thoughts of having a family or children, as he considers them a waste of time. He also doesn’t care about how other people view him (to the extent that they don’t kill him out of hatred, so no huge obvious scandals or anything), so he won’t donate to charity or spend all his money on “frivolous luxuries” like cars, mansions or fashion, or try to become admired, loved, or famous (unless of course it gets him more money)



The only thing that drives him is watching his bank account number going up. If making friends with finance people will make his wealth grow faster, he will make friends with finance people. If going into politics will make him wealthier, he will do so. If starting a reality TV show about his life will increase his wealth, he will start a reality TV show. If marginalizing some group will make him money, he will—- but however, if marginalizing that group of people will cause his business to fail more than it gains or something (at least so far as he can predict), he will not do it. And etcetera.



  1. Are there any moral/philosophical objections to this kind of life? Any social, practical, economic, etc. concerns?

  2. More importantly: Are there reasons/Is it right to convince Person Z to not follow this lifestyle? I don’t think that the Aristotle writings would change Z’s mind.

  3. Is there any degree of wealth where the person who is wealthy is inevitably harmed by his riches? If no, does that mean that there is no way to convince a rich person to give money away?

Sorry if I worded it badly, I can elaborate on whatever you need.



edit: This is not based off of Trump. Person Z does not care about power or popularity or appreciation from a fanbase or pornstars, nor does he care about spending any of his money beyond necessities and small luxuries and further money making schemes; he just wants to live forever with as much money as possible










share|improve this question









New contributor




user39404 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 2





    Seems like a very impoverished life. But if this is supposed to be modeled on Trump, it is off. People who are said to "only care about money" actually care about something else that the money brings: luxury, self-indulgence, ego-stroking, lack of material concerns, power, popularity, etc. There are of course objections from the point of view of standard moral systems with typical virtues, or values, or rules, but that is obvious, so it is a little unclear what you are looking for.

    – Conifold
    6 hours ago






  • 1





    Everyone is running their own race. I see no eason why devoting oneself to the accumulation of wealth would be any different from devoting oneself to any other thing. Though personally.devotion to a single purpose seems wasteful.

    – Richard
    6 hours ago











  • Your second question is off-topic here. We cannot give you personal advice how to convince someone to pursue a certain lifestyle

    – Eliran
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    Regardless of motives, the malignant pursuit of wealth consumes far too much in natural resources, depriving others of shelter, food, water, clean air and soil, etc. It drives inflation, because of the shortage of resources which have been wasted or hoarded by the wealthy. It promotes pollution and destroys the very structure of the planet because of all the mining, transportation, technology, commerce, and industry involved in profiteering. It promotes human trafficking for cheap labor. It's an offense against both God (or Nature) and the human species. It has no redeeming qualities.

    – Bread
    4 hours ago







  • 1





    @user39404 I'm sorry, but I thought this was an ethics question asking about moral objections. Yet, how can it not be harmful for someone who destroys his own society and environment? Are we to believe that such a person could be at all healthy, being completely detached from everything but himself?

    – Bread
    4 hours ago













3












3








3


1






Let’s say there’s a person, Z. Z has decided that his goal in life is to get as much money as possible, and at the end, to upload his consciousness into a robot/computer to live forever in his fortunes.



Hence, he eschews all romantic relationships and all thoughts of having a family or children, as he considers them a waste of time. He also doesn’t care about how other people view him (to the extent that they don’t kill him out of hatred, so no huge obvious scandals or anything), so he won’t donate to charity or spend all his money on “frivolous luxuries” like cars, mansions or fashion, or try to become admired, loved, or famous (unless of course it gets him more money)



The only thing that drives him is watching his bank account number going up. If making friends with finance people will make his wealth grow faster, he will make friends with finance people. If going into politics will make him wealthier, he will do so. If starting a reality TV show about his life will increase his wealth, he will start a reality TV show. If marginalizing some group will make him money, he will—- but however, if marginalizing that group of people will cause his business to fail more than it gains or something (at least so far as he can predict), he will not do it. And etcetera.



  1. Are there any moral/philosophical objections to this kind of life? Any social, practical, economic, etc. concerns?

  2. More importantly: Are there reasons/Is it right to convince Person Z to not follow this lifestyle? I don’t think that the Aristotle writings would change Z’s mind.

  3. Is there any degree of wealth where the person who is wealthy is inevitably harmed by his riches? If no, does that mean that there is no way to convince a rich person to give money away?

Sorry if I worded it badly, I can elaborate on whatever you need.



edit: This is not based off of Trump. Person Z does not care about power or popularity or appreciation from a fanbase or pornstars, nor does he care about spending any of his money beyond necessities and small luxuries and further money making schemes; he just wants to live forever with as much money as possible










share|improve this question









New contributor




user39404 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












Let’s say there’s a person, Z. Z has decided that his goal in life is to get as much money as possible, and at the end, to upload his consciousness into a robot/computer to live forever in his fortunes.



Hence, he eschews all romantic relationships and all thoughts of having a family or children, as he considers them a waste of time. He also doesn’t care about how other people view him (to the extent that they don’t kill him out of hatred, so no huge obvious scandals or anything), so he won’t donate to charity or spend all his money on “frivolous luxuries” like cars, mansions or fashion, or try to become admired, loved, or famous (unless of course it gets him more money)



The only thing that drives him is watching his bank account number going up. If making friends with finance people will make his wealth grow faster, he will make friends with finance people. If going into politics will make him wealthier, he will do so. If starting a reality TV show about his life will increase his wealth, he will start a reality TV show. If marginalizing some group will make him money, he will—- but however, if marginalizing that group of people will cause his business to fail more than it gains or something (at least so far as he can predict), he will not do it. And etcetera.



  1. Are there any moral/philosophical objections to this kind of life? Any social, practical, economic, etc. concerns?

  2. More importantly: Are there reasons/Is it right to convince Person Z to not follow this lifestyle? I don’t think that the Aristotle writings would change Z’s mind.

  3. Is there any degree of wealth where the person who is wealthy is inevitably harmed by his riches? If no, does that mean that there is no way to convince a rich person to give money away?

Sorry if I worded it badly, I can elaborate on whatever you need.



edit: This is not based off of Trump. Person Z does not care about power or popularity or appreciation from a fanbase or pornstars, nor does he care about spending any of his money beyond necessities and small luxuries and further money making schemes; he just wants to live forever with as much money as possible







ethics






share|improve this question









New contributor




user39404 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




user39404 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 4 hours ago







user39404













New contributor




user39404 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 7 hours ago









user39404user39404

192




192




New contributor




user39404 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





user39404 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






user39404 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 2





    Seems like a very impoverished life. But if this is supposed to be modeled on Trump, it is off. People who are said to "only care about money" actually care about something else that the money brings: luxury, self-indulgence, ego-stroking, lack of material concerns, power, popularity, etc. There are of course objections from the point of view of standard moral systems with typical virtues, or values, or rules, but that is obvious, so it is a little unclear what you are looking for.

    – Conifold
    6 hours ago






  • 1





    Everyone is running their own race. I see no eason why devoting oneself to the accumulation of wealth would be any different from devoting oneself to any other thing. Though personally.devotion to a single purpose seems wasteful.

    – Richard
    6 hours ago











  • Your second question is off-topic here. We cannot give you personal advice how to convince someone to pursue a certain lifestyle

    – Eliran
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    Regardless of motives, the malignant pursuit of wealth consumes far too much in natural resources, depriving others of shelter, food, water, clean air and soil, etc. It drives inflation, because of the shortage of resources which have been wasted or hoarded by the wealthy. It promotes pollution and destroys the very structure of the planet because of all the mining, transportation, technology, commerce, and industry involved in profiteering. It promotes human trafficking for cheap labor. It's an offense against both God (or Nature) and the human species. It has no redeeming qualities.

    – Bread
    4 hours ago







  • 1





    @user39404 I'm sorry, but I thought this was an ethics question asking about moral objections. Yet, how can it not be harmful for someone who destroys his own society and environment? Are we to believe that such a person could be at all healthy, being completely detached from everything but himself?

    – Bread
    4 hours ago












  • 2





    Seems like a very impoverished life. But if this is supposed to be modeled on Trump, it is off. People who are said to "only care about money" actually care about something else that the money brings: luxury, self-indulgence, ego-stroking, lack of material concerns, power, popularity, etc. There are of course objections from the point of view of standard moral systems with typical virtues, or values, or rules, but that is obvious, so it is a little unclear what you are looking for.

    – Conifold
    6 hours ago






  • 1





    Everyone is running their own race. I see no eason why devoting oneself to the accumulation of wealth would be any different from devoting oneself to any other thing. Though personally.devotion to a single purpose seems wasteful.

    – Richard
    6 hours ago











  • Your second question is off-topic here. We cannot give you personal advice how to convince someone to pursue a certain lifestyle

    – Eliran
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    Regardless of motives, the malignant pursuit of wealth consumes far too much in natural resources, depriving others of shelter, food, water, clean air and soil, etc. It drives inflation, because of the shortage of resources which have been wasted or hoarded by the wealthy. It promotes pollution and destroys the very structure of the planet because of all the mining, transportation, technology, commerce, and industry involved in profiteering. It promotes human trafficking for cheap labor. It's an offense against both God (or Nature) and the human species. It has no redeeming qualities.

    – Bread
    4 hours ago







  • 1





    @user39404 I'm sorry, but I thought this was an ethics question asking about moral objections. Yet, how can it not be harmful for someone who destroys his own society and environment? Are we to believe that such a person could be at all healthy, being completely detached from everything but himself?

    – Bread
    4 hours ago







2




2





Seems like a very impoverished life. But if this is supposed to be modeled on Trump, it is off. People who are said to "only care about money" actually care about something else that the money brings: luxury, self-indulgence, ego-stroking, lack of material concerns, power, popularity, etc. There are of course objections from the point of view of standard moral systems with typical virtues, or values, or rules, but that is obvious, so it is a little unclear what you are looking for.

– Conifold
6 hours ago





Seems like a very impoverished life. But if this is supposed to be modeled on Trump, it is off. People who are said to "only care about money" actually care about something else that the money brings: luxury, self-indulgence, ego-stroking, lack of material concerns, power, popularity, etc. There are of course objections from the point of view of standard moral systems with typical virtues, or values, or rules, but that is obvious, so it is a little unclear what you are looking for.

– Conifold
6 hours ago




1




1





Everyone is running their own race. I see no eason why devoting oneself to the accumulation of wealth would be any different from devoting oneself to any other thing. Though personally.devotion to a single purpose seems wasteful.

– Richard
6 hours ago





Everyone is running their own race. I see no eason why devoting oneself to the accumulation of wealth would be any different from devoting oneself to any other thing. Though personally.devotion to a single purpose seems wasteful.

– Richard
6 hours ago













Your second question is off-topic here. We cannot give you personal advice how to convince someone to pursue a certain lifestyle

– Eliran
5 hours ago





Your second question is off-topic here. We cannot give you personal advice how to convince someone to pursue a certain lifestyle

– Eliran
5 hours ago




1




1





Regardless of motives, the malignant pursuit of wealth consumes far too much in natural resources, depriving others of shelter, food, water, clean air and soil, etc. It drives inflation, because of the shortage of resources which have been wasted or hoarded by the wealthy. It promotes pollution and destroys the very structure of the planet because of all the mining, transportation, technology, commerce, and industry involved in profiteering. It promotes human trafficking for cheap labor. It's an offense against both God (or Nature) and the human species. It has no redeeming qualities.

– Bread
4 hours ago






Regardless of motives, the malignant pursuit of wealth consumes far too much in natural resources, depriving others of shelter, food, water, clean air and soil, etc. It drives inflation, because of the shortage of resources which have been wasted or hoarded by the wealthy. It promotes pollution and destroys the very structure of the planet because of all the mining, transportation, technology, commerce, and industry involved in profiteering. It promotes human trafficking for cheap labor. It's an offense against both God (or Nature) and the human species. It has no redeeming qualities.

– Bread
4 hours ago





1




1





@user39404 I'm sorry, but I thought this was an ethics question asking about moral objections. Yet, how can it not be harmful for someone who destroys his own society and environment? Are we to believe that such a person could be at all healthy, being completely detached from everything but himself?

– Bread
4 hours ago





@user39404 I'm sorry, but I thought this was an ethics question asking about moral objections. Yet, how can it not be harmful for someone who destroys his own society and environment? Are we to believe that such a person could be at all healthy, being completely detached from everything but himself?

– Bread
4 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















4














Yes (well assuming you're using "moral" in any of the normal senses).



Aristotle objected to this in Book I of the Nicomachean Ethics.



In chapter 5, Aristotle suggests there are three candidates for the "good life":



  1. Pleasure

  2. Honor

  3. Virtue

He then as an aside says the following:




The life of money-making is one undertaken under compulsion, and wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking; for it is merely useful and for the sake of something else. And so one might rather take the aforenamed objects to be ends; for they are loved for themselves. But it is evident that not even these are ends; yet many arguments have been thrown away in support of them. Let us leave this subject, then (Nicomachean Ethics BK I.5)




At least on Aristotle's read, it makes no sense to make money the goal, because money is a tool used to acquire other things. In which case, money is not the goal -- it is the tool one sees as necessary to whatever one thinks the goal is. (to be more precise, money can only be an intermediate and not a final end, because it cannot logically be pursued for the sake of itself)



Stated another way, a logical (and perhaps moral) objection is that the pursuit of money for money's sake is an act of sheer idiocy. Money only has value in exchange for something.



  • If the goal is to buy things, then it may be that money is actually being accumulated for pleasure.

  • If the goal is to receive honor because you have a lot of money, then that's the goal (a billionaire's life is not materially altered by adding another billion, but the fame of having a growing fortune could be someone's end).

  • If the goal is to have what is necessary for virtue (and enough things to live a life of relative ease are necessary for Aristotle's picture) then that's the real goal.


In an interesting way, Aristotle captures the later objections that could be raised by utilitarians -- since they would see pleasure ("happiness") as the goal.






share|improve this answer























  • i wasn't sure this question was broad enough, but it made me laugh, so thanks

    – another_name
    6 hours ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "265"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);






user39404 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f63095%2fare-there-moral-objections-to-a-life-motivated-purely-by-money-how-to-sway-a-pe%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









4














Yes (well assuming you're using "moral" in any of the normal senses).



Aristotle objected to this in Book I of the Nicomachean Ethics.



In chapter 5, Aristotle suggests there are three candidates for the "good life":



  1. Pleasure

  2. Honor

  3. Virtue

He then as an aside says the following:




The life of money-making is one undertaken under compulsion, and wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking; for it is merely useful and for the sake of something else. And so one might rather take the aforenamed objects to be ends; for they are loved for themselves. But it is evident that not even these are ends; yet many arguments have been thrown away in support of them. Let us leave this subject, then (Nicomachean Ethics BK I.5)




At least on Aristotle's read, it makes no sense to make money the goal, because money is a tool used to acquire other things. In which case, money is not the goal -- it is the tool one sees as necessary to whatever one thinks the goal is. (to be more precise, money can only be an intermediate and not a final end, because it cannot logically be pursued for the sake of itself)



Stated another way, a logical (and perhaps moral) objection is that the pursuit of money for money's sake is an act of sheer idiocy. Money only has value in exchange for something.



  • If the goal is to buy things, then it may be that money is actually being accumulated for pleasure.

  • If the goal is to receive honor because you have a lot of money, then that's the goal (a billionaire's life is not materially altered by adding another billion, but the fame of having a growing fortune could be someone's end).

  • If the goal is to have what is necessary for virtue (and enough things to live a life of relative ease are necessary for Aristotle's picture) then that's the real goal.


In an interesting way, Aristotle captures the later objections that could be raised by utilitarians -- since they would see pleasure ("happiness") as the goal.






share|improve this answer























  • i wasn't sure this question was broad enough, but it made me laugh, so thanks

    – another_name
    6 hours ago















4














Yes (well assuming you're using "moral" in any of the normal senses).



Aristotle objected to this in Book I of the Nicomachean Ethics.



In chapter 5, Aristotle suggests there are three candidates for the "good life":



  1. Pleasure

  2. Honor

  3. Virtue

He then as an aside says the following:




The life of money-making is one undertaken under compulsion, and wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking; for it is merely useful and for the sake of something else. And so one might rather take the aforenamed objects to be ends; for they are loved for themselves. But it is evident that not even these are ends; yet many arguments have been thrown away in support of them. Let us leave this subject, then (Nicomachean Ethics BK I.5)




At least on Aristotle's read, it makes no sense to make money the goal, because money is a tool used to acquire other things. In which case, money is not the goal -- it is the tool one sees as necessary to whatever one thinks the goal is. (to be more precise, money can only be an intermediate and not a final end, because it cannot logically be pursued for the sake of itself)



Stated another way, a logical (and perhaps moral) objection is that the pursuit of money for money's sake is an act of sheer idiocy. Money only has value in exchange for something.



  • If the goal is to buy things, then it may be that money is actually being accumulated for pleasure.

  • If the goal is to receive honor because you have a lot of money, then that's the goal (a billionaire's life is not materially altered by adding another billion, but the fame of having a growing fortune could be someone's end).

  • If the goal is to have what is necessary for virtue (and enough things to live a life of relative ease are necessary for Aristotle's picture) then that's the real goal.


In an interesting way, Aristotle captures the later objections that could be raised by utilitarians -- since they would see pleasure ("happiness") as the goal.






share|improve this answer























  • i wasn't sure this question was broad enough, but it made me laugh, so thanks

    – another_name
    6 hours ago













4












4








4







Yes (well assuming you're using "moral" in any of the normal senses).



Aristotle objected to this in Book I of the Nicomachean Ethics.



In chapter 5, Aristotle suggests there are three candidates for the "good life":



  1. Pleasure

  2. Honor

  3. Virtue

He then as an aside says the following:




The life of money-making is one undertaken under compulsion, and wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking; for it is merely useful and for the sake of something else. And so one might rather take the aforenamed objects to be ends; for they are loved for themselves. But it is evident that not even these are ends; yet many arguments have been thrown away in support of them. Let us leave this subject, then (Nicomachean Ethics BK I.5)




At least on Aristotle's read, it makes no sense to make money the goal, because money is a tool used to acquire other things. In which case, money is not the goal -- it is the tool one sees as necessary to whatever one thinks the goal is. (to be more precise, money can only be an intermediate and not a final end, because it cannot logically be pursued for the sake of itself)



Stated another way, a logical (and perhaps moral) objection is that the pursuit of money for money's sake is an act of sheer idiocy. Money only has value in exchange for something.



  • If the goal is to buy things, then it may be that money is actually being accumulated for pleasure.

  • If the goal is to receive honor because you have a lot of money, then that's the goal (a billionaire's life is not materially altered by adding another billion, but the fame of having a growing fortune could be someone's end).

  • If the goal is to have what is necessary for virtue (and enough things to live a life of relative ease are necessary for Aristotle's picture) then that's the real goal.


In an interesting way, Aristotle captures the later objections that could be raised by utilitarians -- since they would see pleasure ("happiness") as the goal.






share|improve this answer













Yes (well assuming you're using "moral" in any of the normal senses).



Aristotle objected to this in Book I of the Nicomachean Ethics.



In chapter 5, Aristotle suggests there are three candidates for the "good life":



  1. Pleasure

  2. Honor

  3. Virtue

He then as an aside says the following:




The life of money-making is one undertaken under compulsion, and wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking; for it is merely useful and for the sake of something else. And so one might rather take the aforenamed objects to be ends; for they are loved for themselves. But it is evident that not even these are ends; yet many arguments have been thrown away in support of them. Let us leave this subject, then (Nicomachean Ethics BK I.5)




At least on Aristotle's read, it makes no sense to make money the goal, because money is a tool used to acquire other things. In which case, money is not the goal -- it is the tool one sees as necessary to whatever one thinks the goal is. (to be more precise, money can only be an intermediate and not a final end, because it cannot logically be pursued for the sake of itself)



Stated another way, a logical (and perhaps moral) objection is that the pursuit of money for money's sake is an act of sheer idiocy. Money only has value in exchange for something.



  • If the goal is to buy things, then it may be that money is actually being accumulated for pleasure.

  • If the goal is to receive honor because you have a lot of money, then that's the goal (a billionaire's life is not materially altered by adding another billion, but the fame of having a growing fortune could be someone's end).

  • If the goal is to have what is necessary for virtue (and enough things to live a life of relative ease are necessary for Aristotle's picture) then that's the real goal.


In an interesting way, Aristotle captures the later objections that could be raised by utilitarians -- since they would see pleasure ("happiness") as the goal.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 6 hours ago









virmaiorvirmaior

25.5k33997




25.5k33997












  • i wasn't sure this question was broad enough, but it made me laugh, so thanks

    – another_name
    6 hours ago

















  • i wasn't sure this question was broad enough, but it made me laugh, so thanks

    – another_name
    6 hours ago
















i wasn't sure this question was broad enough, but it made me laugh, so thanks

– another_name
6 hours ago





i wasn't sure this question was broad enough, but it made me laugh, so thanks

– another_name
6 hours ago










user39404 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















user39404 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












user39404 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











user39404 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f63095%2fare-there-moral-objections-to-a-life-motivated-purely-by-money-how-to-sway-a-pe%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Nidaros erkebispedøme

Birsay

Was Woodrow Wilson really a Liberal?Was World War I a war of liberals against authoritarians?Founding Fathers...