Aristotle and Locke Comparative Discussion on Property

The most radical pee-pee of proportion therefore arises from the need to provide the most basic human needs, or in the form of acquisition to achieve subsistence, or to allow for purposes of what Aristotle calls household management what "suffices for a near life" (Aristotle 21). But because contrastive types of human beings live different ways of life, the modes of property acquisition for subsistence purposes also differ. Aristotle cites five much(prenominal) basic modes of subsistence-centered property acquisition, which in the case of some groups may overlap and converge: "the pastoral, the farming, the freebooting, the fishing, and the life of the chase" (20).

Subsistence by its accept nature implies the acquisition of limited property, or that which is merely comfortable for life and well-being. Aristotle then moves on to discuss property that is twain potentially unlimited in its amount and finesseificial kind of than natural. Such property is achieved through some medium of exchange, so that the care for of property is not its instrumentality or utility-grade however rather an aspect of exchange, at the expense of sensation and for the profit of another p fine arty to the exchange. The medium of or design for this artificial exchange is capital, or as Aristotle puts it, currency, which of itself is "useless for any of the necessary purposes of life" (Aristotle 25). He connects these concepts with a view toward display how m

?13. It is a further particular of difference that the wealth produced by this latter(prenominal) form of the art of acquisition is unlimited. . . . There is no limit to the finish up it seeks; and the end it seeks is wealth of the sort we have mentioned (Aristotle, 25-26).

, trans. The Politics of Aristotle. By Aristotle. Ed. Ernest Barker. revolutionary York: Oxford U P, 1958.

The (natural] art of acquisition, and natural wealth, are different. The [natural] form of the art of acquisition is connected with the management of the household [which in loose is connected with the general acquisition of all the resources needed for its life]; but the other form is . . .

concerned only with getting a fund of money, and that only by the method of conducting the exchange of commodities. This latter form may be held to turn on the force-out of currency; for currency is the starting-point, as it is also the goal, of exchange.

oney and its acquisition, despite the position that this view of property acquisition is ethically a " trim down" (26) and "unnecessary" (27) form, has nevertheless become the measure of wealth.

Instead of describing money as an instrument of exchange that is of a lower orderliness than exchange of goods for subsistence, Locke connects the emergence of money to the added value that labor contributes to the drill of exchange and to the shared understanding of not only where value lies but of who controls specific proprietary valuations:

Locke concentrates more on property as an intrinsic good. Private property as a rational concept, within the context of public authority as rational concept, arises, in Locke's view, out of the (very private) rational capacity of the man-to-man as applied to what is otherwise acknowledged to be unwashed or public property. Further, Locke's discussion of the right of property intersects with a discussion of money and of the wider political or social community.

[T]hough the things o nature are given in common, yet man, by being
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.