Incommensurability in Aristotle's Theory of Reciprocal Justice

Gallagher, Robert L.

doi:10.1080/09608788.2012.679778

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As Robert Gallagher has pointed out based on the Eudemian Ethics, in friendships among unequals the terms of exchange will involve both money and honor. 78 The superior party will receive less (or give more) in monetary terms to reflect their greater worth. That loss will be made up in honor.…”

Section: Commensurability Equality and Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between Justice and Accumulation: Aristotle on Currency and Reciprocity

Eich

2018

Political Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For Aristotle, a just political community has to find similarity in difference and foster habits of reciprocity. Conventionally, speech and law have been seen to fulfill this role. This article reconstructs Aristotle’s conception of currency ( nomisma) as a political institution of reciprocal justice. By placing Aristotle’s treatment of reciprocity in the context of the ancient politics of money, currency emerges not merely as a medium of economic exchange but also potentially as a bond of civic reciprocity, a measure of justice, and an institution of ethical deliberation. Reconstructing this account of currency ( nomisma) in analogy to law ( nomos) recovers the hopes Aristotle placed in currency as a necessary institution particular to the polis as a self-governing political community striving for justice. If currency was a foundational institution, it was also always insufficient, likely imperfect, and possibly tragic. Turned into a tool for the accumulation of wealth for its own sake, currency becomes unjust and a serious threat to any political community. Aristotelian currency can fail precisely because it contains an important moment of ethical deliberation. This political significance of currency challenges accounts of the ancient world as bifurcated between oikos and polis and encourages contemporary political theorists to think of money as a constitutional project that can play an important role in improving reciprocity across society.

show abstract

Section: Commensurability Equality and Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between Justice and Accumulation: Aristotle on Currency and Reciprocity

Eich

2018

Political Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Journal of Philosophical Economics X: 1 (2016) theory has recently been revived in modern economics (see, e.g., Wray, 1998;2012). Aristotle, as argued above, holds that the unit of measure -currency -is stipulated by agreement (by hypothesis).…”

Section: Conclusion: Aristotle 'Exchange' and Modern Theories Of Moneymentioning

confidence: 99%

Aristotle on justice in exchange: commensurability by fiat

Peacock

2016

Journal of Philosophical Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay offers an interpretation of Aristotle's remarks on the commensurability of goods in Book V of the Nicomachean Ethics. It explores the term ‘by hypothesis’ (ἐξ ὑποθέσεως) which Aristotle uses to describe the institution of currency through which commensurability is established. The term implies that Aristotle conceives the origins of currency to lie in a conscious act of stipulation rather than through a spontaneous process in which currency is established via the unintended consequences of individual action. In conclusion, contemporary theories of money are considered and it is asked with which Aristotle’s conception of money aligns most closely.

show abstract

“…For this reason the impossible measure can be but imperfectly carried out by money, which tends to flatten every comparison onto a continuous arithmetic scale, lacking the geometric comparison of ratios (such as shoemaker/shoe compared with housebuilder/house that is diagonalised in incommensurate exchange as shoemaker/ house compared with housebuilder/shoe ) and the intrusion of the incommensurable diagonal. Money tends to compress both need and labour into a scale of degrees of homonymity, whereas in reality both want and work remain of incomparably different kinds (Aristotle, NE: V, v, 14-15; Gallagher, 2012). By ignoring this reality, a genuine exchange of diverse needs and tasks is abandoned in favour of the mercantile rule of supply and demand, which for Aristotle merely accords power to the strong and to existing status taken outside the context of status-as-function which operates in terms of a diagonal exchange.…”

Section: Dignity As Reserve or Dignity As Honour In Classical Politic...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dignity Rather than Right

Milbank

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The marriage between dignity and right now shows more unsteady than what it appeared. It is specially clear in the conflicts that emerge between the modern liberal tradition and the Catholic. In order to find a solution, the author deconstructs the history of the concept of “dignity” in the doctrines of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and then Aquinas, as well as its transformation and secularization in Modernity. He traces the relation of the concept of “dignity” to the notions of virtue, value and polis, among others, and to the theological notions of person and grace (considering its gender consequences). At last, the author assertsts that the Kantian notion of dignity offers a lapse back in paganism, so it is better to the christian tradition go back to a notion of dignity that combines human universality and the glory of the singular.

show abstract

Incommensurability in Aristotle's Theory of Reciprocal Justice

Cited by 7 publications

References 15 publications

Between Justice and Accumulation: Aristotle on Currency and Reciprocity

Between Justice and Accumulation: Aristotle on Currency and Reciprocity

Aristotle on justice in exchange: commensurability by fiat

Dignity Rather than Right

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About