On December 16th, there was an article on the New York Times website about saving for retirement, namely through employer-provided plans like the 401(k). The 401(k) is named after a section of the tax code, and it is a defined-contribution plan in which one makes regular contributions into an account that one owns. Most companies now offer employees some type of 401(k) option in lieu of pension plans, and have begun phasing out pensions as well as other benefit plans due to their enormous costs. The 401(k) allows the employee to make all investment decisions, usually features some type of employer contribution match, and offers numerous tax advantages.
With respect to Aristotle, the ethical issue in question seems to be the following: if one wishes to live well, in this case during retirement, when all other forms of income have ceased to exist but bills continue to pile up, is it still unethical to invest? In other words, is making money from money unethical if it is the only way to secure future benefits from necessaries for survival such as food, water, shelter, etc.?
Aristotle would argue that this falls under the category of usury, and that 401(k) s, or any other type of monetary investing for that matter, is a twisted perversion aimed only at acquiring more wealth. However, Aristotle would agree that life should be lived well. In other words, the happy medium between living too poorly or too well would be living just right, and that therefore this would be more representative of a virtuous life.
In essence, Aristotle’s philosophical theory regarding household management, and the inherent legitimacy or illegitimacy with regard to the art of acquisition and artificial art of acquisition that it spawns, seems to provide no good answer when it comes to the question of planning for retirement through investing. Investing seems to the only real avenue for making money well into retirement, and therefore the only real option when it comes to securing the necessaries in any individual’s household. Because his theory only seems to complicate this issue, it leaves me wondering a few things. In this case, is usury still a fetishistic perversion? And if it is, how could one hope to secure a virtuous life when all other income has been curtailed? And is there any room for Aristotle’s theory regarding economics in the world today?
Kevin, this makes for a very interesting argument. The great philosopher Aristotle seems to have a flawed argument that usury makes a gain out of money itself and is not an instrument that maintains natural life. I wonder if Aristotle was living in our society would he think of an exception to when usury would be okay. Perhaps Aristotle would not agree with the idea of one ceasing to work. Personally, I think this form of usury (401k) would be acceptable because it secures the basic needs to sustain life.
ReplyDelete