Welcome to Gaia! ::

I suppose since two of us have taken up this side of the arguement, we can alternate. I'll do the courtesy of letting him take it up when he replies first, and if he likes he can do the same when I do. Anyway, back to the discussion.



I see what point Niniva's making here, and I think I'll elaborate on it. Although we make our actions based on money, money does not have consciousness, and it cannot reason. It is only something we see to hold value; it defines what we do, but it does not choose what we do. It simply determines.

As for your metaphor, let's look at money as a tool. A very important one. Though your metaphor is true, it also works for using tools. For example, if I use a hammer to drive a nail, by this metaphor the nail isn't being acted upon by me, it's being acted upon by the hammer I'm using. The money itself cannot do anything, someone has to use it to make it act upon something. Thus, it is a tool. Does this sound correct?



Thus, this admission further reinforces my arguement. If it cannot act by its own reason, but only if someone else forces to act, does it not follow that it is a tool?

That isn't to say that the necessity of this tool is a good thing. Perhaps its evil isn't in that it's used, but simply how much we use it and what we use it for? The same could be true of even the hammer. The hammer itself is never evil- to even call it so seems absurd, correct? However, when we do this we think of its function as hammering nails. Suppose I were to use it as a weapon and whack someone with it. Does it then follow that hammers are evil?



I agree with you, money is not a natural part of humanity. It's only as natural to us as any other tool to is to us, like the hammer for example. As with the hammer and hammering nails, the need for money is not natural, but the need to trade with people in larger groups is most definately natural to humanity; we are by all means a group species, as I'm sure you can agree. Thus we use this tool to achieve our other ends.

Also, be careful with the examples you use. The one you gave implies that money is simply a benevolent deceiver, and prevents us from having unrest among our cities with constant theft (as in, everybody does it). Let's use a different example, charity, or mutual gift giving. Money also convinces us to only give what we will get in return. Thus, this raises another question. Should we rely on money so much, and should we always receive exactly as much as we give? Or can money also be used to deceive, so we can still steal, only within the system? Though first, we need to focus on our previous discussion. Do you agree that money is tool, and if not, what is it? If so, feel free to take on the other questions.