Some philosopher argue that philosopher should not be associated with money.

Could a philosopher win a argument and get a prize from a casino virtually in a computer game called philosophical finance in the future?

Please write your answer in a short essay format including both historical reference and brief scratch of proof for your answer, since it is highly and widely applicable to audience in the Earth.

  • 1
    Is this homework? – nigel Oct 8 '14 at 4:06
  • @nigelvr - No, if it is my HW, it will be something call recreational question in my professor's opinion. – Victor Oct 8 '14 at 4:13
  • 2
    See Philosophy of Money and Finance – JosEduSol Oct 8 '14 at 4:20

I would say yes to this. Issues of corporate citizenship and how companies should operate in there respective communities can be regarded as a issue of ethics in a certain way.

It is interesting to note that a company is not a natural person it is a legal person. This means that it is given certain rights that a natural person would also have. So with this in mind if we give an entity certain "human rights" it may not be unreasonable to expect of it a certain "ethics" in regards to its behavior as well.

| improve this answer | |

Short but serious answer: Can a nation print its way to prosperity? Since paper currency is a social abstraction, the relationship between the amount of paper money in circulation and the health of the economy is a very lively topic in the world today.

So yes, there is much philosophy underlying our money. You know that Greenspan was a follower of Ayn Rand in his early days. In fact he even believed in the gold standard, before he took the reigns of monetary power and started printing.

Ironic, no?

| improve this answer | |

I would consider the whole of Marxism to lie within the philosophy of finance. It falls awkwardly between ethics and politics, and is anchored deeply in accounting principles, given the Labor Theory of Value. So I see no reason that theory and its contenders would not eventually become their own field.

The idea that it naturally constitutes a separate field of philosophy may explain why different schools of philosophy are often quite chilly toward it -- it is 'neither fish nor fowl' in their reckoning.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.