Locke in the news

On January 30, the New York Times released an article regarding the dispute between Amazon.com and Macmillion books. Amazon.com began to temporarily remove Macmillian printed books and e-books from their online store due to disputes over the pricing of e-books on the site. It appears that tension between publishers and Amazon have been brewing for months as publishers have been withholding certain e-book editions after the release of printed editions. Macmillion, one of America’s six largest publishers, states that it had been planning to set higher consumer prices for e-books like other publishers and asked Amazon to raise the price of e-books to around $15 from $9.99. Amazon argues that this type of pricing puts them at a disadvantage because it has strategically sold e-books at the $9.99 price point in hopes that it would supplement the sales of their Kindle devices. Publishers argue that leaving e-books at the $9.99 severely devalues their product. It seems that with the introduction of the Apple’s iPad tablet, which has agreed with publishers to set e-books at a similar price on their iBookstore, Amazon will even more competition in the market of e-books.

Ethically, the question is whether publishers like Macmillion have the right to force retailers such as Amazon to sell their products at a certain price. Under Locke’s natural law of property, it would appear that such a request would be ethical. Considering that publishers labor into their e-books by translating it from print sources and making it compatible with certain devices, publishers certainly have private property rights to their e-books and can use them when conducting exchange. Then by extension, when both parties enter an agreement and the publisher exchanges money, what Locke considers as labor value, for retailer’s labor of selling their products, it would make sense that the price of sale goes under this agreement. Thus, under Locke's idea of money and labor value, it would seems that Amazon should either oblige to the publisher’s demands or otherwise or break off the agreement. While we’ve discussed the tacit agreement of money as labor value, it would interesting to see how Locke would define a legal agreement and the elements that would make it fair and ethical.

Aristotle in the news

Last week, a number of credit card reforms were finalized, regulating a wide range of the credit industry from how interest rates are calculated to how long gift cards last. On January 17th, the Washington Post published an article that provides consumers with some caveats of these reforms. In particular, consumers are told to be conscientious of rebate cards: a type of rebate that is returned to consumers on a card similar to a gift card or prepaid card. While the law requires that expiration dates on credit cards, gift cards, and prepaid cards be at given at least five years out, the law excludes that of rebate cards. Hence, consumers should read the fine print of their rebate cards and spend them before they expire -- usually two weeks to three months. It is estimated that approximately 20 percent of $4 billion in annual rebates go unredeemed by consumers.

The ethical issue is typical: business profits off consumers through deceptive means. Here, information regarding these credit card reforms is left muddled in hopes that consumers will not redeem their rebate. This points to other ethical issues with business, including greed and selfishness. As in Book I of Politics, Aristotle discusses the disposition of artificial wealth getting, in which he states that it stems from “intent upon living only, and not upon living well” (75). Based on the reputation of credit card companies for their unfair rate hikes and hidden fees, such business is testament to how our morals have been perverted by the pursuit of profit. No longer is money an instrument for attaining the good life, but instead it has become fetishized for the good life. Perhaps for Aristotle, our societal affection for money has already jeopardized our morals and may very well prevent us from leading a virtuous life.

On the whole, Aristotle would blatantly disapprove of the credit industry due to their promotion of artificial wealth getting. Their business thrives off the promotion of money and the perpetuation of consumption. Given their foothold in society, in which one is required to partake in their business in order to own a home, the credit card industry could even be considered an enemy of the Aristotle’s idea of art of household making or economy. For example, one is required to accrue credit and own multiple credit cards prior to being able to purchase a home. Furthermore, the industry utilizes usury mechanisms such interest, which Aristotle directly opposes. The credit card industry, as a whole, appears to promote a fetish for money, which in turn promotes the fetish within society.