Are profits wrong when they don't satisfy any need?

[fakename]

That is, is it wrong to want to make money when there is no reason (mediate or immediate) to make money?

 

[DJK100]

That is, is it wrong to want to make money when there is no reason (mediate or immediate) to make money?

No. As long as you are not exploiting anyone or being illicit in your actions. You never know when you will need a “rainy day fund” or how those profits in the present may affect your future – for instance you may need a influx of capital to help expand your business or invest in a new venture. I am not saying be money orientated but there is nothing wrong with earning extra money if down lawfully and in accordance with good conscience. Besides if you make too much money, don’t need it or feel guilty about it donate it to your Parish or Diocese where they can put it to good use. They always have a need.

 

[PazzoGrande]

I suppose it depends on your conscience. Some people want money just for the bragging rights or pride or power for themselves, and that of course is wrong. But if you simply have excess of money in profits after working honestly, then there’s nothing wrong with that.

It’s not easy to give general answers to that because people’s motives and situations differ.

 

[fakename]

user "PazzoGrande":

I suppose it depends on your conscience. Some people want money just for the bragging rights or pride or power for themselves, and that of course is wrong. But if you simply have excess of money in profits after working honestly, then there’s nothing wrong with that.

It’s not easy to give general answers to that because people’s motives and situations differ.

But say that I wake up and say to myself, “I think I’ll just make a bunch of money” wouldn’t that be a problem for the same reason that interest is a problem, that is, because money is useful for other things and shouldn’t be wanted just for no reason?

Why would that be wrong if it is wrong?

 

[JimG]

That’s rather like asking, is it wrong to be paid wages if you don’t really need the job in order to live?

No, it’s not wrong. Profits get spent or invested, just like wages get spent or invested.

Suppose that Steve Jobs, say, in founding Apple, decided after a few years that the company had plenty of profits and didn’t need to make any more profits. What would happen? The company would stagnate, there would be no innovation, consumers would flock to newer products, investors would abandon the company. But by continuing to grow the profits and use them to grow the company, the company expanded, provided more jobs for more peole all around the world. Not because providing jobs is their reason for being, but because providing jobs is a byproduct of growth which is a byproduct of profits.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

But say that I wake up and say to myself, “I think I’ll just make a bunch of money” wouldn’t that be a problem for the same reason that interest is a problem, that is, because money is useful for other things and shouldn’t be wanted just for no reason?

Why would that be wrong if it is wrong?

I am not going to debate you, but according to Catholic Doctrine, there is absolutely nothing wrong to make a profit for any reason what so ever, as long as the transaction was honest in its conception and execution.
To think that profit per se is immoral is Marxist and Socialistic thinking which goes against the tenets of Catholicism.
End of argument!

 

[PazzoGrande]

But say that I wake up and say to myself, “I think I’ll just make a bunch of money” wouldn’t that be a problem for the same reason that interest is a problem, that is, because money is useful for other things and shouldn’t be wanted just for no reason?

Why would that be wrong if it is wrong?

Not wrong as long as it’s honest.

Anyway you might want to read the encyclical Rerum Novarum by Leo XIII. It talks about the basic right for people to make profit and the proper use of money. It does, however, criticise capitalism – just as it criticises Communism.

It’s not easy to read (what constitutes five sentences for us constituted one sentence for Leo and you’d need to take notes just to understand it) but it contains good wisdom.

 

[ACCT]

I am not going to debate you, but according to Catholic Doctrine, there is absolutely nothing wrong to make a profit for any reason what so ever, as long as the transaction was honest in its conception and execution.
To think that profit per se is immoral is Marxist and Socialistic thinking which goes against the tenets of Catholicism.
End of argument!

Bingo!

When a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property … If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man’s little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels. Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.

The remedy they [socialists] propose is manifestly against justice. For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own.

Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property.

… There naturally exist among mankind manifold differences of the most important kind; people differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition. Such inequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community. Social and public life can be maintained only by means of various kinds of capacity for business and the playing of many parts; and each man, as a rule, chooses the part which suits his own peculiar domestic condition. … no strength and no artifice will ever succeed in banishing from human life the ills and troubles which beset it. If any there are who pretend differently – who hold out to a hard-pressed people the boon of freedom from pain and trouble, an undisturbed repose, and constant enjoyment – they delude the people and impose upon them, and their lying promises will only one day bring forth evils worse than the present. …

– RERUM NOVARUM , On Capital and Labor; Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII [Emphasis added]

 

[David_Castlen]

That is, is it wrong to want to make money when there is no reason (mediate or immediate) to make money?

Why would it be wrong? Is it wrong to fish for pleasure rather than taking them home to eat? Is it wrong to walk more than my health requires? Is it wrong to go to Mass on sunday more than once? Is it wrong to extend a drive in the country?

It is wrong to eat more, drink more because the excess cause ill health to “a temple” of the Holy Ghost (me). What in thworld is wrong with more profits except it will probably result in more jobs, more pay etc.

 

[David_Castlen]

Not wrong as long as it’s honest.

Anyway you might want to read the encyclical Rerum Novarum by Leo XIII. It talks about the basic right for people to make profit and the proper use of money. It does, however, criticise capitalism – just as it criticises Communism.

It’s not easy to read (what constitutes five sentences for us constituted one sentence for Leo and you’d need to take notes just to understand it) but it contains good wisdom.

RR does not condemn capitalism; it condemns abuses of capitalism. Here is a quote from Pope Benedict affirming the free market (given to us by Abu):
"Society does not have to protect itself from the market,
as if the development of the latter (the market)
were ipso fact to entail the death of the authentically human relations…
Therefore, it is not the Instrument (the market) that must be called to account,
But INDIVIDUALS, their moral conscience and their poersonal and social respoonsibility
(Caritas et Veitate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36
Again, this quote was given to us by Abu

 

[Catholic90]

Of course not.

 

[sandomenico]

I do not think those quotes from Rerum Novarum say what you want them to say, nor do they answer the original question.

The remedy they [socialists] propose is manifestly against justice. For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own. . . .
The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. . . . Social and public life can be maintained only by means of various kinds of capacity for business and the playing of many parts; and each man, as a rule, chooses the part which suits his own peculiar domestic condition.

In short, a worker is entitled to his own wages, to dispose of them as he pleases, since they are his property by right; and, equal/communal/social possession of goods is bad for society, which thrives on variety (of work, of citizens, and of income) that is peculiar to each member of society.

This does not, however, justify Greed: to gather things to excess; to take rather than to give. Often greed focuses outside oneself - the greedy individual does not give to others; he has a severe lack of Charity. However, it also extends to oneself, and often goes by the name Gluttony.

One may not gorge himself on profits any more than he may glut himself on wine, sandwiches, women, leisure, or any other person, place or thing. Anything in this world can be misused for the wrong purposes - even down to atoms. Why should profits be exempt from such treatment?

Is it impossible that a man could legally gather incredible personal profit, yet still be doing his fellow man a grave injustice through greed?

Profit should be accompanied by knowledge of one’s (and one’s company’s) needs [also called business and personal expenses], and the needs of one’s society [also called charity]. To neglect any of these is to be derelict in one’s duty to oneself, to one’s employees/employers, and to one’s fellows. Leo XIII himself uses the term “necessity” regarding profits. What on earth would happen if profit were morally limited only by one’s desires?

God love you all,
sandomenico

 

[David_Castlen]

I do not think those quotes from Rerum Novarum say what you want them to say, nor do they answer the original question.

This does not, however, justify Greed: to gather things to excess; to take rather than to give.

 

[sandomenico]

David et alia,

Does the virtue of Temperance not apply to gathering profits?

Is the poor man who hoards his small profits any better than the rich man who hoards his wealth? Is the peasant who give magnanimously any worse than the king who lavishes crowns on his less fortunate subjects?

And as to your questions:

How possibly does he do his fellow man an injustice? Please please please answer this; I am entriqued by such a proposition

Are business monopolies – which legally allow someone to turn as much profit as he can, even though it destroys another man’s profit – just?

What is your basis for “…should be…” should be accompanied by… what is the objective what is the bonum???

…should be accompanied by Charity, which simultaneously is the means and the bonum.

And who the policeman to oversee this? And who is to determine if one is following your mandate? Where is this god or these gods?

I am a steward, not of my own mandates, but God’s. I – and every steward – am responsible to oversee myself, firstly, and my neighbor as for myself. Isn’t it a great act of Charity to admonish the sinner? Not judge him, but gently and charitably remind him of his duties to God and his fellows and of the wages of sin?

What are you asking? "…if profit was ‘morally’ limited??? can you give an example?

Remember the hunger of Erysichthon? Cursed with undying hunger for chopping down a sacred tree, he ends up eating himself. Greed has no limits. It is an intemperate desire for created things over their Creator. It will not die, but kill to feed itself. Creation only gives a taste of its Creator, a taste meant to fuel desire for Him. How can fare meant to increase our desire satisfy us? Only that which we desire – namely, God – can do so.

Take the example of a monopoly. Even if one man could end world poverty by his incredible profits: would he? And should he?

God love you,
sandomenico

 

[fakename]

Well there are problems with the all profits are evil thesis since it implies that no profit is good which is obviously wrong.

But it is also problematic to say that there are no unnecessary profits because then, the whole idea of the miser or the person who spends too much time making money, is rendered impossible. But that seems absurd: one can easily imagine a possible universe where someone both makes money and doesn’t use it or doesn’t use all of it to reinvest, etc.

These profits, which are not even useful for leisure or as a buffer/insurance policy, are precisely what Aristotle was against and that is why he was against the retail trade, because he saw that it was essentially a bunch of merchants who accumulated more money than they needed to cont. business and thereby they had more money than they needed for their desires. And to have such a sum is to act irrationally.

So one could say that profits which are useless are bad but profits that are useful are not bad.

But there are some problems here too, namely that something can be either ex ante useless or ex post useless. Now the former means that it is just useless simply while the latter means that it becomes useful after the act. So if I make useless sums, and then invest these sums to make more useless sums, am I doing something useful with my profits? I would answer that you are perhaps less guilty of being avaricious but you are still guilty of liking money though it contributes nothing to you or your household’s leisure. In so far as this person’s profits are useful to his business, then perhaps he should keep them, but not insofar as his profits are just heaped up in large vaults.

any thoughts?

 

[David_Castlen]

Well there are problems with the all profits are evil thesis since it implies that no profit is good which is obviously wrong.

But it is also problematic to say that there are no unnecessary profits because then, the whole idea of the miser or the person who spends too much time making money, is rendered impossible. But that seems absurd: one can easily imagine a possible universe where someone both makes money and doesn’t use it or doesn’t use all of it to reinvest, etc.

These profits, which are not even useful for leisure or as a buffer/insurance policy, are precisely what Aristotle was against and that is why he was against the retail trade, because he saw that it was essentially a bunch of merchants who accumulated more money than they needed to cont. business and thereby they had more money than they needed for their desires. And to have such a sum is to act irrationally.

God rest old Aristotle; but I have a concern with his distaste for our retail friends. Retail endeavors insure that we consumers get a better product by bringing a product to us in a more orderly fashion than the producer can, they segregate the merchandise so that we can better understand its different qualities, brings the product to us - illiminates travel. Much more can be said on behalf of thier services. But what concerns me is the idea that one can judge another’s heart: No matter how much an owner of a business holds his profits (hords his money) is no indication of the retailer’s heart. There are a hundred reasons to put money in retention: for research, for bad times, for new inventory, for family emergencies etc. How much is the best, and how can we judge him if he is being greedy? Greed is a part of the heart; it can not be determined by objective analysis, but judging others is a most satisfactory indeavor by those who lack wisdom.

Another point: hording is good for an economy. It is insurance that a company will continue in business. “Insurance” is an excessive term here, but I am sure one understands the point. Hording stabalizes the money of a country. Hording satisfies the pleasures of those who wish to condemn a businessman.

So one could say that profits which are useless are bad but profits that are useful are not bad.

But there are some problems here too, namely that something can be either ex ante useless or ex post useless. Now the former means that it is just useless simply while the latter means that it becomes useful after the act.

And neither of these come into the context of hording; albeit, this discussion can be considered ex ante and the only reason to participate is to defend the businessman.

So if I make useless sums, and then invest these sums to make more useless sums, am I doing something useful with my profits? I would answer that you are perhaps less guilty of being avaricious but you are still guilty of liking money though it contributes nothing to you or your household’s leisure. In so far as this person’s profits are useful to his business, then perhaps he should keep them, but not insofar as his profits are just heaped up in large vaults.

any thoughts?

Please give examples of “useless” profits, “useless” sums?

Pope Benedict gave us this:
"Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the market were ipso fact to entail the death of the authentically human relations… therfore it is not the market that must be call to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and soical responsibility (Caritas et Veritate, Beneict XVI, 2009, #39

 

[Nate13]

John Locke said it best when he said that a person does no damage when he obtains more than he needs unless he puts to waste the extra. For example lets say I own a lot of farm land and grow 10 times more food than I need. I keep it all and store the 9/10th’s that I don’t need. 75% of that food rots and is wasted. I have done harm to my fellow man by my actions.

However lets say instead of storing the 9/10th’s I don’t need I make it available for others to buy or trade for. By doing so I do not waste these resources and thus do not do harm to others.

I only do harm to others when I misuse the resources I have and I’m not a good steward of what God has given me.

 

[fakename]

Please give examples of “useless” profits, “useless” sums?

Pope Benedict gave us this:
"Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the market were ipso fact to entail the death of the authentically human relations… therfore it is not the market that must be call to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and soical responsibility (Caritas et Veritate, Beneict XVI, 2009, #39

I’m assuming that the pope is saying either that it is not true that market expansion always causes evil or that an object of positive economics (markets) has no per se connection with moral effects. Not saying that there is no possible universe where the expansion of the market has ill moral effects. I would not deny either of these. If there is another interpretation then share it with me please.

So I’m not afraid of the market as if it’s progress logically entailed the death of per se human love. After all, one can imagine a situation where profits grow and people are okay.

But I’m talking about a situation where profits grow and this causes vice.

An example of useless profit would be, when someone makes money but has no idea of how to use it in the sense that a sated man has no idea of how to finish a burrito. Likewise, useless profit would be to intentionally enter business just to make money as if money=good for itself.

 

[David_Castlen]

I’m assuming that the pope is saying either that it is not true that market expansion always causes evil or that an object of positive economics (markets) has no per se connection with moral effects.

The Pope is not referring to a market expansion; but rather, the market - more clearly, the free market. Whether it is expanding or not expanding has not relevance to the topic, morallity.

Not saying that there is no possible universe where the expansion of the market has ill moral effects. I would not deny either of these. If there is another interpretation then share it with me please.

By “universe” I assume you mean economy? Anywhere, the free market has been left alone morality flurished, income expanded, products were better made and distributed, the poor became less poor. Look at Hong Kong today.

So I’m not afraid of the market as if it’s progress logically entailed the death of per se human love. After all, one can imagine a situation where profits grow and people are okay.

Yes, the market doesn’t determine the soul’s heart; albeit, quicker than you can say Maynard Keysen (spelling) hords of people will tell you if one is rich he is a theif, if one hords he is greedy. As if they, have a special eye for the soul.

But I’m talking about a situation where profits grow and this causes vice

Lord have mercy! Dear God help! When profits grow they do not cause vice. Individuals cause vice

An example of useless profit would be, when someone makes money but has no idea of how to use it in the sense that a sated man has no idea of how to finish a burrito.

May I suggest, this person is very will equiped to handle this unfortunate perdictament being rich and overly satisfied he has the money to purchase the help to handle his excesses.

Likewise, useless profit would be to intentionally enter business just to make money as if money=good for itself.

Well, if making money is the only reason a person is in business, that all he wants is green-back or coin or a deposit and only these and not what they will purchase he has not sinned unless this desire takes his heart from Our Lord. But keep in mind he does not hurt the economy; in fact he helps it.

The real question is why is this a question of concern for us. Is the real reason we discuss this our envy of those who have been blessed knowing how to make money? I have been in business for over 35 years. I am amazed at the intellectuals who boil over at the less educated making money.

God bless you, Fakename. I hope I have not come over as aserbic. May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and may the Eurcharist be daily to us all.

David

 

[fakename]

To David Castlen:

So what is the pope saying? Surely he is not claiming that the market is always good?

But how is the word “market” being defined?

I simply define it as acts of business. Clearly not every act of business can be good, can it?

Lord have mercy! Dear God help! When profits grow they do not cause vice. Individuals cause vice

How do you define profits? I’m just saying that there is some imaginable situation (a “universe” from the logical p.o.v.) where making profits can cause evil. This is far from saying that markets (as acts of business or what comes to the same, as acts of profit generators) are bad for they are per se good (we all want profit) but they are also, in a sense, indifferent to good or bad just like sex (which is good) is indifferent to good or bad; for there is such a thing as badly ordered sex (porn, for instance).

What the above quote seems to say is that it is a necessary truth that markets are good, so that there is no imaginable situation where markets are evil. And yet, we have ideas of unjust wages or profit obtained by fraud, or usury which are plainly inconsistent with the profits=good argument, unless I defined something wrong.

May I suggest, this person is very will equiped to handle this unfortunate perdictament being rich and overly satisfied he has the money to purchase the help to handle his excesses.

fine, I’m just saying that his excesses are a problem that he needs help with and that before getting-the-help, he was experiencing a vice. There is at least one situation, given the meaning of the words “market” “vice” etc. where these words “market” and “vice” are consistent w/each other.