Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Alejandro Chafuen in Forbes: The Moral Aspects of Money
Alejandro Chafuen in Forbes: The Moral Aspects of Money
Jul 9, 2025 8:02 AM

Acton’s own Alejandro Chafuen appeared in Forbes to discuss monetary theories from the ancient Greeks to today’s crytocurrencies. The following is an excerpt from Chafuen’s essay, titled Moralists and Money: From Gold to Bitcoin. For the full article, readers may click here.

Monetary topics are some of the first economic issues to be studied with some rigor. Since the first writings by the Greek philosophers, such as Plato, Aristotle, Hesiod and Xenophon, and until the 16th century, the moral questions, “what is good, what is bad?” dominated the approach of those who studied human action. To be able to judge if a certain monetary issue is good or bad, moral philosophers first had to answer questions that went beyond morality, such as:

1. What is money?

2. What determines its value?

3. What are the impacts of changes in its value?

4. What factors influence supply and demand?

In doing so, they were acting as pure economists.

Scholars of the late Middle Ages developed their theory of money in accordance with Aristotelian teachings. They believed that the inconveniences of barter gave rise to the need for money. The essential function of money is to serve as a medium of exchange. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) reminded his readers that “money . . . according to Aristotle, was invented chiefly for exchanges to be made, so that the prime and proper use of money is its use and disbursement in the way of ordinary transactions.” Money could also be used as a store of value and as a measure for exchanges. These two functions, however, depended on the essence of money (i.e., money as the monly used medium of exchange).

After Aquinas, one of the first to write about money was Nicole Oresme (c. 1320-1382), the great multifaceted scientist, who later in his life became Bishop of Lisieux, a city mune in Normandy, France. His book on money, De origine, natura, jure et mutationibus monetarum, Traité de la Première Invention des Monnoies, (usually translated as A Treatise on the Origin, Nature, Law, and Alteration of Money) has valuable lessons even for today. It was one of the first works focusing solely on an economic topic.

He first wrote about Creation and the diverse resources around the globe: “When the most high and sovereign God Almighty divided the nations and separated the sons of Adam, he set boundaries for the people, according to the number of the children of Israel; thence in the course of time men multiplied over the earth, and their possessions were divided and shared among them, as was expedient. Thus it came about that one man had more of one thing in his possession than his needs required while another little or none of the same thing, but on the contrary had a plenty of something else, of which the first was in need.”

Oresme gave the example of a man who: “had a surplus of sheep and other cattle but needed grain and bread, while the neighbor, on the other hand, had bread enough but lacked cattle … [O]ne region abounded in a thing which another was greatly in need. For this reason, therefore, men began to traffic and exchange their riches with one another, without money, one giving a sheep for some grain, another his labor for bread or wool, and similarly for everything else. And this practice was long the custom in several cities and countries, as Justinus, the historian, and other ancient authors recount.”

The stability of the monetary unit was seen as essential to have just contracts and to avoid moral hazards such as damaging creditors who are paid back with debased coins. Oresme wrote that it is “disgraceful and everywhere foreign to the nobility of a prince to prohibit the circulation of good money in his country, and, for the sake of gain, to order and pel his subjects to use his own which is poorer, as if to say that good is bad and his bad is good.”

He was flexible in case of emergencies, such as during periods of war, or to pay ransoms with “bad” or debased money, or to help liberate a kidnapped king. But the bishop added, “If munity should in any way make such an alteration, the money ought to be restored to its proper basis as soon as possible, and the making of gain in that way should cease.”

Another late medieval scholar, Copernicus (1473-1543), a Polish luminary more noted for his contributions to astronomy than to economics and moral philosophy, also wrote about money. Copernicus studied science at the University of Padova and Canon Law at the University of Bologna. He started his book on money by noting:

Although there are countless scourges which in general debilitate kingdoms, principalities, and republics, the four most important (in my judgment) are dissension, [abnormal] mortality, barren soil, and debasement of the currency. The first three are so obvious that nobody is unaware of their existence. But the fourth, which concerns money, is taken into account by few persons and only the most perspicacious. For it undermines states, not by a single attack all at once, but gradually and in a certain covert manner.

Most followers of Aquinas had similar views on money. Money was developed or “invented” to replace barter and to serve as the monly used means of exchange. Its stability was essential for determining justice in contracts. The best book written about monetary economics before Adam Smith was the Treatise on Money, written by the Jesuit Juan de Mariana (1536-1624). pared the transfer of wealth through currency debasement to the action of someone who goes into private barns and steals a portion of the crops stored there: “The king has no domain over the goods of the people, and he cannot take them in whole or in part. We can see then: would it be licit for the king to go into a private barn taking for himself half of the wheat and trying to satisfy the owner by saying that he can sell the rest at twice the price? I do not think we can find a person with such depraved judgment as to approve this, yet the same is done with copper coins.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle, was suspicious of exchanges of money for money because they were “not concerned with the needs for life but with making money.” Whenever they address money, he and his followers focus on its stability, condemning its debasement, and on the justice of the contracts established in money. The knowledge of parties and the willingness to assume risks are also relevant. Metallic money had existed for at least 17 centuries, so moralists had enough knowledge to judge. Cryptocurrencies, on the other hand, are so new, and the issues so diverse, that I only have room to summarize what I think Aquinas’s answer would be, and leave for a future article a more elaborate “Thomistic” analysis. And I will do it in two words: Aquinas would not have condemned Bitcoin but would have said, “Buyer beware”—caveat emptor!

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
An Italian view of America’s election results: Berlusconi reincarnate, financial penance
Yesterday, Hillary’s concessionand Donald’s victory speeches would be made only one mile apart at the Midtown Hilton at the Javits Center in New York City. As the night wore on, the Clinton party quickly souredin the ballroom while the Trump camp began uncorking the bubbly. The opposing sentiments set the two camps a world apart. Clinton’s presidential campaign director John Podesta, with aplomb, delivered unwanted news: for now the Democrats’ dream had died and all those sobbing at the Javits...
Review: ‘NIV Faith and Work Bible’ uncovers God’s story for stewardship
The church has recently awakened with renewed interest in the intersection of faith and work, leading to a widespread movement in congregations and seminaries and a constant flow of books, sermons, and other resources (including a hearty bunch from the Acton Institute). In a new NIV Faith and Work Bible from Zondervan, we gain another valuable tool for expanding our economic imaginations, weaving a rich theology of work more closely with the Biblical text. Edited by David H. Kim, Executive...
Are Christianity and Communism mutually exclusive?
Did Pope Francis just publicly endorse Communism? ments have prompted many to suggest he has. During an interview with Eugenio Scalfari, they had the following exchange: [Scalfari:] You told me some time ago that the precept, “Love your neighbour as thyself” had to change, given the dark times that we are going through, and e “more than thyself.” So you yearn for a society where equality dominates. This, as you know, is the programme of Marxist socialism and then munism....
Trump’s first ‘Hundred Day’ economic plan
In a radio address on July 24, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt referred to the 100-day session of the 73rd United States Congress between March 9 and June 17, a session that produced a record-breaking volume of new laws. Despite the fact that the 100 days referred to a legislative session and not the beginning of a presidency, the term has e a metric for what a new president can plish and how effective they will be during their term....
Why not socialism?
“In spite of socialism’s sorry track record, millions of well-meaning people think it’s a virtual synonym passion,” says Lawrence Reed. “But socialists themselves are constantly retreating from their own handiwork. It’s socialism until it doesn’t work, then it was never socialism in the first place. It’s socialism until the wrong guys get in charge, then it’s everything but.” Socialism never seems to have any theory of wealth creation, only fanciful schemes for its reallocation after somebody goes to the trouble...
Virtuous envy?
Edward Feser, with a nod to Thomas Aquinas, discusses whether there might be such a thing as virtuous Schadenfreude. As Feser puts it, “On the one hand, the suffering of a person is not as such something to rejoice in, for suffering, considered just by itself, is an evil…. However, there can be something ‘annexed’ to the suffering which is a cause for rejoicing.” My collaborator and friend Victor Claar and I ran up against something like this in our...
How defending capitalism is like recycling
Each week my neighbors and I engage in a curious ethical ritual. On Wednesday morning before we leave for work we set outside our doors an artifact that expresses our obligation to the welfare of future generations. We call these objects recycling bins. Recycling is one example of an action that we take in the present to benefit a group in the future. The earth has enough space and resources that all current generations could be extremely wasteful without having...
Beware the post-election narratives
In his best-selling book The Black Swan, probabilist Nassim Nicholas Taleb warns against the need for easy narratives to explain the unexpected. Given how unexpected the result of this Tuesday’s election was, it is worth taking some time to review what Taleb calls “the narrative fallacy.” According to Taleb, The narrative fallacy addresses our limited ability to look at sequences of facts without weaving an explanation into them, or, equivalently, forcing a logical link, an arrow of relationship, upon them....
Musings from Nobel Laureate Vernon L. Smith
UPDATE: The full interview is now available online. ### In June, Nobel economist Vernon L. Smith gave an Acton University speech titled “Faith and the Compatibility of Science and Religion.” While he was in Grand Rapids, he sat down with Victor V. Claar and went into some of the specifics of his lecture, as well as his vast experience in economics, including experimental economics. Their conversation was recorded as the cover feature for the Fall issue of Religion & Liberty....
What a veteran knows
“Thank you for your service,” they say, as they shake our hands and pat our backs. We smile and thank them for their gratitude and try to think of something else to talk about. These encounters with strangers happen from time to time, though always on Veteran’s Day. It’s the one time we can count on civilians—a group from which we came but can never fully return—to think about us. On Veteran’s Day, they think of the men and women...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved