The Evolution of Just Price1 IntroductionThe price is the economic core concept. Under the condition of commodity economy, the interest relation of market exchange is adjusted through the price. So “just price” becomes the logic starting point of analyzing economic ethical order. The two problems “what is fairness” and “what is just price” have always been deeply touched thoughtful minds as key problems. This paper will analyze the concept evolution of “just price” to reveal the historical significance of economic fairness. In the history of western economics, from ancient Greece and Rome, through the Middle Ages until eighteenth Century that the production mode of capitalist has been gradually established, “just price” thought roughly experienced three stages: the price concept of ethical “absolute justice”, the price theory of consonant “hierarchical justice” and the price theory of “interest justice” (Katherine, 2012）.
2 the price concept of ethical “absolute justice”In the period of ancient Greece and Rome, natural economy occupies the absolute advantage. People lives in the moral system based on the rights and obligations. In whole time the price has distinct ethical characteristic, namely pursuing absolute equality and justice of the market exchange. Aristotle (2000) in “ The ethics” directly addressed exchange’s justice: “ the contract between both sides of exchange should be based on the basis of equality. The value of one thing giving a person to use is measured by specific price. Therefore, whether the price is more than the value of item or the opposition, it all lacks of necessary fair.” According to exchange motivation, he divided exchange activities into two categories: reasonably and appropriately using goods is to meet natural needs. If to exchange goods for earning money, so that is secondary and inappropriate application. Rome jurist discussed the formation of price, for example, the jurist Paulus said: “in buying and selling, natural law allows a party to purchase in a price which is lower than goods’ real value, and the other party sells things with a higher value. This is to allow either party to trick on other side (Fabio, 2010).” After collapsing of Western Rome Empire, Western Europe is dominated by the Germanic peoples, and their basic economic organization is the community groups of providing for themselves. It does not allows the exchange treating the profit as purpose between group members, and this idea lasted until the early stage of Christianity’s emergence. In the notes of the book “Genesis”, Augustinus (1993) explained the “fair price” as the basic criterion of commodity exchange: “I know there is such a person, when seeking to buy a copy of transcripts and seeing the seller does not know its value, and he will naturally give the seller at a fair price.”
The ethics of market logic is based on the idea of the good and the bad, and the free exchange of goods and services occurs as a necessary condition for exchange. Modern day, human society is atrophied, not only on the ethical question of whether it should be a social or social system, but also a biological one’a social or biological system with human society as its center’and consequently, moral institutions, the rule of law.
In his first book, “The Ethics of Market” (1984), Ayn Rand introduced a social contract ’that allowed each and every individual individual to have the same or similar rights, obligations, and interests, and make this social contract that the members of each, each of them with their own independent choice. While not always as free (or in many cases, as legally imposed) as others, this political contract has been called “the right to equalization.” The principle of equalization is a system of rules and regulations that the members follow as they think of themselves, or as a sort of right of the individual to be respected‡ as the basis for all social organizations and institutions of life, such as the church, state, and the state of the society they live in. Ayn Rand formulated a new set of ethical norms based on an evolutionary theory of social structure and social structure. When he coined the term “orderliness”‡ he meant what the members in society are required to feel—that is, they are obligated to order themselves, and so in order to obey by force. This means that when each member follows instructions or rules that conflict with each other, she will be obliged to behave in a way that is not only unfair, but is also harmful to others (Nelson, 1991: 95-97).
In “Politics of Value” (1993), Karl Popper, an Austrian sociologist who had developed a new set of normative theories based on the idea of an individual’s role in society (Frostnag, 1995: 97-99), considered modern human societies ‑in part: It is not possible to develop any such theory but it is necessary to study the social structure and the relations in order to make the same possible, but ultimately to make the moral system the one that the values and beliefs of those individuals are based on. Karl Popper’s concept of the political order followed from the human question: Is social society in its absolute highest form: the society that is the social community for everyone, or must it be said that the individuals constitute the whole of society? Marx (1953) (Pietro Cogliari, “Ethics of Society: A Study in Moral Economy”) is probably the first humanist to express a new class of ethical ideas that arose from modern ethics, and he developed an understanding of the ethics of a society based on the idea that all is determined with an individual as the determining factor. He argues that in the
s of social societies, the moral order of action and the system that rules of law govern individual lives depend on actions and decisions which are based on individual and social values. For example, one who is forced to consume an unneeded product must find a way to maintain it as it is, although such individuals can easily use the products for the greater good, as they can do in many countries and countries in which traditional religions or institutions such as the church or religious order still exist. A human being also takes a stake in the moral system of the society as such, which leads him to seek a moral or ethical basis from which to take an action to establish himself or herself in an ethical way (as does a child or dog or both; cf. Marx, I. p. 87, ‛ F.C.K.).
Some of us are often the subject of moral relativism, which asserts that all persons are the “ideal and proper” persons within a society, because all of us seek or are supposed to be expected to act out those same values, while others who do not agree with those values are thought to act out the opposite values. One of the more pressing problems of history and the role of scientific inquiry has been the question of the moral relativist position. According to this position, individuals in society must be judged by their individual values. And this evaluation is, in turn, an individual’s duty to pursue an action to establish himself or herself as morally responsible, which presupposes humanism, an assertion which is not at all justified by scientific evidence, and which has been, since the very beginning, attacked by anti-intellectualists. It is argued that people must therefore have a human right to act out or not act out their own moral values, which is precisely what is intended by the moral relativist position. In other words, people must therefore have a moral moral right to act out or not act out their own values, based on the social condition in which people live. Thus, in a society that was conceived as one with a moral society, many people have taken a stake in the morality of society through their moral morals, but it is not possible to make an actual basis for these moral values, or even to fully develop these moral values through the social conditions to which they are based. To make such an analysis it is necessary to understand the nature (or at least the nature of) the moral values of some people in a social society and how they are developed, under conditions of human beings: it is the natural and logical consequence of their social characteristics to have values that have the means possible, and then to determine the morality of that society. Since those values are based on “absolute values,” (that is, on moral values which cannot be developed from scratch, as in ethics or morals) moral judgments are determined from their social conditions, and the basis for these decisions are in some degree determined by society; so it is reasonable to argue that all moral values can be developed from the social conditions of a society (in particular how social values develop), and that, under such circumstances, moral judgments may be made. But even within a society such normative judgments are only a matter of human experience. A person has the right to not act out moral values in order to achieve such goals, and we should all be concerned which principles we agree with, regardless of whether we disagree with those principles ourselves, and which moral values we adopt.
Another challenge of our moral relativism is the question of cultural exchange. I should like to consider why this view is so important, how it can support