Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-26T03:40:06.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aquinas and Uber: The Justice of Surge Pricing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Thomas Azzi OP
Thomas Azzi OP*
Affiliation:
Order of Preachers, Province of the Assumption, Melbourne, Australia
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A significant demographic event or the advent of a natural disaster sees a surge in demand for a particular good or service. Conventional liberal market economics dictates that vendors should increase their prices to restore equilibrium to the market. Such an increase in price would provide an incentive for vendors to increase output or redirect their resources to those areas where there is a peak in demand. In the case of ride-share operators such as Uber, this is reflected in their surge pricing models to encourage drivers to service those areas where demand has spiked. Is such an increase in price justified according to the ethical principles of St. Thomas Aquinas' economic philosophy?

Keywords

EthicsEconomicsAquinasJusticePrice
Type
Original Article
Information
New Blackfriars , Volume 101 , Issue 1095 , September 2020 , pp. 546 - 557
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Aquinas, , Compendium Theologiae, trans. Vollert, Cyril (St. Louis: Herder, 1947), q. 187Google Scholar.

2 Aquinas, , Summa Theologiae, ed. Mortensen, John, Alarćon, Enrique, trans. Shapcote, Laurence (Lander, WY: The Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine, 2012), II-II, q. 66, a. 2Google Scholar.

3 Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, 66, a. 2, ad. 2.

4 Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 61, a. 2.

5 Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 61, a. 2, ad. 3.

6 Aristotle, , Nicomachean Ethics, trans. Ross, W.D., in The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, ed. Barnes, Jonathan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), v. 6, 1131b 25Google Scholar.

7 Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 77, a. 1.

8 Boland, Donald G., Commerce and Capitalism: A Study of the Economic Concepts of Utility and Value in Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas (Sydney: Centre for Thomistic Studies, 1989), p. 73Google Scholar.

9 Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 77, a. 1.

10 Aquinas, , Commentary on Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, trans. Litzinger, C.I. (Notre Dame, IN: Dumb Ox Books, 1993), Book V, Lect. IX, §983, p. 313Google Scholar.

11 Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 106, a. 5.

12 Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Book V, Lect. IX, §981, p. 312.

13 Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Book V, Lect. IX, §981, p. 312.

14 Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 77, art. 1.

15 Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 66, a. 7.

16 Aquinas argues in q. 66, a. 2, a. 1 that private property is not part of the natural law but an addition to it owing to human reason: “Community of goods is ascribed to the natural law, not that the natural law dictates that all things should be possessed in common and that nothing should be possessed as one's own: but because the division of possessions is not according to the natural law, but rather arose from human agreement which belongs to positive law, as stated above (Question 57, Articles 2,3). Hence the ownership of possessions is not contrary to the natural law, but an addition thereto devised by human reason.”

17 Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 77, a. 4, ad. 2.

18 Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 77, a. 3, ad. 4.

19 Rothbard, Murray N., Economic thought before Adam Smith, v. 1 (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006), p. 53Google Scholar.

20 Stamate, Andreas, “A Short History of the “Just Price” Controversy in the XII-th and XIII-th Centuries,” Romanian Economic Journal 15, no. 39 (March 2011): p. 266Google Scholar. The later school of Salamanca also held that just price is determined by common estimation which can be identical with the market price (depending on various circumstances such as relative bargaining power of sellers and buyers) or can be set by public authorities.

21 Fabio Monsalve, “Scholastic just price versus current market price: is it merely a matter of labelling?” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 21(1) (2012): 12, accessed 19 July 2018, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254268458_Scholastic_just_price_versus_current_market_price_Is_it_merely_a_matter_of_labelling.

22 de Roover, Raymond, “The Concept of the Just Price: Theory and Economic Policy” The Journal of Economic History 13 (Dec 1958), p. 422Google Scholar.

23 Jason Aaron Brown, “The Just Price: The Ghost of Tawney and the Enchantment of Exchange,” 7, accessed 24 July 2018, http://www.academia.edu/30338016/The_Just_Price_and_Free_Bargaining_in_Medieval_Canon_Law.