Does Everything Have a Price?

Bölüm metni

You helped a friend; they reached into their pocket and asked, "What do I owe you?" Nothing was stolen, nobody was deceived — and yet something broke. Why do some things turn into something else the moment a price tag touches them?

About five thousand years ago, in one of the temple storerooms of southern Mesopotamia, a scribe pressed the tip of a reed into soft clay and left behind a handful of marks. What he wrote was not a poem, not a prayer, not a royal inscription. It was a receipt. Who had taken how much barley, how much of it would be returned, in which season it would be paid back. The great majority of humanity's oldest written texts are documents of exactly this kind: who owes what to whom. Writing was invented not for literature but for bookkeeping. That fact on its own is worth stopping over, because it lets us understand the story of money the way it actually unfolded rather than the way we are usually told it did.

The story taught in school went like this. First came barter. The shoemaker wanted wheat, the farmer wanted shoes, the two met and traded. But if the farmer happened not to want shoes that day, everything seized up, and money was invented to break the deadlock. A clean, logical, memorable story. Its only problem is this: in nearly two centuries of fieldwork, anthropologists have never once come across an economy that ran purely on barter, with no money in it at all. What they came across was something different. In small communities people are constantly giving one another things, but they do not take back an equivalent on the spot each time. The man who helps his neighbour receives nothing in return; he keeps what he is owed in his head. In other words, before barter there was debt. There was record. There was memory.

The problem money solved was not, at bottom, the awkwardness of swapping goods. It was the limit of memory. In a village you can hold in your mind who owes what to whom. In a city you cannot. In a place where thousands of people live side by side, people who have never met, people doing entirely different kinds of work, the only way to keep track of mutual obligations is to measure them and write them down. In Mesopotamia the name of that measure was the shekel, and at first the shekel was not a coin but a weight: roughly one hundred and eighty grains of barley, about eight grams of silver in today's terms. Notice that the unit of measurement was itself defined by way of something edible. Barley was a good you could eat; the shekel was an abstract number that set barley, silver, labour and time along one and the same ruler.

That ruler reached into unexpected places with remarkable speed. In the stone law code of the Babylonian king Hammurabi, erected some three thousand eight hundred years ago, a physician's fee for surgery is written out in silver shekels. But the price of the very same operation varies with the patient: one sum for a free man, less for a commoner, less still for a slave. Which is to say that only a few centuries after inventing the measuring instrument, humanity had already turned it on human beings. The ruler was not content to compare barley with silver; it also wrote down what saving a life would cost, according to whose life it was.

Coined money, in fact, is a detail that appears midway through this long story. The first coins in the sense we know today were struck about twenty-six hundred years ago in western Anatolia, in the Kingdom of Lydia. The Lydians took electrum, the natural alloy of gold and silver carried down in the silt of the Pactolus River, broke it into small pieces, and stamped each one with the seal of the kingdom. Under King Croesus, gold and silver were fixed to separate standards. The invention here was not the metal; metal had been in use for thousands of years. The invention was the stamp. The stamp said: you do not have to weigh this every time, I vouch for how much this piece is worth. So the first great invention of money was the transfer of trust into an object.

Aristotle, roughly two centuries after these coins began to circulate in the Aegean world, put the matter with a clarity that has arguably never been bettered. As he saw it, the precondition for being able to exchange a house for a bed is that the two somehow become comparable. Yet a house and a bed are by their nature incomparable; they share no common substance. Money is precisely the instrument that abolishes this incomparability. Aristotle is careful to stress that money arises not from nature but from agreement: money is a token people have settled on between themselves, a product of law. Its value comes not from the metal inside it but from the promise we have made about it.

And it is right here that a crack opens, one Aristotle himself noticed. A metre measures length, but it cannot be accumulated. A scale measures weight, but nobody stockpiles scales. Money, though, is both a measure and something that can be hoarded, carried, multiplied. The instrument invented for measuring is at the same time an object of desire. Imagine a ruler that can stand in for everything it measures, and on top of that, people want the ruler. This does not happen in engineering. In economics it does, because what money measures is not distance but desire. And the ruler of desire alters the thing it measures.

In seventeen eighty-five, in Königsberg, a professor of philosophy who had scarcely travelled beyond the city of his birth published a slim book. In that text, known as the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant was trying to ask where the worth of human conduct comes from. Halfway through the book he draws a distinction that reads almost like an aside, and yet that distinction laid the floor of the next two centuries of moral argument. Kant says: if a thing has a price, then something equivalent can be put in its place. Price is the word that expresses exactly this. If I can buy a thing for one hundred lira, that means the thing and the hundred lira are interchangeable for me. Substitutability just is price.

Kant then defines a second category: things that stand above all price and therefore admit of no equivalent whatsoever. These do not have a price; they have dignity. The concept is not, in Kant, an expression of emotional loftiness; it carries an entirely technical meaning. What has dignity is what nothing else can be put in the place of. And for Kant the human being falls precisely into this second category. A person is always an end, never merely a means. Because the moment you use a person merely as a means, you have assumed that someone else could be slotted in to do the same job. That assumption is itself a way of pricing a human being.

Kant adds that price itself comes in two kinds. On one side there is market price: the price of things that answer to a need. Flour, coal, carpentry. On the other side there are things that correspond to no need at all and yet have worth because people take pleasure in them; Kant calls this fancy price, the price of feeling. Jokes, good conversation, imagination. A display of wit has a price too, on his account, just not one that trades on any market. Dignity, though, differs from both of these categorically, not by degree. Saying "extremely expensive" does not bring you any closer to saying "beyond price." They are two separate languages.

Now let us look at where this abstract distinction touches down, because the place it touches is very concrete. An engineer deciding today whether a new barrier should be built along a mountain road looks at a table. In that table there is the cost of the barrier, and there is the estimated number of deaths the barrier would prevent. To reach a decision, the engineer has to convert those two columns into a single unit. Which means writing down a numerical equivalent for a human life. This is not a malicious calculation; it is an unavoidable one. In the United States, federal agencies use a figure for this purpose called the value of a statistical life, which in recent years has settled above ten million dollars. In Turkey a similar logic operates when investments in road safety and workplace safety are justified.

Those who want to ease the tension here take one of two easy exits. The first is to reject the calculation outright by declaring that no price can be put on a human life. The stance looks morally noble, but in practice it arrives at this result: the barrier does not get built, because no other way remains of deciding which road gets which barrier. As long as resources are limited, refusing to calculate does not remove the calculation; it makes it invisible and arbitrary. The second easy exit is the exact opposite: once the number has been written down the matter is closed, and a human life really is worth that much. This is not a philosophical error so much as a logical confusion.

Kant's distinction turns out to be surprisingly helpful here, because it lets us name correctly what that number measures. The value of a statistical life is not the value of a human being. No one's name is written into that calculation. What is being measured is how much a society is willing to give up in order to reduce the risk of death. So what it measures is our preference, not the worth of the person across from us. The moment we confuse the two, the very same calculator begins to speak an entirely different sentence: this person's life is not worth this cost. And we are back at those three separate fees on Hammurabi's stone, only with a more elegant table.

The line Kant drew is therefore not about the use of money but about the grammar of money. Money is a language, and like every language it translates. The trouble is not that something is lost in translation; something is lost in every translation. The trouble is that we take the translation to have replaced the original. So why does this confusion happen so often? Why does the measure slide so easily into the place of the thing it measures? Seven centuries before Kant, a thinker in Khorasan had answered that question through the nature of money itself.

Al-Ghazālī was born in Tūs, in the north-east of what is now Iran, and built one of the most brilliant careers of his age. He taught at the head of the Nizāmiyya madrasa in Baghdad, from the most prestigious chair in the Islamic world. At the age of thirty-seven he left that chair, left the city, and lived for years in a kind of inward reckoning. The great work he wrote after that departure is the Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn, The Revival of the Religious Sciences. Its forty books run from worship to ethics, from the heart to commerce. And in one of those books he takes up a subject one would not expect from a scholar of religion: the question of what money is.

The scene al-Ghazālī sets is taken from everyday life. Picture a man holding saffron who wants to buy a camel. The man across from him has a camel and wants saffron. So how much saffron comes to one camel? This is the same question as Aristotle's question about incomparability, but al-Ghazālī resolves it with a different image. Something is needed to judge between the saffron and the camel, he says; a judge. Gold and silver are those judges that give rulings among goods. Their value comes not from themselves but from the things they rule between.

Then he makes the famous comparison. Money, he says, resembles a mirror that has no colour of its own yet shows every colour. It has no form in itself; it takes the form of whatever is set before it. The elegance of the comparison lies in the criticism folded inside it. The function of a mirror is to reflect. If you look into a mirror and begin to admire the mirror itself, the mirror has lost its function. Al-Ghazālī's entire warning about money stands inside that single image: the measure stops measuring the moment it takes the place of what it measures.

This is why he objects openly to two things. The first is hoarding money and withdrawing it from circulation. By his logic this is like throwing the judge in prison. A judge exists to move among people and to give rulings; gold locked in a chest serves no one. Note that this is not a hymn to poverty. The world al-Ghazālī lived in was an intensely mobile commercial world stretching from Baghdad to Samarkand, from Cairo to Andalusia: caravans, letters of credit, partnerships, promissory notes. He was writing from inside that world and he regarded trade as legitimate. What he objected to was not buying and selling but the instrument of buying and selling becoming an end in itself.

His second objection is to interest, and his reasoning there is conceptual rather than legal. For al-Ghazālī, exchanging money for money with an increase turns the judge into one of the parties to the case. The measuring instrument mixes into the crowd it was measuring and starts turning a profit on its own account. Picture a scale that takes a cut of every weighing; you can no longer trust a single number that scale gives you. You are not obliged to accept this line of reasoning, and the centuries-long argument about the economic function of interest still stands where it stood. But it is clear where al-Ghazālī's worry lands: when the means turns into the end, the system's capacity to measure breaks down.

And the calmest, most unsettling feature of his diagnosis is this: he is not saying that people are wicked. He complains about no one's intentions. What he is describing is structural. Once you invent an instrument that can measure everything, that instrument becomes an object of desire in its own right, because from then on the road to every desire runs through it. Ill will is not required, only time. If a mirror reflects everything for long enough, at some point people start looking for things to reflect just so they can look at the mirror.

So what happens when this reversal takes place? Answering that, al-Ghazālī had two examples to hand: hoarding and interest. We now have far more material to work with. Because over the past half-century price has seeped into areas neither al-Ghazālī nor Kant ever contemplated, and we no longer have to guess what happens where it seeps in. We can measure it.

In Washington, before important sessions of the United States Congress, some of the people queuing outside the buildings are not citizens who have come to watch the proceedings. They are people paid by the hour who will hand their place over to a lobbyist or a lawyer who is paying them. There are companies set up for this work, and there are price lists. The place in line has become a saleable good. Most people feel the discomfort here at once, but naming its cause is hard, because on the face of it nobody has been harmed: the person standing in line is content with the money, and the person buying the place is content with the seat.

In his book What Money Can't Buy, Michael Sandel shows that this discomfort has two distinct sources. The first is inequality. Once something becomes purchasable, reaching it depends no longer on your relationship to the thing but on your wallet. The fairness of queuing lies in everyone's time flowing at the same rate; a place in line skipped with money separates those who have time from those who have money. The second and deeper objection is corruption. Some things, when sold, are not merely distributed unfairly; they turn into something else. And this second objection is the everyday counterpart of Kant's distinction.

The most striking example of it is the apology. In China and in many other countries there are services that apologise on a client's behalf, that write letters of apology, that will even go in person to express remorse. Logically it looks flawless: the injured party wants to hear an apology, the offending party wants an apology conveyed, and the intermediary does it more effectively. But the moment the injured party learns that the apology was purchased, they are left with nothing at all. Because the worth of an apology came precisely from the difficulty of saying it. When you buy the difficulty, what you have bought is no longer an apology. Price does not take possession of the good; it evaporates the good.

There are measured examples of this evaporation. In Israel, a group of economists watched what happened at day-care centres that began fining parents who picked their children up late. The expectation was that the fine would reduce lateness. Lateness rose, and markedly so. The reason was this: before the fine, being late was a way of keeping a teacher from going home, a wrong done to her; what the parent felt was shame. Once the fine was introduced, being late turned into a service with a stated price. The parent was no longer wronging anyone; they were buying overtime. And after the fine was withdrawn, lateness did not fall back to its former level, because the shared understanding of what kind of relationship this was had been broken once and for all.

The British social policy researcher Richard Titmuss described a similar mechanism more than forty years ago while studying blood donation. When payment was offered for giving blood, a portion of the voluntary donors withdrew. For them, giving blood was a kindness done to a stranger; once a fee entered the picture that kindness turned into a poorly paid job, and people did not want to be someone who sells their own blood. Economists argued over Titmuss's thesis for a long while, and some of his findings were retested. But the argument itself was forced to concede one thing: an incentive sometimes subtracts rather than adds.

And then there is the heaviest end of this argument: the kidney. A healthy person can live with one kidney, tens of thousands of people around the world die waiting their turn on dialysis, and the number of patients waiting is many times the number of kidneys donated. Since nineteen eighty-eight, Iran has been the only country to legally permit payment to kidney donors, and waiting lists there have been reported to shorten. Against that, research in the same country has found that the overwhelming majority of donors are poor people in debt, and that many of them report regret and health problems years after the payment. What faces us here is not an abstract question of philosophy. On one side are patients dying, on the other are people with no way out but to sell their bodies, and no answer comes away with clean hands.

The genuinely dark point is perhaps this. When price enters a domain, it pushes out all the other languages that used to do the work there. Once you have learned to ask "how much?", it is no longer as easy to ask "is this right?", "does this person deserve it?", "what is owed to me here?", because those questions do not yield a measurable answer, and unmeasurable answers look feeble standing next to measurable ones. For centuries al-Ghazālī's mirror has kept finding new surfaces to reflect: the queue, the apology, blood, organs, attention, friendship, sleep. On each new surface it works better, and on each new surface it subtracts something from what it reflects.

In one of his plays, Oscar Wilde defined the cynic as a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. The line is usually read as an insult. In fact there is a description of a loss inside it. The person who knows the price of everything is not ignorant; on the contrary, he knows a great deal. What he has lost is not knowledge but the capacity to draw a distinction: the capacity to tell apart the cases where something else can be put in the place of what he holds from the cases where it cannot. When that distinction disappears, what remains is not a miscalculation but a world reduced to a single ruler. And in a world with one ruler there is nothing that is beyond price; there are only things whose price has not yet been asked.

Nöron Philosophy'de bugünkü bölümün sonuna geldik. Yeni bir hikâyede yeniden buluşmak üzere.