Aristotle vs Monotonicity
Is more of a good thing not better than less of it?
“Nor will it do to say, that the eternity of the very-good makes it to be more good; for what has lasted white ever so long, is no whiter than what lasts but for a day.”1
In a single sentence, Aristotle challenges the intuition that the longer-lasting good is better than that which does not last as long. His analogy seems apt; it would be absurd to say that the pure white color that vanishes after a minute is less white than that which never vanishes. Yet, we would all rather have the good that lasts eternally than that which does not.
Is there a paradox here? I think not.
While the good that lasts 1 year (choose your preferred unit of time and standardize it) is no more or less good than that very same good that lasts for 30 years, there is a marked difference in the utility enjoyed therefrom. If an individual reaps 100 utils/year of the good, of course she would prefer the instance that lasts 30 years than that which lasts only 1—3,000 is greater than 100. So, going back to The Philosopher, while it is true that the good is no better or worse depending on its longevity (both afford 100 utils/year in my example), the individual trivially prefers that longer-lasting good.
TL;DR: Aristotle’s views on the good do not violate the economic law of monotonicity.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, I.iii.
But what about the impact on value that scarcity, brevity, finiteness impart ? That which lasts only briefly or is more scarce is often more precious and valued.