Limitless wealth, or covetousness in most cases, is essentially the downfall of man. The lack of morale and greed that comes with the profusion of riches overshadows any benefits reaped from the diligence of members of society. John Locke's argument that the pursuit of limitless wealth could somehow benefit society, as a whole, is proved erroneous by the works of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. The perceptions of these two philosophers provide concrete rebuttals to the notion of any sort of good coming from the pursuit of limitless wealth.
Aristotle's base for his philosophical views is virtue. From developing virtue to attaining virtue, the concept of a high moral standard is portrayed as a necessity for the common good in everyday life. Essentially, one should live well on the journey to be virtuous. Living well, though, is not living a lavish, elegant lifestyle with limitless wealth. On the contrary, living well, according to Aristotle, is living a life with virtue in mind. With limitless wealth comes a distraction that deters society's desire for virtue. It leads members of society to "proceed on the supposition that they should either preserve or increase without limit their property in money. The cause of this state is that they are serious about living, but not about living well; and since that desire of theirs is without limit, they also desire what is productive of unlimited things," (Aristotle 1257b38). The striving for limitless wealth causes the member of society to focus on a constant wanting of preservation or increase in wealth and living well monetarily, instead of the desire for an increase in moral rectitude, thus living well virtuously. .
Aristotle would argue that the accumulation of money and wealth is unnatural. The exchange of goods is the only setting in which money is natural. The exchange of goods, though, exclusively for monetary gain is unnatural.