西方经济学家认为，人类的需求通过两类事物得到满足，即商品和服务。商品是满足需要的手段，是可以感知的有形之物，例如面包、车辆、电话等。服务同样属于满足需要的手段，但它是可以感知的无形之物，例如法律咨询、汽车维修、清洁工作等。使商品和服务成为满足需要之手段的，是它们的效用（益处），无论这种效用是部分实现还是完全实现，是直接实现还是间接实现。在西方的观点中，只要某物具备这种益处，它便适合用于满足需要。由于在资本主义经济学的术语中，需要即是欲望，任何在经济上有益的事物都属于人们所渴求的范畴，无论该事物是否必需，也无论有些人视其为有益而另一些人视其为有害。只要有任何人渴求它，它在经济上便是有益的。

Economists in the West see that human needs are fulfilled by two things such as: goods and services. Goods are the means of satiation, being sensed things that are tangible such as bread, vehicles, telephone and others. Services are also within the means of satiation, but are sensed things that are intangible, such as legal advice, car repair, cleaning work and others. What makes the goods and services means of satiation is their utility (benefit), whether this utility is achieved partially or completely, directly or indirectly. In the Western view, if this benefit is available in anything, this makes the thing suitable for satiation. Since in capitalist economic terms, need means desire, anything that is beneficial economically falls within all that is desired, whether the thing is essential or not, regardless of some people considering it as beneficial, whilst others consider it as harmful. It is economically beneficial as long as it is desired by anyone.

在他的文章《论自由·关于不干涉的几点看法》中，约翰·斯图亚特·密尔断言：“商品的价格低廉和质量优良，只有让生产者和销售者完全自由，才能最有效地得到保障。”即便在考虑酒精、鸦片和毒品对购买者造成的危害时，他也是如此主张。荷兰央行行长耶勒·齐尔斯特拉在其著作《经济学导论》中也说道：“按照经济学的概念，酒精和鸦片与食物、衣物一样，都是商品……”

In his essay, “On Liberty, A Few Words on Non- Intervention,” John Stuart Mill asserted, “both the cheapness and the good quality of commodities are most effectually provided for by leaving the producers and sellers perfectly free,” even whilst considering the harm of alcohol, opium and poisons upon the buyer. “Alcohol and opium are commodities just like food and clothing according to the economic concept...” as the Dutch central banker, Jelle Zijlstra, said in his book, Introduction to Economics.

因此，西方资本主义经济关注的是满足需求的手段，即商品与服务，其主要考量仅在于它们能否满足需求，而不考虑其他任何因素。于是，酒被视为具有经济价值，因为它满足了个人的需求。卖淫也被视为具有经济价值，因为它被看作满足个人需求的一种服务。 约翰·斯图亚特·穆勒在其著作《功利主义》中说：“根据功利主义的概念，美德就是这样一种善。人们original并没有对它的欲望，也没有追求它的动机，除非它有助于带来快乐，尤其是有助于免除痛苦。” 耶勒·齐尔斯特拉在其著作《经济学导论》中说：“因此，经济学并不从道德角度评判需求或界定需求，以至于能够据此接受或拒绝它们，因为那是伦理学的工作。经济学也不从对健康的危害角度评判事物，因为那是医学的工作。相反，经济学只询问是否存在需要满足的需求，或者是否有可能满足这些事物。” 这意味着资本主义经济并不关心社会应当如何构成。相反，它只关注经济材料是否构成需求并在经济上有益，其来源如何，以及如何确保其供应。它依据经济收益来衡量一切。

Thus, the Western capitalist economy looks into the means of satiation, goods and services, with the dominant consideration that they satiate the needs, without looking into any other considerations. Thus wine is seen as having an economic value as it satiates the needs of individuals. Prostitution is seen as having an economic value by considering it as service that satiates the needs of individuals. In his book, Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill said, “Virtue, according to the utilitarian conception, is a good of this description. There was no original desire of it, or motive to it, save its conduciveness to pleasure, and especially to protection from pain.” Jelle Zijlstra said in his book, Introduction to Economics, “Thus, the economy does not judge the needs or define them from a moral perspective for instance, such that they can be accepted or rejected because it is the work of ethical science. Also it does not judge the things in terms of their harm to the health because it is the work of medicine. Instead, the economy asks only whether there is a need that is to be satiated or there is a possibility of satiating the things.” This means that the capitalist economy is not concerned about how society should be like. Instead, it is only concerned with economic material in terms of it being a need and beneficial, economically, in origin and then how to ensure its provision. It measures everything according to its economic benefit.

这是资本主义经济学家对需要与利益的看法。这种看法并不等于社会应当如何。这种看法表明，资本主义经济中的人被视为纯粹物质化的人，没有精神倾向、道德思考和道德目标。他不关心社会的道德风尚，也不关心社会应当普遍具备的精神提升。他对这些一概不予理会，而只关心那些能够单纯满足其物质欲望的东西。因此，他在贸易中获利时不会欺诈；然而，如果他只能靠欺诈获利，那么欺诈便成为合法之事。他不会因为安拉（SWT）关于施舍的命令而周济穷人，而是只为阻止穷人偷窃他才去养活他们。按照这种看法看待人、以这种看法评判经济生活的人，实际上是对社会与民族最危险的人。因为他会把人类社会变成丛林，强者吞噬弱者。

This is the view of capitalist economists on needs and benefits. The view is not as such how society should be. This view indicates that a man of the capitalist economy looks at man as a purely materialistic person devoid of spiritual inclinations, moral thoughts and moral goals. He does not care about the moral spirit of the society and the spiritual elevation that should be prevalent amongst the society. He is not concerned with any of this. Instead, he is purely concerned with the materials that would purely satiate his material cravings alone. So he will not cheat whilst he profits in his trade. However, if he gets profit only by cheating, then cheating will be legal. He will not feed the poor in response to the command of Allah (swt) to give charity. Instead, he will feed the poor only to stop them stealing from him. The one who views man according to this view, who evaluates economic life on the basis of this view, is in fact the most dangerous person for societies and peoples. That is because he will alter human society into a jungle, where the strong devour the weak.

另一方面,财富与劳动——人们称之为商品与服务——是个人为了获得利益而追求的;人们之间的交换在他们之间建立起关系,社会正是依此关系而形成。因此,在考察财富与需求时,必须从整体和细节上审视社会是什么,以及其中的各种关系。据此,若只关注物质经济,着眼于满足需要与满足欲望,而不关注一个社会得以存在所必需的条件,那就是把物质经济与各种关系割裂开来。这是让人服从于物质经济,而非让经济服从于人、以人的各种关系来组织经济。这既违背自然,也是无效的。因此,我们不能仅仅因为有人想要某种东西,就认为它有益,无论它实际上是否有害,无论它是否对人们的关系产生负面影响,也无论按照社会中人们的看法它是允许还是禁止的。相反,只有当事物实际上对人有益,并且符合社会所应尽的义务时,才应当被视为有益。

This is on the one hand. On the other hand, wealth and efforts, which they call goods and services, are sought by individuals, to benefit them; their exchange by people creates relationships between them, according to which society is formed. Thus one must look into what society is, with its relationships, in general and in detail, when looking at the wealth and needs. Accordingly, paying attention to the material economy in terms of satiating the needs and satisfying the desires, without attention to what is necessary for a society to be, it is the separation of the material economy from relationships. It is the subjugation of man to the material economy, instead of subjugating the economy to him, by organizing his relationships with it. This is unnatural and invalid. Accordingly, it is not permissible for us to consider materials as beneficial, just because there is someone who wants them, whether they are in fact harmful or not, whether they negatively affect the relationships of the people or not or whether or not they are permissible or prohibited according to the view of people in the society. Instead, things should be considered beneficial only when they are in fact beneficial to man, with a view of what is obliged for a society.