As has been repeated many times, Confucius wants people to perfect benevolence, meaning to be benevolent for benevolence's sake. Imagine a world in which everyone was open to giving with no interest in receiving anything back.
As a musician, I know that if I were to sing without expecting payment, I would be broke my entire life. There would be no fame in the entertainment industry, therefore killing culture and destroying any passion to perform.
If I were a teacher, I wouldn't apply for a job because that would mean I want to teach for money. I would teach anyone for free and I would be broke my entire life.
If I were an athlete, I wouldn't ask to be paid, and I would be broke my entire life.
The common thread: being broke.
Benevolence is a good idea to live by, but without competition there is no motivation and no profit. Our world would crumble.
Given that extrinsic motivation undermines intrinsic motivation - meaning that rewards/bonuses and such actually decrease a person's motivation to make music because they want to. I would argue that people making music for music's sake, and teaching for teaching's sake, and being athletic (and fit) for athletic's sake, would greatly increase the culture and passion to perform.
ReplyDeleteIf all musicians were so because they loved music and not money, it would rule out those who write music for wealth - the industry would be better and filled with more heart-felt music.
If all teachers were so because they loved teaching and not money, it would allow them to be fully engaged in their teaching and to be fully invested in the students, not the check - the education system would be better and filled with genuinely compassionate students. P.S. Teachers are not really paid enough where a person would want to become one to receive high pay.
I mean think about ancient civilizations during which time they had no currency, people taught and made music just for fun, to continue legends, and because it's just enjoyable, no culture was destroyed there.
As an additional note, if the entire society followed benevolence, then this economic system would probably not flourish.
Thank you for putting this out there. I was certainly being very narrow-minded in my original post, completely forgetting about intrinsic motivation. You're right! People should be motivated to do things because they want to do things, which makes a happier existence for everyone. I would have to think further about whether or not this would be good economy-wise, but as for the social aspect of life, we could greatly benefit from the practice of benevolence.
DeleteBut I also want to point out what I said in my response to Avery's post, that "competition does motivate people to succeed. I think what makes being recognized (whether by a teacher, a college, a state, a country, or the entire world) so satisfying is that one had to achieve lengths greater than everyone else involved. For example, if you were auditioning for a role in the play, it wouldn't be nearly as exciting to get the role if nobody else had tried out for it. Also, if nobody else had tried out, there would be no reason to impress the casting director because you know you're going to get the part anyways." I believe we thrive off of competition because it makes us want to be better and do better, which inevitably makes us grow.
Thank you for responding - I hope this supplies you with more material for further discussion!
~Katie
I have a few refutations to present in response to some of the comments in this post. Firstly, what does 'broke' mean in this context? Does it mean 'without enough money to survive', 'without enough money to do whatever you want', 'without enough money to be respectable', or something else?
ReplyDeleteSecondly, most of these arguments against benevolence assume that few or no others in the world are being benevolent. While I agree that in contemporary American society teaching for free with no other source of income (even welfare) would result in one becoming broke (in the first sense of the word), contemporary America society is not the society Confucius is promoting. In an ideal Confucian society, no one would have to worry about being broke because if anyone appeared to lack something they required or very much wanted, another person would freely give them that thing out of benevolence. The usage of money would not be necessary, because no one requires money, or would really want money if they can obtain things without it, through merely asking another benevolent person.
Lastly, the assertion 'without competition there is no motivation' does not seem valid to me. There would be no motivation to be wealthier than anyone else, true, but why would such a goal be worthwhile? The motivation to perform certain actions which are currently considered careers would still be there, either because people simply enjoyed doing them (some people, for example, genuinely enjoy teaching others) or because they recognized that doing so would help themselves and others; a recognition which would lead to their performing those actions, due to both self-interest and benevolence.
P.S. I also posted this on my own blog if you'd rather read it there.
Wow - thank you for saying something - when I was thinking about the first idea that one should have "no interest in receiving anything back", I wasn't thinking about how people will be willing to repay you regardless. You're completely right - if people are being benevolent, they will repay you somehow; or if you're "broke", they will lend you money. And when I said "broke" it wasn't supposed to be complex, just lacking enough money to survive.
ReplyDeleteThe second point is about motivation. In saying "without competition there is no motivation" in regard to money, I admit my mistake. However, I still want to defend the fact that competition does motivate people to succeed. I think what makes being recognized (whether by a teacher, a college, a state, a country, or the entire world) so satisfying is that one had to achieve lengths greater than everyone else involved. For example, if you were auditioning for a role in the play, it wouldn't be nearly as exciting to get the role if nobody else had tried out for it. Also, if nobody else had tried out, there would be no reason to impress the casting director because you know you're going to get the part anyways. This is obviously a different point, but I just want to put that out there for further conversation.
Thank you for responding! I enjoy hearing other points of view! Did I touch on everything?
~Katie
Thanks for replying! Yes, I would absolutely agree that competition can be a great motivation for some people. I was simply trying to point out that it is not the only motivation, nor necessarily the strongest (I think the strength of differing motivations varies from person to person). And thanks for clarifying the meaning of broke, it makes sense the way you've used it here.
ReplyDelete