why is money the incentive, instead of love?

Question

I think is because man is desperately wicked

Answer 1

ahhh, it's all in the way you look at it. You see man as desperately wicked, so you constantly see the wicked things. I see man (or woman) as basically good (or trying to be) so mainly see the good.

Most want love, but they don't realise it. They think they want money :O)

Answer 2

I believe that it is a matter of being practical. IF it was possible to trade in love (generic or universal love, not neccessarily the romantic sort), then love would certainly be the incentive, and we would all be living in a utopian world.

Sadly, love is subjective, eludes definitons, cannot be quantified and impossible to trade. Let's say that I wish to buy a loaf of bread for love, then how on Earth does the shopkeeper know that I will keep my word? Also, how can he benefit from my love? Money on the other hand is versatile. (Interestingly, people do trade on goodwill sometimes.)

With money, you can do just about anything except (ironically) buying love. You can better guarantee your survival (Game theory ideas). I think that is the gist. As mortals, we make survival as our top priority. But in today's context, we are placing FAR too much priority in money. My own personal view is that you should certainly srive to ensure your survival. But beyond a reasonable amount, additional wealth does not create happiness for most people. They hoard money out of fear.

Unless one wishes to build a dynasty, I would think that striving for love should be a greater concern. At any rate, gaining love, happiness or wealth are not mutually exclusive events.

Sadly though, due to the obscene inequality in the distribution of wealth, most people can never be quite secure enough financially. They will work extremely hard, become irritable and cynical, but say to themselves... "Once I make enough it will be different. I will treat my children better, pursue my passion, be more loving...." and so on. Again, due to the way the economy works, most will only begin that 'better life' when the better part of their life has passed them by.

Answer 3

It's the love of money that's the incentive, silly rabbit.

Money is not necessarily the incentive. You may love your work, many do. But the way we measure things in economics (at present) is through money.

A businessman may love the idea of running his own company, making it successful, fostering its growth. How does he achieve this goal, this passion? He uses money to achieve and measure his progress.

If a daughter takes in her destitute mother who is elderly and ill, she does it out of love. There is no money exchanged, and although there are estimations, there is no good way to measure the amount of love that caused her to do that act and continue that care.

Money is a tool, sometimes an incentive, but not always. Love is an incentive many times, but at present is not measureable and is a tough concept for economics to deal with.

And personally I think your belief in the nature of man is wrong.
For every terrible thing people do, one can show an example of
nobility.

Peace

Answer 4

Because man is desperately controlled by fear which is the opposite to love and sees more immediate safety and less risk in money. You can see it feel the weight of it count it - it is totally logical doesn't cheat on you or ask of you more than you can give it is inert and the most manipulable commodity barring financial crash.
I don't think fear is wicked just too weak to attempt the real risk.
Love requires that we be real and therefore at our most vulnerable. I guess its a no brainer.

Answer 5

Maybe because love is way too much priceless to be just an incentive. It cannot be granted instantly. Who you love is not necessarily who they love. And of course men will be much more "wicked" to make love just an incentive. Would you give away your love just because you want to give the other person an incentive? Just think about it.

Answer 6

Money is about the allocation of scarce resources, and man is by nature in general selfish (not quite the same as being wicked).

The utilitarians, such as Bentham and Mill suggested that people made economic choices to maximise their happiness (not quite the same as love). Quantitative economics largely developed from their attempts to develop a calculus of utility. However, the fact that modern economists, such as Professor Layard at London School of Economics, conduct studies to identify the relationship between wealth and happiness demonstrates that human nature is not such that people pay according to what will make them happy.

The relationship between economics and psychology was sadly neglected for most of the twentieth century. Whilst there is increasing interest by economists in psychology (but less by psychologists in the discipline of economics), there is still a lack of contact between the two disciplines, which has practical effects on issues such as making money respond to real human needs. As a psychology graduate, I greatly regret this.

Answer 7

I think wicked is a little strong. We are all sinners and there are people who do things for others and do it with no incentive in mind. Unfortunately money is what it takes to get by in this material world we live in.

Answer 8

Man isn't wicked just weak. But, unfortunately in these times love won't buy bread or fish.

However, I took a 10 grand a year paycut for a job I love.

Answer 9

Money is the primary motivation for a lot of people, love is saddenigly second in what drives a person. It's particularly sad because all they are buying is stuff which does nothing for everyone in the end.

Answer 10

try buying a loaf at the supermarket by saying

"i would like to pay for this with love please".

you'll be shown the door or possibly arrested.lol