If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
Albert Einstein As opposed to what...
being good on accident? If you are consciously trying something, anything, there is reward and punishment inherent to the "try" that you are engaged in.
I like Einstein quotes most of the time but this one leaves me puzzled.
It bothers me because I think, although I can't be sure, that it is somehow aimed at depreciating the assumed motivation of religious discipline.
Simply put it is kind of a stab at those who consciously try to be good in order to get to heaven or avoid hell.
It implies that to not be a sorry lot we should remain good (assuming he meant in terms of moral behavior) naturally, effortlessly, and simply because moral behavior is the right behavior.
This statement invokes the mightiest word in human language...
the term "SHOULD" because the term "should" is often used as a magic incantation to favor a particular behavior without any logic or reasoning behind it.
You could simply say, "Yes we are a sorry lot.
" You could simply say Einstein was just calling us what we are.
If he was then he was simply agreeing with the religious view that mankind is inherently flawed and as Jesus put it, "There are none good but one, that is God.
" Maybe he was, but assuming that he was implying that this isn't necessarily true lets continue.
Let's continue and try to figure out how often people can and will be good without fear of punishment and hope of reward.
See...
as soon as I made that statement everyone reading this knows how this is going to turn out.
You immediately, intuitively realize that once you remove reward and punishment people's behavior (even in the smallest matters) devolves and breaks apart.
You remove the speed limit and the fear of tickets you will certainly see a rise in reckless driving and number of accidents.
You remove tax breaks for charitable donations and you will see a drop in charitable giving.
You raise the property tax 1% in one area then you will see a number of people move out that area.
When you remove the threat of social exclusion and a punch in the face then people begin saying things they would never say in a present physical group of people...
(cough, cough...
the internet).
If you stop paying your employees they will certainly stop working for you.
It's just common sense.
So why do people behave in a moral fashion when the reward of heaven and the threat of hell are not motivations they draw from? Some simply follow their natural born consciences.
If this feels bad to the conscience then they refrain but if it doesn't it is fair game.
Problem with this is everyone consciences are not the same.
Some are stronger and more sensitive than others.
They are configured in different ways.
Some people are born feeling that to kill another person because of an insult is perfectly moral and justified.
There are other rewards to moral behavior.
You might behave morally to remain an upstanding member of a social group.
That's punishment and reward wrapped up into one.
You might behave morally to retain a self-image in which case your own feelings about your self are the reward and punishment.
In the end ALL conscious behavior is reward and punishment based; all of it; even those simply obeying their natural born consciences.
All other behavior is unconscious and semi-accidental in nature in which none can take credit or blame.
People born with a conscience that engenders behavior that needs no adjustment are lucky.
They basically had little part in their moral behavior and are just acting according to their natural born compass.
Viewing these people as noble is like viewing any natural born physical gift as noble.
But I think we are more addressing consciously adjusted behavior.
And my point is consciously adjusting your behavior for the reward of heaven or threat of hell is by no means less noble than adjusting your behavior simply motivated by the threat of social exclusion and the reward of an emotional self-pat on the back.