Morality is Always Transactional

George Payne

Mr. Peo argues that morality should be devoid of transactional motives, but I would challenge this premise. In philosophical thought, it is often assumed that morality and transaction are incompatible, especially since transactions are frequently associated with selfishness, greed, or vanity. The belief is that true morality arises only when one acts purely out of duty or for the sake of doing good, without expecting any reward or personal benefit. However, this perspective raises an uncomfortable dilemma.

If we assert that morality must be entirely free of transactional motives, we are left with an unsettling conclusion: moral actions would have to be performed for no reason, purpose, or motivation at all. This is a form of nihilism, where morality loses all inherent value and actions lack direction. Without motivation or purpose, why would anyone act morally? Is it merely to become the “right” type of person, to live by one’s values, or to contribute to the well-being of others? These motivations, too, are forms of transaction—they are driven by the desire to achieve something: personal integrity, social cooperation, or moral alignment.

This brings us to an important point: morality, in its essence, is always transactional. Whether the motivation is external—such as receiving a reward or recognition—or internal, like the desire to be a good person or to make a positive impact, there is always some kind of transaction involved. Even the most noble moral actions, such as doing the right thing for its own sake, still involve a transaction. That transaction is not about selfishness, but about becoming or remaining the kind of person who lives according to certain ethical principles. It’s not about whether an action is transactional, but rather what kind of transaction is at play.

This view is echoed in Plato’s Ring of Gyges parable, which raises a critical ethical question. In the story, Gyges, a shepherd, finds a ring that grants him the power of invisibility. He uses this power to commit acts of greed and violence, unconcerned with the consequences. The parable suggests that when consequences are removed, morality becomes transactional—people will act immorally when the rewards of doing so outweigh the costs. Gyges' behavior illustrates that morality is deeply influenced by external consequences, which shape our actions and decisions.

The concept of transaction also appears in the Judeo-Christian tradition, where covenants between God and humanity are inherently transactional. In return for obedience, God offers grace, protection, and love. Those who choose to follow God are making a transaction of faith, hoping their choice will bring blessings. The covenant is not seen as a flaw in the relationship, but rather as a defining feature of it—obedience for blessing, trust for protection. This structure reinforces the idea that morality is transactional, even in the most sacred contexts.

In our early education, we learn that good behavior is rewarded and bad behavior is punished. As children, we experience the direct consequences of our actions in the form of affection, treats, good grades, and eventually, promotions and opportunities. These rewards reinforce a foundational understanding of morality: good behavior leads to positive outcomes. Over time, this transactional model evolves, but it remains central to how we engage with the world and others.

One of the purest forms of morality, I would argue, is to be honest about one’s self-interest. Recognizing that actions—whether moral or not—are often motivated by personal benefit is an honest acknowledgment of human nature. It is not immoral to act in one’s self-interest, as long as those actions also promote the well-being of others or align with ethical principles. Self-interest can be a powerful motivator for moral behavior. For example, we might choose to act morally because we value the personal integrity that comes with it or the reputation it builds with others. By being transparent about this, we can better understand the transactional nature of morality without casting it in negative terms.

When Peo chooses to do the right thing, he is choosing because it makes him feel good about himself. That is the ultimate transaction. If he claims that his actions make him feel like a good family member or a devout religious follower, that too is transactional. The satisfaction, the affirmation of his values, and the internal recognition of being a moral person are all forms of reward. Even when actions appear selfless, they are often motivated by the desire for personal validation or a sense of alignment with one’s ethical or spiritual beliefs. In this way, even those who claim to act purely from principle are engaging in a transactional relationship with their sense of self.

In this light, I believe my proposal to provide stipends to youth is not flawed simply because it is transactional. On the contrary, it is a practical application of transactional motivation that benefits both the individual and society. The goal is to incentivize positive behavior, help youth stay on the right path, and equip them with the resources to succeed. Using financial incentives can empower young people, providing them with both purpose and the means to thrive. This is not to suggest that moral behavior should be driven solely by external rewards, but rather to acknowledge that for those who have not yet developed strong intrinsic motivations, transactional incentives can catalyze growth and positive change.

Morality is inherently transactional, whether the transactions are internal or external. The question is not whether transactional motivations are part of moral action, but how they can be used to achieve positive outcomes. By incentivizing good behavior through stipends, we can create an environment in which youth are empowered to make better choices while simultaneously developing the internal motivations that will sustain them in the long run.

~ George Cassidy Payne is a writer and educator. He lives in Irondequoit, NY.