A candid conversation with a brother and friend sparked this reflection. He claimed that money is the core of any job. I disagreed with his perspective, albeit gently. Suppose I said to him, I found myself the Member of Parliament of your old home constituency–of a home in which I am relatively unknown. I should receive the allowances and go through with the glory, but should I know the actual hardships of your people? Would I have a clue as to what your community needs?” Smiling, he thought he perceived what line I was inclined to pursue. I went on; imagine a young fellow of your village, who was once a student leader of the local school and has ascended to the very position of the Member of Parliament. He would lead the people better, mainly because he is familiar with the society, and he also understands the aspirations of the people while relating to their sufferings. He would not be leading just because there were some perks, but there were people who needed him.
It is not only politics. It is a key reason why we engage in the work we do. Should all work be based on the monetary benefits? Or is there a more ultimate goal that ought to direct us more than in leadership? By looking through the prism of two ancient truths —the truths of two ancient thinkers, Aristotle and Confucius —we examine the peerless leadership, which is not based on personal benefits, but rather on the benefits of serving others, grounded in connection, virtue, and moral commitment.
The Nature of Work and Motivation
The discussion has a long history, and it still sounds in everyday life: Are we only bread-winners, or do we belong to something greater? The contemporary world is inclined to treat labour as a commodity, turning jobs into salaries and compensation. Success is a word that has become synonymous with wealth, and those who can afford flashy political campaigns or work in elite corporate offices are often considered successful. However, this does not take into account one fundamental fact: not all individuals are motivated by a monetary form of real interaction. Others are driven by their passion, purpose, and motivation to serve.
These motivations have been questioned since antiquity, when philosophy began its investigations. It does not merely enquire what we do; it enquires why we do; and whether we do contribute to the well-spent life. There is no better place to ask this question than in leadership, where power can be misused when it is not guided by morality.
Aristotle: Leadership as a Pursuit of Virtue and Purpose
The great Greek philosopher Aristotle posited that each being bears a telos, or end, or purpose, which is to serve. In humans, this is a telos, typically translated as eudaimonia, which is commonly defined as flourishing or living well. According to Aristotle, happiness, as described in his Nicomachean Ethics, cannot be defined in terms of pleasure or wealth; instead, the activity of becoming or being a good person is the measure of happiness (Aristotle, 2009).
Leadership is, therefore, not an instrument of self-enrichment. It is a position that can be called a moral responsibility, and it requires backbone, wisdom, temperance, and justice. According to Aristotle, an ideal ruler is one who rules not for their benefit, but in the best interests of the polis, the city-state (Aristotle, 1992). He cautions against leadership that is subservient to its interests in the name of serving the people.
In the eyes of Aristotle, a ruler who is ignorant and uncaring of the people he rules, such as the MP in my analogy, is incapable of serving. He does not possess the virtue of prudence (practical wisdom), which entails understanding, empathy, and reasoning that leads to effective action. The leader should emerge from the people or, at the very least, be shaped by a genuine connection with them.
Confucius: Moral Character and Leadership through Service
A similar, yet culturally distinct, vision was voiced in the East by Confucius. According to his Analects, a good ruler is not the one who rules by using his power, but the one who rules by being good. To Confucius, leadership begins by nurturing one’s inner being. The leader must be a junzi, an ethically upright person who sets an example (Confucius, 2003).
The most essential characteristics of Confucianism are ren (benevolence), li (ritual propriety), and yi (righteousness). Leadership is all about establishing a moral tone in society, says Confucius. When the ruler is upright, everything will come out alright, even when he does not order, he says. However, when he is upright, and he cannot submit an order, then he will not be obeyed (Analects 13:6).
This echoes well with the concept of the most intelligent student leader of the village. He has been brought up in the society that he wants to represent. Existing with a duty is not abstract, but, on the contrary, lies in historical belonging, communal life, and feeling. Confucianism suggests that this kind of individual has a much higher chance of serving justice as his ren is genuine.
A Modern Parable: The MP and the Head Student
We may revisit the analogy. Suppose an outsider like me is elected to represent a rural seat in parliament. I can attend meetings, but I am unfamiliar with their dialect. I get to decide their developing budget, but I have never been down their dusty roads or waited in queues in their local clinic. But I receive my salary, fuel allowance, and sitting allowance. In the view of the outsider, I have achieved.
And now compare that with a young man who was formerly head student in the neighbourhood school. He assisted the community in planting trees, lobbied for textbooks, and even approached the gathering, asking them to be correct in the case of a bullying student. Several years later, he rises into national leadership. He does not have to find out what the people require; he already knows because he was one of them.
This comparison examines the differences between transactional leadership and transformative leadership. Power is viewed as a means of personal gain. The other has power as a platform of common rise
Why These Ancient Ideas Still Matter
Some might neglect Aristotle and Confucius, claiming that they are obsolete and insignificant in the fast-paced capitalist world. However, their teachings live on partly because human nature remains essentially unchanged. We always desire meaning. When our rulers are morally clear and emotionally competent, we still flourish.
Our world would not be lacking leaders these days, but rather a shortage of responsible leaders. There are issues of corruption, apathy, and callousness to public service that are a common feature across the continents. Political offices become ladders to wealth rather than the foundation of justice. And humans lose their faith and become cynical, as most of them think, as my friend did; they believe that all work is simply about the money.
However, this does not always happen. In educational institutions, healthcare fields, and local self-government organizations, you will see actors making unnoticed sacrifices as they work day and night not to earn a bonus, but to care. It is the society leaders who keep hope.
Is Money Wrong? A Philosophical Clarification
In more explicit language, money is not inherently evil. Confucius and Aristotle recognized the necessity of provision. Aristotle went to the extent of stating that the state ought to ensure that citizens live with honour. Confucius also emphasized the importance of stability and order.
The most important one is between the means and the ends. The purpose of money is neither the purpose of money. Service becomes exploitation when it becomes the primary goal of leadership. However, with passion, virtue, and love for the community, money is of secondary priority.
Reimagining Service and Work
What then is our goal, as leaders, workers, or as citizens?
We should not forget that purpose is the deepest leadership. It is the leadership born through community — and raised in subservience — that is motivated through moral excitement, which changes cultures. That is what Aristotle dreamed of in the polis, and what Confucius was talking about in governing by virtue.
The next time we hear someone say that it’s all about money, we will need to ask: What then, if it isn’t? Suppose the most satisfying careers are those that care about something beyond the check (and the best leaders are those with eyes to see what is in the heart of people they are serving).
Confucius once stated, and correctly at that, that the integrity of the home is the strength of a nation. And Aristotle tells us that the good of man is the activity of the soul by virtue. Our most daunting problem in this age is not gaining power, but holding it correctly.
References
- (2009). Nicomachean Ethics (W. D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
- (1992). Politics (T. A. Sinclair, Trans.). Penguin Classics.
- (2003). The Analects (R. Dawson, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
- MacIntyre, A. (2007). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (3rd ed.). University of Notre Dame Press.
- Slingerland, E. (2000). Effortless Action: Wu-wei as Conceptual Metaphor and Spiritual Ideal in Early China. Oxford University Press.
- Hourani, G. F. (1985). Ethical Value and Human Fulfillment: An Aristotelian Defense. State University of New York Press.
- Ames, R. T., & Rosemont, H. (1998). The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation. Ballantine Books.
