Buddhism's Theory of Merit Is a Low Form of Utilitarianism

Compassion is innate in everyone. The inherent goodness of human nature is the foundation on which the good side of society exists and thrives. But in Buddhism, doing good has become a means of accumulating merit to reap rewards. When Buddhists exhort the public, they emphasize that doing good brings various blessings, giving alms brings blessings, feeding monks brings blessings, and making offerings to the Three Jewels brings blessings. This transparent utilitarianism is far inferior to disinterested humanistic care and humanitarianism.

Because when one does good expecting merit, it becomes selling favors. To sell favors is to treat kindness as a commodity for trade. Moreover, the kind of favor-selling promoted by most religions is not even equivalent exchange; it is a transaction that promises a massive return on a tiny investment, suspiciously exploiting people's greed for merit. It eventually evolves into believers doing good and giving with an eye on rewards—hoping to become a Buddha, hoping for a wealthy life, or hoping to avoid disaster.

Of course, this cannot be laid at the feet of the founders of the various religions. As the French philosopher Gustave Le Bon observed, all religious founders have been used by later religionists as tools for promoting religion. Most religious doctrines are no longer the founder's true meaning; the founder, though seemingly venerated by millions, has in fact become a puppet in the hands of professional believers.

We must acknowledge that Buddhism's merit theory has a certain positive significance, but its abuses are endless. It ultimately leads people to think of rewards first when doing good. This is no different from investing in a business to win big from a small stake. Worse, some bad Buddhists or swindlers exploit this belief to cheat people of money, even seduce them, and take lives. That is why our ancients said that there have always been more monks and Taoists at the gates of hell—because the banner of faith easily becomes a cover for charlatanism.

How beautiful it would be if a person helped others out of innate goodness. For those whose nature tends toward evil, religious teaching does not easily bring repentance; only real-world blows can turn a prodigal son around. Society prevents wrongdoing first through the rule of law and second through public opinion. Both are more efficient at punishing evil than religion.

Rather than the merit theory, we should cultivate the public's sense of social responsibility that asks for no return. Everyone born into this society bears a certain responsibility to it and should not shirk it. Doing good is both our nature and our duty. Buddhism's backward merit theory—this transactional doctrine of planting blessings to reap blessings—should gradually be eliminated and replaced by a more open humanitarian spirit.

\p>

When I do good and someone tells me that I will receive merit for it, I consider it the greatest insult to my character. I do good not for merit but because I genuinely sympathize with the people I help. What drives me is deep compassion for their fate. To debase this compassion into a quid-pro-quo favor-selling is truly an insult to the innate goodness of our nature.

For society, doing good is a noble act. Human evil is ubiquitous; doing good and receiving merit is not an inevitable law. It often happens that someone we help today bites us tomorrow. Good people receive no reward, while villains thrive—this is common. The merit theory cannot explain these things. Doing good is something one wants to do from the heart; why care if doing good meets with ill reward?

Good and evil have consequences only probabilistically, not inevitably. A rational person should recognize this rather than naively believing that everyone knows how to repay kindness. Only knowing this and still insisting on justice and goodness is what we should do. As for punishing evil, one should trust in the rule of law. Hell does not exist; relying on hell is pure self-numbing. Relying on law is far more meaningful than relying on hell. Evildoers should be brought to justice.

Zisi said: Being sincere and thereby enlightened is benevolence; being enlightened and thereby sincere is wisdom. The naturally benevolent person has an innate sincerity that lets them understand principle and do good, avoiding evil. The lesser kind of wise person, after understanding principle, chooses sincerity. The benevolent person's sincerity is spontaneous and innate; the wise person's sincerity is built on so-called comprehension and wisdom. Wisdom is not as reliable as innate goodness. So a simple, honest person often does not calculate much and spontaneously helps others. But a so-called enlightened person, when doing good, has calculation in their heart; the difference is great.

Our education should cultivate large numbers of spontaneous benevolent people, nurturing sincerity and uprightness in children from an early age, rather than cultivating large numbers of wise people. Abandoning cleverness and sageliness, letting everything arise from innate nature, is what makes a solid character. So-called wisdom and comprehension, and even the so-called merit theory in religious belief, are only second-rate utilitarianism.

So in China we have the greatest number of refined egoists. Even when engaging in so-called public welfare, they inevitably follow the path of utilitarianism. Though doing so is better than not doing it, from a civilizational perspective it still needs to be raised.

Throughout history, the people who have truly shouldered moral responsibility have only been those who were sincere, upright, kind, and brave from childhood. This nature is visible in childhood; if nurtured, they will grow into adults who do good and avoid evil from the heart, asking no reward.

In recent years, Buddhism has used the internet to develop followers in Chinese society in a manner akin to pyramid selling, leaving many families ruined. It is truly repugnant. And once Buddhists study Buddhism, they become completely illogical. They believe that apart from Buddhist belief in reincarnation, retribution, and merit, people cannot have a heart for goodness. That is nonsense of the highest order.

I find that the goodness of most non-religious people is no less than that of those who style themselves as cultivators; one might even say they are more kind. At the very least, these non-religious people do not curse others to receive evil retribution.