Beyond Transactions: The Interplay of Effort, Justice, and Moral Responsibility

Life rarely follows the simple rule: “transform effort – receive equivalence.” Our endeavors do not always receive a direct response in the form of material or emotional compensation, as the system of social interaction is far more complex and multifaceted than a standard transaction.

It all begins with the understanding that the quality of our actions is determined primarily by our inner strength rather than by mass mechanisms for distributing “rewards.” The real relationship between personal efforts and outcomes is a complex weaving of collective, often asymmetric, power dynamics. It is important to realize that the world is not arranged so that every initiative automatically returns with the desired equivalent—the fundamental mechanisms of power and influence do not conform to simple formulas.

Yet, a moral sense also plays a critical role: the awareness of responsibility toward both ourselves and others. This raises the standard of justice to a new level, where the focus is not merely on seeking material compensation, but on striving for balance and respect for everyone’s rights. It is this sense of collective duty that helps us reconsider the concept of “payback” and define the value of not only individual efforts but also our shared commitment to justice.

Ultimately, when our expectations do not align with the real world, it reminds us that the principles of reward result from the intricate interplay of inner strength, social context, and moral ideals. Understanding this dynamic enables us to mature, embracing the world with all its nuances and contradictions, while striving for a justice measured not only in numbers but also in genuine mutual respect.

Why does life not return our efforts and experiences as a form of “cashback,” and how does this affect our perception of justice?

Life is not designed as a system in which every effort automatically returns to us as an equivalent “cashback.” The reason lies in the fact that fairness in social and moral spheres is not a straightforward “you did it – you get it” deal, but rather the result of complex interactions of power and interests. This means that our actions and experiences are not always evaluated according to the principle of strict equality due to the influence of various external and internal factors.

On one hand, it is stated that “the principle and quality of my actions remain unchanged regardless of the extent to which other forces impose limits on my strength. Ultimately, significance still lies with strength, while the concept of law is merely a form without any independent substance.” (source: link , page: 341). This underscores that the objective allocation of “rewards” is not determined solely by our efforts, but also by the dynamics of collective and often asymmetric power relations. In other words, the world cannot be arranged so that every individual action is automatically compensated from external resources, as that would ignore the real mechanisms by which power and interests operate in practice.

On the other hand, our perception of justice is transformed by the idea that what matters is not so much the “material compensation” for our efforts but rather a moral sense of equality and responsibility for the rights of others. As the thought goes: “It is through this sense of justice that we stand not only for ourselves, but also for others, not only for our own rights but also for the rights of others; and it turns out that what truly matters to us is that legality itself is justice.” (source: link , page: 341). Here, justice is seen as a deeper principle where the individual and the collective intertwine, and it is precisely this feeling that influences our expectations and evaluation of what is “deserved” as a reward.

Thus, life does not repay our efforts in the form of strict equivalent recompense because justice is not simply a law of rewards, but a multifaceted concept based on strength, mutual respect, and moral sentiment. This inherent imprecision, rather than exact science, explains why our expectations of “cashback” often diverge from reality, thereby shaping our perceptions of injustice—or its absence.