Mencius On Human Nature - Essay Example

Philosophy 04th Dec., Mencius on Human Nature This paper gives a detailed explication of Mencius’s argument in support of his view that human nature is inherently good. The paper also gives reasons why I agree with Mencius’s view of human nature. Responses to the objections that can be raised against Mencius’ conception of human nature are also given in the paper. In his theory of human nature, Mencius (Mengzi in Chinese) claimed that human nature is fundamentally good. Mencius saw human beings as having been born with the potency to be good, and he argued that the people who turn out to be bad have just been corrupted by the environment (Stevenson, 24). Mencius began his argument in support of his view on human nature by responding to and refuting Kao Tzu’s argument that human nature is neither good nor bad. Tzu summarized his view on human nature as follows “human nature is like whirling water” (Stevenson, 23); Tzu, therefore, understood human nature as water that flows in any direction, without any preferences, whenever there is an opening. In response to this claim, Mencius contended that, although water has no preferences, water will always seek low ground. Mencius, therefore, argued that the “low ground” of human nature is the disposition to do good as opposed to do bad. To account for how some people develop bad character in life despite having been born with the disposition to do good, Mencius argued that, just as water can be manipulated and forced to flow against the low ground, it is also possible to manipulate human nature to be bad. Mencius gave the following explanation to show that human nature is naturally good. Mencius argued that human beings are born with the virtue of benevolence (heart of compassion/feeling for others), virtue of Righteousness (the feeling of disdain), the virtue of propriety (feeling of respect for others), and lastly the virtue of wisdom (the heart of right and wrong) (Stevenson, 24). To demonstrate what he means by claiming that human beings are born with these four virtues, Mencius gave the following example to show that every human person is born with the virtue of benevolence. In this example, Mencius argued that if people saw a child about to fall in a well, they would all, without exception, instantaneously have a feeling of sorrow and fear (Stevenson, 25). Mencius concluded that this fact shows that all human beings are born with the virtue of benevolence or the ability to feel compassion for other people. Another example that can be given to show that human beings are born with some virtues is how people, all over the world, are opposed to some immoral actions. For instance, people all over the world, irrespective of their cultural, religious, political, or educational backgrounds oppose some unethical practices like corruption and murder of innocent people. This fact shows that human beings have one universal standard of judging the rightness and wrongness of human actions. This fact shows that human beings are, indeed, born with the virtue of wisdom. Having explained and demonstrated how human beings are born embedded with some virtues, Mencius had to give an explanation of how some people become good people, while other people become bad people. Mencius argued that, although people are born with the natural disposition to be good, the disposition to be good, however, need to be cultivated and natured in the right environment for it to develop into good character. For Mencius, therefore, human beings cannot develop good character if their four natural virtues are not natured in the right environment. The right environment in this sense means the environment in which people are encouraged to develop the right human behaviour. Mencius argued that this fact accounts for the reason why in the world we have people with good character, and people who have bad character. The bad people or the people with bad character are the people who have been brought up in unconducive environment in which their natural virtues were not nurtured. For this reason, the latent good virtues were corrupted by the unconducive environment. A good example to demonstrate this fact further is the fact that children who are brought up in abusive families end up having psychological and sociological problems in life, unless they are well counselled and guided into overcoming the psychological and psychological wounds that they developed as they were growing up. I fully agree with Mencius on his view of human nature. A critical look at the Mencius argument in support of his conception of human nature shows that Mencius is right. There are three reasons why I agree with Mencius. To begin with, Mencius claim that human beings are born with, Mencius claim that human beings are born with some virtues is quite plausible. This is because, as Mencius claims, human beings, exhibit some common characteristics or virtues that show that the characteristics are inborn. For instance, the fact that human beings of all ages and from different cultures agree that some human actions are good, and that some other human actions are bad shows that human beings, indeed, have some innate dispositions. This fact cannot reasonably be explained in any other way; it cannot be explained in terms socialization because human beings of different ages and of different cultures are socialized differently. Mencius, therefore, is right to claim that human beings are born with some virtues. Secondly, Mencius claim that the right or the conducive environment is a sine qua non in the development of good character is quite reasonable. Experience has taught us that the environment in which one grows has a lot of influence in one’s worldview. For instance, a human child who is brought up by monkeys in the forest will exhibit some behaviour of the monkeys when they grow up. Human beings are sensual creatures and for that reason they are greatly influenced by their interactions with the environment in which they grow up. Mencius, therefore, is right in this view. Thirdly, Mencius account of how some human beings become good people, despite having been born with some virtues, i.e. the disposition to be good, is quite true. This view is perfectly in line with the sociological theory of crime. The sociological theory of crime holds that the environment in which one grows determines the character that the person will develop in the future (The Sociological Theory of Crime, web). For instance, the children who grow up in slums where there is a culture of crime find crimes as a normal thing, and many of them end up becoming criminals, unless they are counselled later, either in schools or churches against committing crimes. On the other hand, the people who grow up in environments where rule and order is strictly observed become law abiding citizens later in life. Having looked at the main reasons why I agree with Mencius in his conception of human nature, let me respond to two major objection that the critiques of Mencius view of human raise. The first opposition is the claim that Mencius’ theory of human nature is incomplete and false because it does not address such human deviant conditions such as sociopathy. Sociopaths are the human beings who exhibit anti-social behaviour of violating human rights of other people; sociopaths actually take pleasure in acting contrary to the social norms of the society. The critiques of Mencius’ theory of human nature contend that sociopaths’ behaviour show that they do not have the innate virtues that Mencius claims that every person has; the critiques of Mencius view of human nature would argue that the sociopaths do not feel compassion for other people because they take pleasure in the sufferings of other people. To this claim, I would respond by saying that, although the reality of sociopathy seems to vitiate Mencius theory of human nature, Sociopathy, however, does not vitiate Mencius’ conception of human nature. This is because Sociopathy is an abnormal human condition; sociopathy is an anti-social disorder. For that reason, I would contend that as a disorder of human nature, sociopathy cannot vitiate Mencius’ view of human nature. Just as mental disorder, i.e madness, does not mean that human beings are not rational beings, sociopathy does not mean that human beings are not benevolent by nature. The critiques of Mencius therefore are wrong on this issue. Sociopaths may have been as normal people with the ability to feel compassion but later in life they develop a disorder that makes them not to feel compassion for other people. The second claim that I would respond to is the view that feeling compassion does not mean being good. The critiques of Mencius’ conception of human nature argue that, although people may be born with the ability to feel compassion, this ability, however, does not mean that human beings are good; it is possible to feel compassion without acting on it. I would respond to this claim by saying that, although, of course, it is possible to feel compassion without acting on it, this does not mean that human beings are not naturally benevolent. I would contend that the people who feel compassion and fail to act on it are either unable to act or are prohibited from taking action. For instance, people may feel compassion for a child burning in a house but because of the strong fire razing the house, people may just be unable to take action. This fact therefore shows that failure to take action after feeling compassion does not mean that one is not good. Works Cited The Sociological Theory of Crime. Web. Stevenson, L. The Study of Human Nature. USA, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Read More