Mencius and Xunzi agree!
They both emphasize moral education.
The New Mindscape # 9–1
Philosophers have been debating about human nature for centuries, both in Chinese and Western philosophy. You all know of the debate about human nature between Mencius and Xunzi in China.
Xunzi believed that people were born evil, and that education is necessary to make people good. On the contrary, Mencius believed that people were born good, but that lack of education would cause people to fall into evil.
In fact, what Mencius and Xunzi wanted to achieve was the same. Both of them believed that morality is what defines humans, and that moral education is essential to nurturing our humanity — either to correct our innate evil, as for Xunzi, or to cultivate our innate goodness, as for Mencius. Without moral education, they agreed that the result would be the same — that humans would become inhuman.
Here are the words of Mencius on this topic:
Mencius said: All people have a heart that cannot stand to see the suffering of others…
Why do I say all human beings have a heart that cannot stand to see the suffering of others? Even nowadays, if an infant were about to fall into a well, anyone would be upset and concerned. This concern would not be due to the fact that the person wanted to get in good with the baby’s parents, or because he wanted to improve his reputation among the community or among his circle of friends. Nor would it be because he was afraid of the criticism that might result from a show of non-concern. [Mencius 2A-6]
But can we really transform people through moral education? Can people be educated to become moral, to develop our moral character? In student discussions in past years, many examples have been brought up to show that some people become morally better persons in their lives, while others become less moral and more self-centred. And it seems that the social environment — including education, but also other influences such as parents, friends, the media and so on — can be factors in these changes we see in people.
In considering this question, we first need to remember that there is a difference between education in general, and moral education in particular. Mencius said that we should start with moral education, onto which we can add other kinds of education.
This is an important point, because in China, a lot of people consider that if you are well educated, you will be more moral. They think it’s not unusual for an uneducated farmer to commit a crime or act out of self-interest, but they are shocked when well-educated people behave immorally. The fact is, you may have a Ph.D. degree, and be the most knowledgeable and educated person in the world — but if you don’t have a moral sense, you might do the worst things in the world. So the issue here is not education in general, but what kind of education can strengthen, preserve or develop our morality?
Mencius and Xunzi held the belief that the appropriate kind of moral education can transform people, either making them better morally or protecting them from becoming morally worse. To them, human beings change, and the right kind of education could change human beings morally. They didn’t consider that people’s moral character — whether good or evil — remains unchanged forever.
Human beings can change morally, yet animals cannot. We can train animals. If we treat our pets or other animals well, after a while, they may become good to us. However, they cannot develop any moral sense through training. Only human beings can transform morally in either a positive or a negative way. It’s true that some children seem to naturally have very generous and caring dispositions — while it’s the opposite for other children. But no matter how they start off, can they be educated to become even better? Will a lack of moral education cause even good children to lose their moral qualities?
Schwitzgebel, Eric. “Human Nature and Moral Education in Mencius, Xunzi, Hobbes, and Rousseau.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 24, no. 2 (2007): 147–68. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27745086.
Kim, Richard T. “THE ROLE OF HUMAN NATURE IN MORAL INQUIRY: MACINTYRE, MENCIUS, AND XUNZI.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 32, no. 4 (2015): 313–33. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44076597.
Stalnaker, A. (2005), COMPARATIVE RELIGIOUS ETHICS AND THE PROBLEM OF “HUMAN NATURE”. Journal of Religious Ethics, 33: 187–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9795.2005.00193.x
This essay and the New Mindscape Medium series are brought to you by the University of Hong Kong’s Common Core Curriculum Course CCHU9014 Spirituality, Religion and Social Change, with the support of the Asian Religious Connections research cluster of the Hong Kong Institute for the Humanities and Social Sciences.
