Is the Individual or Society Responsible for Good & Evil
The ultimate question philosophers have debated over the centuries, millennium and across cultures is whether human action is steered by human nature or nurture. Nurture is another way of saying socitals influence on us. The conclusion reached by this debate is a profound one as it creates the theoretical foundation that guides a nation’s policies. Is human action more influenced by human nature or nurture? What is the role of education? These are the questions we pose to the two philosophers. The answers should address these two hypothetical situations: How should society deal with a murder? How should it reward a heroic citizen who saves a child from falling into a well?
Mencius believed that human nature is good and society is responsible for corrupting it. While Xunzi believed that human nature was bad but they could still be good through conscious action. Xunzi split up humans into both their human nature (which was bad) and their conscious activity (which could help someone achieve perfection). Understanding the finer details of both Mencius and Xunzi’s philosophy is best accomplished through a debate about nature versus nature and how society should deal with the murder and heroic citizen.
Mencius argues that we are more influenced by our nature. He believed that the purpose of education is to bring out the inner goodness already present internally. He blamed bad citizens on bad leadership and a corrupt education system. In a debate, Mencius would have likely blamed the murders actions on bad leadership. His view is that a King will lose legitimacy if their people suffer or act badly. He once told a king to, “Exercise due care over the education provided by village schools, and reinforce this by teaching them the duties proper to sons and younger brothers,” (1A.3; Lau, 6). In a debate, Mencius would likely have pushed the idea that the heroic citizen has simply acted good according to his innate nature. He in fact said that if a man saw a child falling into a well, “He would certainly be moved to compassion, not because he wanted to get in the good graces of the parents, nor yet because he disliked the cry of the child….whoever is devoid of the heart of compassion is not human, whoever is devoid of the heart of courtesy and modesty is not human, and whoever is devoid of the heart of right and wrong is not human.” (Mencius 2A.6). The murder acting in such a way is because bad influences have simply prevented him from acting good. He often used analogies to express his views. He would have argued that society simply needs to get out of the way of human’s innate goodness. Surely we can force one to act badly, but that corrupting force comes from society. He has said that, “Now in the case or water, by splashing it one can make it shoot up higher than one’s forehead, and by forcing it one can make it stay on a hill. How can that be the nature of water? It is the circumstances being what they are. That man can be made bad shows that his nature is no different from that of water in this respect,” (Mencius 6A.2). In his view, education can play a role in creating heroic citizens but it is really just bringing out what is already internally there. On the flip side it is the fault of bad educations for creating citizens such as the murder.
Xunzi similarly believed that education was important. But differed in his belief that good education is pushed top down from the ruler. Xunzi view is that wise intellectuals have used their consciousness to create powerful ritualistic principles that counteract humans’ evil tendencies. Xunzi said that,“Therefore, man must first be transformed by the instructions of a teacher and guided by ritual principals, and only then will he be able to observe the dictates of courtesy and humility, obey the forms and rules of society, and achieve order,” (Watson 161). Xunzi’s belief is elitist. He expresses the idea that commoners need transformation from morally upright leaders. For our heroic citizen Xunzi would likely point to the goodness of his leaders. He would likely advocate that we replicate the teaching the heroic citizen received. While the murder was not properly taught. The murder simply expressed his true nature. These leaders create principles to ensure people do not devolve into chaos and follow their bad nature. Instead they become good by consciously following principles. The evidence he offers for the transformative power of principals is that the, “Children born among the Han or Yue people of the south and among the Mo barbarians of the north cry with the same voice at birth, but as they grow older they follow different customs. Education causes them to differ,” (Watson 163). While both believe in education, both have different reasons for why. Mencius thinks it’s to bring out the individual’s innate goodness. Xunzi is surely extremist in his view that men without, “teachers to guide them, they will be inclined towards evil and not upright,” (Watson 167). He believes the purpose of education is to learn from Kings who create rituals that help commoners to counteract their nature of evil.
Where does blame rest for the murderer’s actions? With the individual or with society? Xunzi would likely point out the failing of individuals. The evidence is in his remark that, “Hence, any man who follows his nature and indulges his emotions will inevitably become involved in wrangling and strife, will violate the forms and rules of society, and will end as a criminal,” (Watson 162). At the same time, he recognized societies molding power for creating the individual. He might of said that the murder is showing his bad nature. He clearly has not been shaped by the rituals of Kings. Using the analogy of wood Xunzi said that, “A warped piece of wood must wait until it has been laid against the straightening board, steamed, and forced into shape until it has been whetted on a grindstone before it can become sharp (Watson 168). While good citizens are shaped by Kings, bad citizens are either lazy or uneducated.
The murders actions are Xunzi’s best justification for ruler control over society. He would say that the murder actions are indictive of a fundamental human flaw. He’d likely argue that humans are deeply, “evil, prejudiced and not upright, irresponsible and lacking in order.” Murders and other bad people are simply the, “reason [society] established the authority of the ruler to control it, elucidated ritual principals to transform it, set up laws and standards to control it, and meted out strict punishments to restrain it. As a result, all the world achieved order and conformed to goodness,” (Watson 19). This view holds that morality comes from the top down from rules versus bottom up among the people which Mencius believes.
Mencius would argue that the good actions of the citizens are because he acted true to his nature. While bad outcomes are the result of poor policy from the leadership. If a king does not interrupt and bother his subjects then during, “the busy season in the fields, then there will be more grain than the people can eat,” (Book 1.A, 5). However, the ruler still must set policy to influence his people’s lives. Good policy is a requirement for a successful country. If one does not, “allow nets with too fine a mesh to be used in ponds, then there will be more fish and turtles than they can eat,” (Book 1.A, 5). A good citizen acted that way in spite of bad influences, yet Mencius concedes there is a role for governance from the top down. This is something both Xunzi and Mencius can agree on that good policies and rulers are important in establishing harmony among the people. However, Xunzi rarely criticizes or concedes that rulers can in fact be bad. Mencius on the other hand lays out the criteria by saying that, “When those who are seventy wear silk and eat meat and the masses are neither cold nor hungry, it is impossible for their prince not to be a true King.” Yet, if things go bad and, “men drop dead from starvation,” (Book 1, 6) that is the fault of the King and he is as responsible as if he killed them himself.
Mencius believes the goodness in men lies in their human nature while it is society that corrupts. Xunzi believes men are evil and rituals created by Kings make them good. Mencius credits the individual nature of man while Xunzi credits the ruler. Xunzi believes we are reliant upon leaders because, “If man’s nature were good, we could dispense with sage kings and forget about ritual principles. But if it is evil, then we must go along with the sage kings and honor ritual principals,” (Watson 162).” Xunzi believes in nurture, while Mencius believes more in nature. In the debate about the murder, Mencius would have leveled more of his criticism at the failing of the leader. While Xunzi recognizes the importance of molding individuals, he would point out that moral principles exist and have been created by sages. The individual has just failed to learn and follow them. For the heroic citizen, Xunzi would have likely held him up as an important example of one who follows the rituals closely. While Mencius would have simply retorted that he was free from bad influences in society that might have pushed him to do bad.