(intro music) Hi everybody, I'm Matt Walker. I teach philosophy and humanities at Yale-NUS College in Singapore. Today, I'm going to take a look at Mengzi's views on human nature. In particular, I'm going to take a look at Mengzi's defense of the claim that human nature is good. Mengzi, also known as "Mencius," was an early Confucian philosopher. He lived in the 300s BCE. Like Confucius, Mengzi
was concerned to defend a certain conception of the
good life for human beings. Call this conception of the good life "the Confucian way," or "the Confucian Dao." According to the Confucian way, possessing virtues like benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom are central to a life well-lived. When Mengzi says that
human nature is good, Mengzi's thought is that human beings have innate potentials, or predispositions, toward such virtues. We naturally tend toward these virtues. As Mengzi says,
benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom are
not welded to us externally. We inherently have them. In presenting this view, Mengzi uses an agricultural metaphor. He describes these potentials
and predispositions as sprouts of virtue. Mengzi, in turn, locates
these sprouts of virtue in the heart, or heart-mind, which Mengzi identifies as the seat of our cognitive and
affective dispositions. Mengzi's thought is that
if we fully cultivate our sprouts, if we tend
to our predispositions toward virtue and become fully virtuous, then we will bring our human
nature to full fruition. We will flourish as human beings. But what evidence does
Mengzi adduce for the view that human nature is good? On what basis, in other
words, does Mengzi think that we have such predispositions toward benevolence, righteousness, and the like? Here, I want to take a look
at one of the most famous arguments in the Mengzi. It appears in Mengzi 2A6. Like some other famous arguments in the history of philosophy, it involves a thought experiment. I'll call Mengzi's thought experiment the "child and the well case." Ladies and gentleman, meet little Ria. Suppose that little Ria
is toddling right along through this field. And suppose further that she's heading obliviously right toward
this scary-looking well. There's the well, there's
little Ria toddling along, getting closer. Ahhhh! I guess I should add that what you saw was only a dramatization. According to Mengzi,
anyone who saw little Ria about to toddle into that well would have an immediate,
non-reflective gut reaction. As Mengzi says in 2A6,
anyone would feel a surge of alarm and compassion. Indeed, simply imagining
the child in the well case vividly to yourselves,
you might feel something of this alarm. Okay, so what should we
conclude from Mengzi's child and the well thought experiment? According to Mengzi, our
non-reflective gut reaction to little Ria's looming danger shows that we have innate predispositions
toward benevolence. On Mengzi's view, our
response to little Ria's potential disaster is hard-wired. Human beings, by nature,
are simply predisposed to respond with alarm and compassion when they see defenseless
innocents about to face harm. And our alarm and compassion,
Mengzi insists, reveals the sprout of
benevolence in human nature. To be sure, it doesn't
show that we possess the fully-developed virtue of benevolence. But Mengzi thinks that it reveals the germ or bud of benevolence, the kind of proto-version of benevolence that can be cultivated to maturity. Mengzi recognizes, however,
that one might offer different accounts of our reactions. According to one alternative proposal, perhaps one's response
to little Ria's danger is instrumentally motivated. In other words, maybe one
feels alarm and compassion for little Ria because one
has certain ends in view, or because one has ulterior motives. Mengzi, however, rejects
this instrumental account. Hearing about little Ria, Mengzi says, one would feel alarm and compassion not because one sought to get in good with the child's parents, not because one wanted
fame among their neighbors and friends, and not because one would dislike the sound of the child's cries. What's important, Mengzi thinks, is that our alarmed and
compassionate response is spontaneous and unthinking. That shows that our response
emerges without calculation. Still, Mengzi's view of human nature faces another challenge. It seems demonstrably false
that human nature is good. If human nature is good,
then vice should be rare. We shouldn't often see
brutishness, plunder, banality, selfishness, petty tyranny, and other nasty traits. But vice isn't rare. Hence, it might seem
Mengzi's view is wrong. Contrary to Mengzi, it might
seem human nature is bad. When faced with this kind of challenge, Mengzi's strategy is to get
human nature off the hook. If human beings are bad, Mengzi argues, it's not because their nature is bad. Mengzi puts the point this way: "As for their essence, human
beings can become good. "This is what I mean by
calling their nature's 'good.' "As for their becoming not good, "this is not the fault
of their potential." Or, as Mengzi puts the point elsewhere, it is not the case that
only the worthy person has this heart, that is, the heart or sprout of courage. All human beings have it. The worthy person simply never loses it. In other words, Mengzi is fully aware that the world is full
of bad human beings. But Mengzi suggests,
don't blame human nature for such badness. Instead, blame the
stunting of human nature for such badness. Human nature does have
predispositions toward virtue, but these predispositions
can be corrupted. To spell out this response,
Mengzi offers a parable, the Parable of Ox Mountain, which appears in Mengzi 6A8. Here's Ox Mountain. By nature, it's verdant,
and woody, and it's soil is rich. But if hatchets and axes
and grazing oxen and sheep have their day at the
vegetation on Ox Mountain, you shouldn't be surprised if
the mountain becomes barren. Here, Mengzi holds,
there's no reason to think that Ox Mountain is naturally barren. Likewise, Mengzi insists, human beings, by nature,
have predispositions toward benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom. But if one grows up in
a chaotic environment, neglected by narcissistic parents, surrounded by too much money, and free to run wild with impunity, then don't be surprised
if one's own good nature similarly loses its capacity to blossom. Yet, as with Ox Mountain, Mengzi believes, there's no reason to think
that human beings are naturally bad. For Mengzi, cultivating
virtue does not constitute a mutilation or radical transformation of one's human nature. Cultivating benevolence and righteousness is not like making a willow
tree into cups and bowls. In other words, ethical education
is not a kind of maiming. On the contrary, Mengzi
thinks that ethical education is like good gardening. It constitutes a tending that enables innate tendencies to reach fruition. So, to return to the point
about the willow tree, ethical education is more like caring for and nurturing the willow tree so that it reaches its full growth. Subtitles by the Amara.org community
There is another Chinese philosopher called Xunzi θε who believed that human nature is inherently bad (we have desires and needs that would sometimes hurt other people), and that's why we need law and regulations to keep the society running. Although I don't quite believe in his view, it is still kinda interesting.
I have a couple questions. Surely you could have an opposing view to suggest we are all innately bad and yet by nurturing those good values the bad seeds are stunted and good will prevails?
With regards to the well baby thought experiment, is it an act of good will or merely an innate response to group survival? An extension of the fight or flight response that sees us prevail in communities? Would a child be as alarmed as an adult? We all know that many children are starving or in danger around the world, but we don't feel the same alarmed urge to help them.
Overall, I agree that innately we look to help each other, that is how we evolved. However, I feel this is an over-simplification and deals in correlation rather than cause.
Y'all want to get really wild? Let's talk Mozi
Awsome video! Do you guys think that living in a "developed" country such as the US, Canada, UK etc. Would be the same as planting seed(good nature) in poisoned ground? Also because we don't choose where we are planted(born) does that subject us to pre existing conditions that one might consider bad.
TL;DW: What is human nature? Is human nature good or bad? Can human nature be good even if the world contains some notably bad people? In this Wireless Philosophy video, Matthew Walker (Yale-NUS College) looks at the views of the early Confucian thinker Mengzi (Mencius).
Thanks for watching! If you like our videos, please subscribe to our YouTube channel!
Meng Zi... δ»οΌδΊΊεΏδΉοΌηΎ©οΌδΊΊθ·―δΉ Benevolence, human's mind; Righteous, human's path.
This is exactly my understanding of the world. It's why I believe in the need for extreme decentralization of political power and why I don't believe in the need for forceful redistribution of wealth. Jiddu Krishnamurti helped me understand how humans allow their fears to trick them into taking the very actions that lead to the material realization of those fears. This is how it is possible that it is actually the system of forceful wealth redistribution that prevents those at the bottom of society from getting the help they really need.
People have a legitimate gripe with the fact that so many people at the bottom of society get left behind. It is my view that the reason so many people get left behind is because we're all too busy trying to tear each other down.
Wrong video. It sounds like you meant to post this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvmxbDomk90
was gonna listen to this, but i'll just listen to MORE LIFE again.