Mencius Versus Hsun Tzu

VERSUS

And here we have another pair of Chinese philosophers who clashed well. Mencius, the greatest Confucian next to the sage himself, and Hsun Tzu, a near-contemporary who ended up influencing the Legalists more than Confucianism, disagreed about a key point regarding human nature: Are people fundamentally good? Or evil?



Mencius: PEOPLE ARE GOOD MAN

1.) What is the rhetorical purpose of the character Kao at the beginning of this section? How does he set up Mencius’ argument? What kinds of objections to his own theory does this device allow Mencius to anticipate?

I have mixed feelings on Kao; he’s basically a vehicle to tactfully elicit Mencius’ thoughts on various issues, which strikes me as vain. On one hand, introducing another character creates a dialogue with back and forth argumentation. Kao does a good job at that, with presenting both opposing and mediated points of view. On the other hand, and this is a criticism of Plato, it essentially strawman’s the opposing argument by having Mencius get the last word. He always wins.

2.) What role does human nature, for Mencius, play in the love we show to our family members? What role does it play in the respect we show to strangers?

It’s simple: our devotion to our family is natural, powerful, and a perfect example of our inborn altruism. So is our kindness to strangers, but because it’s less intense it’s more likely to die if not cultivated. Thus if we cultivate that consideration, it simply becomes an extension to the already existing goodness within us.

3.) A great deal of the debate between Mencius and Kao Tzu concerns the origin of proprietary, or proper social behavior, which is synonymous in the text with “righteousness.” For Kao Tzu, proprietary is a matter of social convention that has nothing to do with human nature. For Mencius, the standards of proprietary are based on qualities that are inherently part of human nature. Which of these views do you find more convincing? Why?

The fundamental question is if we created these traditions as a response to something threatening, or as a natural extension to something inborn. Is it lame to claim both? That we attach purposes to things we do, which are both arbitrary and artificial? But also completely natural to the human condition? I guess the question is making me take a stand, so I’d have to side with Kao here. Even if it an extension it’s still a constructed one, and Mencius cannot claim anything modern man does is natural. But see even this is problematic, as we’ve barely defined “good”, “evil”, and “natural.” Mencius’ definition is sure to be different from mine, but I’ll stick to my guns.

4.) How might Mencius perceive the nature of evil? If human beings are naturally good, where might evil originate?

Mencius believes evil comes from our condition in life, where scarcity of resources or a harsh climate vitalizes evil within us. This is specifically why he advises kings and men alike; kings to provide the condition in the empire for good to flourish, and men so they may endure difficult times. I really like this point, but what about rich brats? People who have everything and are still cruel? Mencius may argue they had bad examples growing up and were not taught correctly, but if our innate goodness is so weak as to die even in affluent environments, then how are his solutions discernible from assuming all people are born evil? And why are some children, even under the same parents, more moral than others? There are definitely holes here.

5.) Do you agree with Mencius’ statement, “Men’s mouths agree in having the same relishes; their ears agree in enjoying the same sounds; their eyes agree in recognizing the same beauty”? How does this idea of conformity, and with it Mencius’ argument, conflict with modern ideas of the individual?

Yes and no. Yes in that humans are fundamentally very similar (we are the same subspecies after all). But no in that we are also each unique, and have different preferences. And this is why the second question is so strong: today we have an issue with any solution that’s ‘one size fits all’. It lacks nuisance and does not contend with the complexity of changing societies. That said, I can’t disagree with Mencius’ principals. Regardless of the innate goodness of humanity, it is certainly wise to design empires that foster kindness through education and adequate living standards.



Hsun Tzu: NAW NIGGA, PEOPLE SUCK

1.) Why does Hsun Tzu repeat his thesis throughout this piece? Does this technique make his argument more effective? What other types of repetition does he use? How does he the repeating images or scenarios to illustrate different aspects of his argument?

It’s something common to the essay genre: it drives the point home. Hsun Tzu repeats a number of points: that he’s countering Mencius, the ‘conscious act’ of the Sages, the need for laws, etc. They do refresh the arguments in your mind, but they can also be tedious and preachy. Meanwhile Mencius’ style is more, well, stylish, and more entertaining. But given our modern sensibilities, Hsun Tzu is more clear.

2.) What distinction does Hsun Tzu draw between ‘nature’ and ‘conscious activity’?  Are these categories mutually exclusive? What kinds of things does he place in each category?

His big premise is that evil comes easy, while goodness is hard to attain. Therefore almost anything natural is evil, while conscious activity is when we deviate from our base emotions and act virtuously (to borrow a western word). This seems weak, but Hsun Tzu is focusing on the innate selfishness of organisms, particularly when resources are scarce. Anything that is altruistic goes against this natural selfishness, and is therefore a conscious act. Whether these are mutually exclusive is a good question, but I would actually say they are. Either you are on autopilot, or you think-then-act. If course, you could internalize goodness, in which case that becomes your default.

3.) What does Hsun Tzu see as the origin of ritual principals? How does this differ from Mencius’ view?

The former claims rituals were created by the Sages to suppress humanity’s evil. Mencius claims they are a natural extension of our innate good.

4.) Why does Hsun Tzu assert that “every man who desires to do good does so precisely because his nature is evil”? Do you agree? Are his comparisons to men who are unaccomplished, ugly, camped, poor, and humble valid? Is it possible to desire to be something that is part of one’s nature?

Hsun Tzu is making the insightful point that we wouldn’t struggle so hard to be good if it came easily, or naturally to us. People who want something are generally lacking in it. But the question implies a good counterpoint, that we can indeed want more of a good thing, so to speak. Thus a rich man can want more money, a handsome man can want to be more so, and a good person can certainly strive to be better. But I also think a person is something specifically because they don’t want to be the opposite. A poor man doesn’t care about money, an ugly man is content, and an evil man is perfectly comfortable remaining so. So this would actually entirely negate Hsun Tzu argument by displaying that people only want something when they already have a taste of it.

5.) How does Hsun Tzu define “good” and “evil”? Do his definitions concur with contemporary definitions of the same words?

Yea I had a big problem with his definition. I forgot the exact line, but basically good is anything that does good, and evil is anything that does evil. Other than being a blatant and useless tautology, Hsun Tzu does stress action (and not belief) as the marker. Today we may disagree and point out that just because a person acts ethical, if the action causes more harm than good, then the action was ultimately evil (so ends > means). But to these philosophers we see no such nuance. To simply act well is sufficient, and all will go well. To them the difficulty is in the act itself, and not the integrity of the act. This is where the Greeks are superior to the Chinese, they were more willing to ask the fundamental question: what is good?

6.) How does Hsun Tzu differentiate between capability and possibility? How are they related, and does this inclusion weaken or strengthen the validity of Hsun Tzu’s arguments?

He makes an important distinction that just because a man can do something, doesn’t mean he will. So Mencius’ stressing of the goodness in all men means little if people will never act upon it. This seems like Hsun Tzu is giving ground, but really he’s countering Mencius from another angle. Even if the latter is correct, his philosophy is still impractical. It’s safer to assume all men are evil and will probably not act upon their capabilities.

7.) According to Hsun Tzu, what role does environment play in how humans deal with their nature? What kind of environmental factors determine a person’s inclination or rejection of human nature?

Hsun Tzu believes environment is everything (he repeats this statement twice at his essay’s close). If people grow in a good environment they will have the tools to defy their evil nature. If in a bad environment they will give in to it. The main elements, strangely similar to Mencius’ opinion, is education and living standards. A man needs these to be good.



Mencius versus Hsun Tzu

1.) Mencius and Hsun Tzu disagree completely about human nature, yet both are dedicated Confucians. What elements of their respective philosophies justify their inclusion as members of the same school of thought?

They both stress the same things: ritual observance, relationship of man to the state, and an ethical imperative in living life. Interestingly, Hsun Tzu ended up influencing the legalists more, while Mencius became the most celebrated Confucian next to the great Sage himself. That’s because, while the practical effect of their arguments were so similar, Hsun Tzu was ultimately more heavy handed, and Mencius more trusting in humanity.

2.) How does Hsun Tzu’s writing style compare to Mencius’? Are his rhetorical strategies more or less effective than those of his major philosophical opponent? Why?

The former is an essay writer and the latter a more conventional Chinese writer, utilizing epigramic dialogues. These both have pros and cons; Hsun Tzu is clearer and more convincing while Mencius is more enjoyable and thought-provoking. Gonna stick to me modern sensibilities, however, and go with Hsun.

3.) Who was right? Is man fundamentally good, or evil?

Brass tacks. I mean, these two did a way better job at tackling the issue than I thought possible given the era. (Goes to show my ignorance at the sophistication of the Chinese.) Both make a few powerful points: Mencius is right to point out our natural inclination to help others with no gain to ourselves, and our propensity for self-sacrifice, as well as our natural enjoyment of good, and innate disgust at evil. But Hsun Tzu is right to highlight how these may be built up by society, and without it we are prone to selfishness and cruelty. I really don’t know. I don’t want to say it’s a dice roll for each person at birth, both our natural inclinations and environmental build-up. I think goodness certainly survives while evil dies. But good also seems to build upon the foundation of evil. And besides these terms often seem impotent; is anything truly good or truly evil? Now I’m just getting tedious, so let me close by saying I’m open to both and am eager to see where the argument evolves from here.