Virtually ever since humans began roaming the Earth, there has existed an ongoing debate about whether humans are inherently good or evil. In this paper, I will first summarize and analyze three arguments from philosophers far before our time. In the first discussion, Mencius conveys that humans are fundamentally good. In the following discussions, Xunzi and Plato contend that humans are inherently evil. I will conclude the paper with the argument that the views expressed by Xunzi provide are the strongest of those examined in this paper. Mencius argues that humans are fundamentally good by establishing that every person has within himself or herself a sense of sympathy and compassion for others. Mencius directly states that “no man is devoid of a heart sensitive to the suffering of others” (“Introducing Philosophy,” page 462). He then provides a hypothetical example of a man sighting a child about to fall into a well. Mencius argues that this man would “certainly be moved to compassion” (“Introducing Philosophy,” page 463) and would save the child. In that split-second decision, the man saved the child on accord of his own sympathy without thought of positive praise from his parents, villagers, or friends, or because he disliked the sound of the child’s cry. The man’s actions were not malicious or selfish, but were instead driven by a sense of concern and consideration rooted in the human race. Mencius then contends that every human has four ‘germs:’ benevolence, dutifulness, observance of the rites, and wisdom. He maintains that any person devoid of any one of these germs is not human. A person who denies these germs within themselves is only crippling his or her own potential. These germs can be found in a person’s occupatio... ... middle of paper ... ...humans depart from their original nature of evil in order to be good. While walking through a department store, it is not uncommon to see young children running away from their parents or making a scene, a behavior not found in older folk. From personal experience, it is much rarer to see a group of fifty-year olds fighting over a television on ‘Black Friday’ than a group of teenagers. As is demonstrated here, people are born evil but learn correct manners as they grow and can realize goodness. In this paper, I examined the argument by Mencius that humans are fundamentally good and the arguments by Xunzi and Plato that humans are fundamentally evil. Of the arguments discussed in this paper, I found that the one presented by Mencius was the strongest. But while I may have found that humans are inherently evil, the debate will surely rage on for centuries to come.
Mencius believed that human nature was inherently good. Through his writing, Mencius tends to use metaphors to get his point across, some of which were very hard to understand. One that he uses to explain his theories is, “Human nature is inherently good, just like water flows inherently downhill” (Mencius 79). He makes it seem as if it is obvious that human nature is good by the way he states how water flows downhill. He also states, “You can make them evil, but that says nothing about human nature” (Mencius 79). Even though some points were made effectively, his writing style and overuse of metaphors that no one understands made his argument weak. Overall, Mencius truly believed that the human nature of man was inherently good.
On The Genealogy of Morals, Essay I refers to the second stage of human morality—the emergence of the concepts of "Good" and "Evil" as categories o...
Many people have different views on the moral subject of good and evil or human nature. It is the contention of this paper that humans are born neutral, and if we are raised to be good, we will mature into good human beings. Once the element of evil is introduced into our minds, through socialization and the media, we then have the potential to do bad things. As a person grows up, they are ideally taught to be good and to do good things, but it is possible that the concept of evil can be presented to us. When this happens, we subconsciously choose whether or not to accept this evil. This where the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke become interesting as both men differed in the way they believed human nature to be. Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature.
The Problem of Evil is the question that asks if God is perfectly benevolent, all-powerful, and all-knowing, then how can he allow evil to exist? Many philosophers have tried to answer this age-old question, often focusing on the intellect and the will. This essay will explore and compare the ways in which Descartes, Leibniz, and Berkeley each attempt to solve this dilemma.
Inwardly examining his own nature, man would prefer to see himself as a virtuously courageous being designed in the image of a divine supernatural force. Not to say that the true nature of man is a complete beast, he does posses, like many other creatures admirable traits. As author Matt Ridley examines the nature of man in his work The Origins of Virtue, both the selfish and altruistic sides of man are explored. Upon making an honest and accurate assessment of his character, it seems evident that man is not such a creature divinely set apart from the trappings of selfishness and immorality. Rather than put man at either extreme it seems more accurate to describe man as a creature whose tendency is to look out for himself first, as a means of survival.
...ut more importantly Mencius' core conception that human nature is also aware of its actions, and considers the well-being of others and that people are morally obligated to do so is also key to attaining our full potential. This conception of human nature and proper order together is what has shaped East Asian political and social thought for centuries. It is credited with creating an East Asia that is economically robust, and socially coherent and once again will be the center of human society in the decades to come. And contrary to popular Western belief, East Asian political thought does appreciate the necessity of the individual in defining society. In fact the only way to attain our human nature is to healthily self-cultivate ourselves morally and materially so we can reach our highest potential and in that way be a valued and contributing member to society.
Mencius brings up many examples in this argument on why all humans are essentially good. He says that naturally all humans have compassion and empathy inside them. The example he brings up is that all humans cannot bear to see another suffer, if someone saw a child about to fall into a well as human would automatically be filled with compassion, distress, pity and alarm. He argues everyone is filled with pity and compassion for others and that if they do not have these feelings they are not human. Xunzi argues that human nature is evil and goodness comes from training. He thinks that one is born with a feeling of envy and hate and over time with loyalty and good faith the evil in us goes away. From reading both of these arguments I felt that I agreed with Mencius more than Xunzi. I felt like when reading them that Mencius gave more arguments and examples of how people react to situations and why that made me agree more with him than Xunzi. I felt like some of Xunzi arguments were a little too much for me in the sense that he felt that all human beings are born with so much evil in us. I did not think his portion of this was as convincing as Mencius.
It is widely debatable whether humans are inherently good or evil. From the past, people had their own opinions on this topic, and the debate still goes on today. The Aphorism 17.2 “The Master said: By nature men are pretty much alike; it is learning and practice that set them apart.” from Confucius Analects conveys Confucius’s view of human nature. Confucianism was the most important philosophy of China throughout the history and it greatly influenced China. The relevance of Aphorism 17.2 to China’s many of history can be easily seen.
...storing force. These different interpretations support the idea that humans and the universe fundamentally possess the same original nature, which is to give life. To further contest that the human nature is, deep inside, evil, Mencius suggests to examine a different situation – that of a child on the verge of falling into a well – and how one would respond to it. If anyone individual witnesses a child who is about to fall into a well, one cannot help a feeling of alarm and commiseration, and will impulsively urge to save the child. “This life-giving impulse reveals out deepest nature, even though it can be blocked and distorted in many ways before we can act on it”(Kalton 2010). This situation itself is sufficient to prove that human nature is essentially good. Mencius described this emotion of commiseration is described as ren – the core Confucian idea of goodness.
Morals are what distinguish humans from other animals. People are capable of understanding the complex network of emotions and relationships between each other and making choices that benefit themselves as well as others. However, the greatest phenomenon in human psychology is why people are also capable of doing bad things. We used to believe that some people are inherently bad. However, in recent history, the Zimbardo uncovered that in most cases, evil is "rarely . . . done by ‘bad apples' or rogues" (Aron). Philip Zimbardo's research reveals that good people are capable of doing bad things through conformity, blind obedience, and anonymity; these ideas can be proven by looking back at our history.
Just because we are born in a state of war, it does not mean Hsun Tzu’s theory that we are all born inherently evil (84), or Mencius’s theory that we are all born inherently good (78) is justified. Our state of war is to ensure our survival. Even if one were to assume that Hsun Tzu’s or Mencius’s theories were true, their theories are impossible. If all men are born inherently good, then evil cannot appear. Men cannot make one another evil if they are all born good. Likewise, if all men are born inherently evil, then goodness could not exist. Men cannot make one another good if they are all born
The following analysis deals with the nature and source of evil and whether, given our innate motives and moral obligation, we willingly choose to succumb to our desires or are slaves of our passion. From this argument, I intend to show that our human nature requires that we play into our desires in order to affirm our free will. This is not to say that our desires are necessarily evil, but quite the opposite. In some sense, whatever people actually want has some relative value to them, and that all wanted things contain some good. But given that there are so many such goods and a whole spectrum of varying arrangements among them, that there is no way we can conceive anything as embodying an overall good just because it is to some degree wanted by one or a group of persons. In this light, there arises conflict which can only be resolved by a priority system defined by a code, maybe of moral foundations, which allows us to analyze the complexities of human motivation. I do not intend to set down the boundaries of such a notion, nor do I want to answer whether it benefits one to lead a morally good life, but rather want to find out how the constructs of good and evil affect our freedom to choose.
Xunzi believes that human nature is inherintally evil and that people are born their sensory desires which, when indulged, will lead to ‘licentiousness and chaos’.
Throughout the history of mankind, the question regarding the inherent nature of man (good vs. bad) has split opinions on a variety of different fields. Politicians argue whether or not government should be widespread (humans are inherently bad, need to be controlled by government), or as little a part of people’s lives as possible (people are inherently good, and can take care of themselves). Religious leaders argue humans are inherently bad, therefore needing to turn to God for salvation. Due to the polarization of opinions regarding the topic, could also consider the facts of social experiments to form their opinion on the nature of man, as their results are undisputable. In my opinion, humans are inherently bad, and the rise of many controlling bodies like the government and religion can attest to
Throughout ages, people have argued about the nature of man, and the complexity of this matter. According to various studies as well as ideas of major writers and philosophers, man is naturally born good. However, society and environmental factors determine if one will remain this way or become evil. When one is born, they are naturally good, but their environment and interactions with people from their very early ages determine whether or not they will develop a sense of badness throughout their life.