On Human Nature and Ethical Education: Part I

Our innate characteristics are oft demarcated as Human Nature and since antiquity efforts to isolate and comprehend them have deliberated whether they are naturally fixated or a product of culture and education. But is it worth our efforts to understand Human Nature? Indeed it is through these deliberations that we partially express our individuality and character. And indeed, our present age has made such an understanding become progressively significant as a multitude of arguments are presented using Human Nature as a means to circumvent ethical responsibility—one often hears, `but violence and warfare is inescapable and certain, it is Human Nature,’ or `he couldn’t help not cheat on her, it`s men’s nature to be so’ or `one cannot blame bankers for we would have done the same if opportunity presented itself for Human nature is greedy.’

Hence, immoral behavior is made to be cogent but rarely on a metaphysical or even organic basis. A dogma heavily indebted to commercial consumption furthers spin—carried on all media, it bears a daily sermon reminding us that we are we are belligerent and egotistical. To retort such discourses, an unblemished understanding of human nature is desirable. Without doubt, consciousness, contemplation and choice are fundamental to one’s character and are arguably the underpinning to morality. As Human nature is frequently placed in a dualistic scenario, merely put as good or bad, the two dissimilar perspectives may be weighed.

One may begin with the Confucian sage, Mengzi (孟子) or Mencius, and specifically his justification on the assertion that Human nature is good. Mengzi ardently defended an outlook for a virtuous lifecycle for humanity, often summarized as the path or Dao, which emphasized merits likes benevolence, righteousness, propriety and wisdom as fundamental. This path initiates from birth towards adulthood, social interaction, and parentage to births anew. Hence, to Mengzi people have innate capacities or predispositions towards such merits and so logically wish to align to them. To Mengzi, these merits are inborn and not bonded externally. Mengzi utilizes a rural allegory, labelling these predispositions as seedlings or buds of virtue located in our emotional-mindset which Mengzi identifies as the base of our rational and emotional temperaments. If one wholly nurtures these buds by henceforth inclining towards one’s natural predispositions towards virtue, to Mengzi, one shall raise ones human nature to bear fruit and humanity shall then flourish.

 

The feeling of commiseration is the beginning of humanity; the feeling of shame and dislike is the beginning of righteousness; the feeling of deference and compliance is the beginning of propriety; and the feeling of right or wrong is the beginning of wisdom.
Men have these Four Beginnings just as they have their four limbs. Having these Four Beginnings, but saying that they cannot develop them is to destroy themselves.

(Mengzi 2A:6)

What proof suffices Mengzi`s view on human nature and its innate capacities and merits? He offers a most famed hypothetical experiment (Mengzi 2:A6), `the child and the well.’ A child wanders unconsciously towards a well. Mengzi contends, any observer would have an instantaneous and innately natural reaction with a gush of fear and compassion. Undeniably, merely even visualizing the child imprisoned in the well`s depths may reason this alarm. Mengzi concludes that one’s instantaneous and innately natural response to the endangerment stalking the child demonstrate that we have a natural predisposition towards goodwill and hence merely inclined to react by such fear and sympathy when sighting that, in this circumstance, the vulnerable and innocent are in harm’s way. To Mengzi, this exposes the bud of compassion in human nature.

The sense of mercy is found in all men; the sense of shame is found in all men; the sense of respect is found in all men; the sense of right and wrong is found in all men.

(Mengzi 6A:6)

To be precise, to Mengzi it exposes the bud but an effusively settled virtue of compassion is yet absent, it is a maiden variety perhaps that can be refined towards ripeness. Nonetheless, one might still propose altered explanations of the observers’ reactions—the response may be instrumentally motivated, that is, the fear and compassion is backed by certain ends or ulterior aims. Perhaps the child`s guardians will concede to a favor in return—possibly monetary. Mengzi discards this interpretation stating the surge of compassion will cast itself not because or rather in spite of a desire to debt the said guardians, to attain recognition or even mere selfish annoyance of the sound of the child`s constant cries. What is indispensable, states Mengzi, is that the response of fear and compassion is impulsive and non-reflective—it is uncalculated and thus innate.

Shouldn’t it be that cruelty, larceny, and egocentricity are rare? If Human Nature is good, ought immorality to be rare? But immorality isn’t rare. Mengzi counters that unscrupulous conduct is not due to an immoral nature. Mengzi, copiously mindful of the existence of the corrupt, articulates the following:

As for [people’s] qing [essence], “what they genuinely are,” they can become good. This is what I mean by calling their natures good. As for their becoming not good, this is not the fault of their potential. Humans all have the heart of compassion. Humans all have the heart of disdain. Humans all have the heart of respect. Humans all have the heart of approval and disapproval. The heart of compassion is benevolence. The heart of disdain is righteousness. The heart of respect is propriety. The heart of approval and disapproval is wisdom. Benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom are not welded to us externally. We inherently have them. It is simply that we do not concentrate upon them. Hence, it is said, “Seek it and you will get it. Abandon it and you will lose it”

(Mengzi 6A:6)

Replies: Moral Attitudes and Individualism

Replies to Comments:

Surely, you can see that there has been an improvement in our moral attitudes. There has been much talk around moral attitudes and progress has been made regarding them.  Many matters, once refrained from discussion, considered taboos and what not are such no longer. The brave Feminist movement has brought many matters up to discussion to state one example.  

 

I am not of the outlook that is an indication of the enhancement of our moral approaches. I find the feminist movement generally embracing a reasonably vague or indecisive view regarding for instance, the spread of pornography, or use of coarse lyrics and the like which have come to be more mainstream.  I think this decay is something to be astonished with and I would not sing of it as progress.

One could argue that bringing attention to matters previously overlooked may convey awareness but most frequently it is used as an instrument to rub-off one’s credentials and sound agreeable to the public whilst ravaging on about the transgressions of others, which has at all times been a fairly spiteful profession but has little to do with virtuous conduct by itself. To belittle others to make one seem majestic is rather ludicrous and added exhibition of the yearning to appear good than really be good.  If its intent lies only in gaining leads against professed adversaries by pushing them into humiliating corners, it is but common trickery under an altered cloak.  If under the exceptional context of enlightening personal conduct, then it is advancement, but one can scarcely see these copious mock trials on media as having any real semblance towards that aim.

Furthermore, any metric for measurement of moral evolution appears mysterious to me—perhaps if one observes matters deteriorate utterly over the passage of time as an outcome, one can. In an open society, notwithstanding personal outlooks, individuals have an implicit concern for the good and morality aims to be the vehicle for this good, which follows from an agreed basis of morality, as I addressed in my previous writing.  A more curious paradox is that whilst we cannot agree on what delineates “good”, we all seem to know it instinctively when we experience it.

People have had for a substantial amount of periods a code of upright conduct which they espoused and studied. The mostly-lost and unsaid code of courtship, which hemmed in life-long matrimony made bonds between a husband and wife possibly much more polite in many ways—certainly not naïvely idyllic for I desist from faith in utopias.

 

Replies to Comments:

Also, the individualism you mentioned, if put in historical terms is actually a very recent phenomenon if you consider the expanse of human history. So regarding your comment, we are only learning to cope with this freedom. As you mentioned earlier, we are not flawless. This is a part of the proletariat reaching their revolutionary consciousness. Your outlook is unnecessarily bleak.

 

Personal-sovereignty and freedom are not one and the same—you are referring to a strong desire for the former. All accurately freely-exercised liberties come at the expense of the liberties of another. In line with what is answered above and the allusion to the [civilized] expanse of human history, one could contend that there were some ethical prepositions which until somewhat recently people agreed upon and abided by which are now abandoned for the lure of persona-sovereignty whose consequences are self-evident. Those better endowed with social means (affluence) and authority prosper, those lacking are left to suffer. Likewise, a collapse in moral mandate has historically continuously been followed by an anarchical condition allowing for the State (and its monopoly on the use of force) to fulfill the role as the arbiter of social behavior.

Evidently, a vast bulk of social changes have not been obtained through neither widespread demand nor dialogue and are fueled by specialist groups or persons, who have often substantial resources at their disposal and who seek to advance certain notions and give them the thrust that they otherwise would not have mustered.

Lastly, my interpretations are perfectly constructive if there are gifted persons who would make out that blunders have been committed. One collective facet of those who commit mistakes is their habitual denial of their occurrence. One is reminded of Confucius: “A man who has committed a mistake and doesn’t correct it is committing another mistake.”