Human Nature in Confucianism, Xunzi, Mencius, and Christianity

Introduction: The Question of Human Nature

Throughout history, intelligent human beings have tried to better understand exactly what it is that makes people human. Some of the most frequently asked questions concern a supposed universal human nature — a basic quality that is somehow part of all people regardless of culture, ethnicity, gender, religion, or any other divisive characteristic one might consider. Human nature refers to the capacity to think, to feel, to act and react — all the things that elevate people above the rest of the animal kingdom. Thinkers of all ages have tried to clearly explain and solidify this intangible idea.

Philosophers first questioned whether human nature exists at all, and then further asked whether it is inherently good or inherently evil. Is it part of our innate character to be kind and decent to other human beings, to take care of one another — or does that impulse result from overcoming a more self-preserving human nature? These questions have been asked repeatedly throughout recorded history, and it can logically be assumed they were posed long before written records existed. The answers people give tend to reflect the culture of the person posing them. Every single culture on Earth has a historical perspective on this question. Four of the most significant philosophical perspectives on this issue are Confucianism, the philosophy of Xunzi, the philosophy of Mencius, and the Christian perspective on human nature, each of which postulates the inherent goodness or lack thereof within humanity.

Confucianism and the Capacity for Good and Evil

Confucianism is the philosophical and ethical system of belief based upon the teachings of the Chinese philosopher Confucius. It completely transformed the philosophical, psychological, and sociological perspective of many Chinese people, including leaders of the country who adopted it as their personal philosophy. In all of Confucius's recorded statements and writings, he directly addressed the issue of human nature only once, in The Analects of Confucius: "The Master said, 'By nature, men are nearly alike; by practice, they get to be wide apart'" (Waley 55).

The core belief of Confucianism is humanism — the idea that human beings can change, adapt, and grow, but only through self-improvement. No one's identity or personality is fixed, and anyone can learn from their mistakes and develop into a better person according to the five virtues of humaneness, righteousness, etiquette, knowledge, and integrity (Runes 338). This also means that social position is an archaic concept, because in a meritocracy the virtuous should rise in society while those who behave poorly should not, regardless of financial position. People are expected to make decisions using reason, logic, and critical thinking in all areas of life. Most practitioners of Confucianism hold that the purpose of human existence is to become the best version of oneself that a person can aspire to (Ames 30). Whether or not this runs counter to human nature is considered beside the point; a person is tasked in life with overcoming individual faults in order to become a person of value.

According to Confucius, certain characteristics were consistent across all of human nature — namely, that mankind is social and that interactions with other human beings are directly connected to a person's ability or inability to reach their full potential. Confucius further stated that human beings are innately good and want to do what is right for themselves and for the rest of humanity, but that people also have the capacity for evil. Both impulses exist within a person, and the individual's choices matter far more than what is merely innate (Bevir 272). The ethical definition of good or evil was of primary concern, as opposed to religious ideas of sin or grace. A person's responsibility is to respect themselves, other people, and their ancestors, and the burden rests entirely on the individual and his or her choices.

Confucianism places great importance on each unique person and their decisions. If good and evil exist in the world, it is because people have failed to live up to their potential. Everyone begins life with the same characteristics and the same potential, and the success or failure of a person to live up to their ideal is entirely their own responsibility. According to this perspective, all people begin with the same chance to be good or to be wicked, and the results of their actions ultimately determine their development.

Xunzi: Human Nature as Inherently Wicked

Xunzi was a Confucian philosopher who held a considerably more negative view of human nature than other philosophers of his era. Rather than innately good, Xunzi hypothesized that human beings are actually inherently wicked and that their natural impulses must be overcome through socialization and education (Cua). For a long time, Xunzi was regarded as a minor philosopher, and it is only through more recent scholarly efforts that his relevance to the question of human nature has become widely recognized. He argued that education — which Confucius identified as a necessary component of human endeavor and the only path to social and ethical advancement — was in fact needed precisely to overcome our human nature. This does not mean that human beings enjoy committing evil actions, but that it is human nature to resort to deception or wrongdoing in order to advance one's own position. As Philip Ivanhoe explains:

"Human nature is bad, but this should not be read as saying that people naturally delight in evil. Rather, his point is that people lack any inborn guide to right conduct, and that without the external restraint of ritual they will fall into wrongdoing and be reduced to a chaotic, impoverished state… Since we are not inclined to virtue by nature, the process of self-transformation will be slow and difficult" (Ivanhoe 256).

When a person is born, they do not understand what is morally right or wrong. They are driven by desire, inclination, and instinct. It is only through the process of aging and development that people come to understand what society expects of them. Education — both in terms of knowledge and in terms of social expectation and morality — allows individuals to become good people. Those who have been denied education will ultimately retain their innate tendency toward wrongdoing and will be more likely to commit acts of wickedness against others. Beyond education, other factors also prevent human beings from becoming good (Machle 162). A single life is full of distractions that inhibit a person from acting rightly: physical desires, financial ambitions, social cravings, and the many other things a person yearns for. By striving after these things rather than focusing on self-improvement, people effectively prevent themselves from reaching their full potential as defined by Confucian philosophy.

Conclusion: Evaluating the Four Perspectives

From the evidence gathered, Confucianism offers the most logically convincing argument about the truth of human nature. While it would be appealing to agree with Mencius that all human beings are fundamentally good, this claim does not hold up to scrutiny. Mencius maintained not only that humans are good, but that their nature remains good regardless of the choices they make. This is unsatisfying because it cannot be disputed that human beings inflict genuine misery upon one another. A person who deliberately chooses to commit such acts is not, in any meaningful sense, a good person. Furthermore, modern psychologists recognize that some individuals are born with sociopathic or antisocial tendencies — they do not possess what would be considered normal emotional responses or normal understandings of acceptable behavior. Something intrinsic to such a person causes them to act violently or maliciously even within a supportive, functional environment. It is difficult to maintain that such individuals possess an indestructibly good nature.

On the other hand, Xunzi's view that humans are innately bad and must overcome this nature to do right also falls short. Young children are the people closest to the beginning of life, and if Xunzi were correct, they would be the most evil, having not yet learned what society expects of them. Additionally, Xunzi's framework effectively offers people who do wrong a ready excuse. If cruelty and the impulse to harm are simply part of human nature, wrongdoers can claim they are not responsible for their actions. The most persuasive explanation, among those available, is that within each person there is a capacity for good and a capacity for evil, and that being human means having the ability to choose to do what one knows is right or to do what one knows is wrong. This capacity for reasoned choice — the ability to think, interpret, and decide rather than merely react to stimuli — is precisely what separates humanity from other creatures.

Human nature remains an extraordinarily complex question that has not been fully resolved. Confucius argued that human beings are inherently good but can choose to be bad if they fail to live up to their potential. His follower Xunzi believed that humans are naturally wicked and become good only through hard work and the struggle to overcome their natural impulses. In complete opposition, Mencius held that people are innately good and that their choices cannot alter this fundamental quality — even a lifetime of wrong choices cannot change one's essential humanity. The Christian perspective, perhaps the most widely practiced of the four, holds that human beings have the potential for good and must actively choose goodness even in the face of terrible suffering. Across all four philosophies, a crucial role is assigned to the act of choosing, which suggests that despite deep differences in perspective, all of them agree on at least this one point. Whether a person is innately good or innately bad may ultimately matter less than the choices they make — for it is those choices that determine the character of a life.

Works Cited

Ames, Roger T., and Henry Rosemont, Jr., trans. The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation. A New Translation Based on the Dingzhou Fragments and Other Recent Archaeological Finds. Classics of Ancient China. New York: Ballantine, 1998. Print.

Bevir, Mark. Encyclopedia of Political Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2010. Print.

Cua, Antonio S. "Human Nature, Ritual, and History: Studies in Xunzi and Chinese Philosophy." Studies in Philosophy and the History of Philosophy. 43. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2005. Print.

Dunn, J. & Rogerson, J. Eerdmans' Commentary on the Bible. Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans Publishing, 2003. Print.

Habel, N. The Book of Job. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1985. Print.

Hartley, J.E. The Book of Job. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing, 1988. Print.

Hooke, S.H. The Bible in Basic English. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1982. Print.

Hubbard, R. "The go'el in ancient Israel: theological reflections on an Israelite institution." Bulletin for Biblical Research. 1991. 3–19. Print.

Ivanhoe, Philip J., and Bryan W. Van Norden. "Mozi," in Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy, ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2001. 55–107. Print.

Machle, Edward J. Nature and Heaven in the Xunzi: A Study of the Tian lun. SUNY Series in Chinese Philosophy and Culture. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1993. Print.

Runes, Dagobert D. Dictionary of Philosophy. Philosophical Library, 1983. Print.

Van Norden, Bryan. The Essential Mengzi: Selected Passages with Traditional Commentary. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2009. Print.

Waley, Arthur. The Analects of Confucius. CreateSpace Independent, 2013. eBook.