Is Mengzi's Argument For The Badness Of Human Nature?

In this paper, I will discuss whether human nature is good or bad by analyzing a debate between Xunzi and Mengzi. I argue that Xunzi’s argument fails to undermine Mengzi’s claim for the goodness of human nature, and the two seemingly disparate perspectives can be reconciled. I will demonstrate a more challenging argument against Mengzi’s theory by reformulating Xunzi’s claim with a Humean ethical perspective on human nature.
Xunzi defines human nature as what is inherent; that is, the traits that cannot be deliberately obtained through practice substantially constitute our nature. With this innate theory of human nature, Xunzi argues that mankind is born bad, because we have intrinsic dispositions to benefits and pleasure. We are naturally inclined to mellow music, beautiful sights and wealth. Given that material goods are always scarce, our nature for profits and enjoyment inevitably results in contention, cruelty and debauchery. Xunzi further suggests that if goodness is rooted in human nature, we will not deviate from order and correctness, but will voluntarily refine such virtues. However, if we comply to our inborn dispositions without any contrived discipline, we are likely to grow into petty men. Hence, goodness is not a trait that we possess internally. Instead, we must seek virtues from outside. Just as diamonds must be grinded to …show more content…
The belief that human beings are innately kind is immediately falsified by the test of reality. It fails to explain why so many people would rather fight against their instincts and harm others if we are able to become virtuous easily by conforming to our natural dispositions. Moral paradigms will become unnecessary and ethical principles redundant. Most importantly, human beings will cease to desire goodness if it is already imprinted on our souls, for one does not pursuit what one already