Critique on Mencius’ Claim of Person’s Capability to Become Good

In this essay I argue against Mencius’ claim that ‘a man is capable of becoming good’ due to the inherent goodness in his nature. I am against Mencius’ claim because of his assumption that human nature is inclined towards good morals. I opine that human nature is neutral and humans can become good or bad depending on external influences. My essay consists of four sections: In the first section, I will explain Mencius’ claim. In the second section, I will state why I disagree that human nature is good. In the third section, I will provide an objection on Mencius’ behalf. In the fourth section, I will conclude that this rejoinder is unsuccessful.

According to Mencius, there are 4 main manifestations of the heart/mind, which can also be called the 4 sprouts of ideals: the heart of compassion (sprout of benevolence), heart of shame (sprout of propriety), heart of courtesy and modesty (sprout of ritual), and heart of right and wrong (sprout of wisdom). These hearts are ‘possessed by all men alike’ and are from birth, part of all men. Hence, under normal circumstances and with good care, a man will become one who has properly developed all 4 hearts and has good morals. If a man strays down the wrong path, we should not fault his nature, but rather the external factors that caused him to become bad. This is the same as how with good nourishment, sprouts will grow into beautiful plants; and when neglected, they may wither and die. Another scenario Mencius presented is the story of how when one sees a young child about to fall into a well, one will certainly move to save the child. This is not because of any potential rewards or even to stop the child from crying, but due to one’s good nature which does not want another human to suffer. This scenario supports Mencius’ claim that human nature is inclined towards goodness as one will decide to do the right thing even without any external influences.

As can be seen in Section I, Mencius does admit that bad people do exist, even though it is not the fault of their nature. This points to nurture playing an important role in a person’s future morality inclination. As mentioned in Section I, when one grows up in a positive environment, he will become good as his inherent goodness is nurtured. However, if one were to grow up in a negative environment, such as being neglected by their parents, he would often develop low self-esteem and jealousy and anger towards peers with a loving family, which will then corrupt his heart/mind. This results in his innate nature losing its ability to develop properly. He will then become a man with bad morals. If so, could we argue that human nature could also be intrinsically bad? That some grow up to be morally righteous because they have been nurtured to become so; because they were cared for by loving parents and experienced morally-beneficial external influences that helped develop them into good people? For example, they could have been rewarded by parental figures or authority figures for performing helpful acts, resulting in them associating these acts with “good rewards” and hence becoming a morally good person. As for those that remained morally bad, they are just those that grew up under “normal circumstances” and were left to their own devices. However, I am not arguing that human nature is bad. I am arguing that it is neutral, a blank paper which is coloured by the happenings in life. According to Mencius, to become good, one has to develop the goodness in himself; to become bad, one will have to be affected negatively by outside forces. This means that both ways require additional effort. If a person can become good or bad equally easily, who is to say that human nature is good?

Since nurture has been stated to be a key factor in a person’s capability of becoming either good or bad, it is logical to think that a person is inherently neither good nor bad, and becoming either is just a matter of external influences. Mencius conveniently assumed that the 4 hearts are in all men from birth, however, could it be that the hearts are actually results of learning? They could be from the good discipline parents offered to children, the school teachings of what is morally right and the daily watching of what happens in the world. Similarly, the absence of those 4 hearts which will result in bad morals, is also due to external factors, or more accurately, the lack thereof. In other words, one may decide to save the young child from falling into the well not because of one’s inherent goodness, but because of the learnings of good morals from a young age. After all, to prove that one’s decision to save the young child is due to human nature’s inclination towards goodness, one will have to be a new-born baby whose nature has not yet been influenced by anything.

Mencius mentioned that ‘all palates have the same preference in taste; all ears in sound; all eyes in beauty’. Everybody wants to taste good food, listen to good music and see pretty things. Hence, Mencius may argue that the heart/mind, like all other organs, has a natural preference. That preference will be ‘reason and rightness’; goodness. Since the heart is an organ just like the others, it is only natural that it too has predisposed inclinations. It inclines towards doing good, morally righteous things. Mencius may also argue that human nature is like water, it ‘is good just as water seeks low ground. There is no man who is not good; there is no water that does not flow downwards. ’ One can force water to go upwards, but that is not the nature of water. Hence, the heart/mind, or human nature, is still essentially good.

In regards to the first point Mencius mentioned in Section III, it is true that our organs have natural preferences and that they have their likes and dislikes. However, what does one mean by ‘good food’, ‘good music’ and ‘pretty things’? These preferences are highly subjective and differ greatly from person to person. What one may think of as good food may not be delicious to another; what one enjoys listening to may be noise to another; what one finds aesthetically pleasing may be atrocious to another. Hence, the ‘goodness’ that the heart/mind prefers may similarly be biased and subjected to one’s isolated preferences. Thus, what Mencius thought of as good may not be what others have in mind. This argument is therefore invalid. With respect to the second point, rather than saying that water’s nature is to seek low ground, it is more plausible to say that water tend to remain still. For it to move downwards or upwards, external forces are needed. Flowing downwards means that there is gravitational forces at work; forcing the water upwards is to transfer kinetic energy to the water. Hence, the natural state of water is to remain motionless. This is just like how human nature is neutral, and for it to become good or bad, external influences will have to affect it.

In conclusion, Mencius’ claim that human nature is intrinsically good is too far of a stretch and that the 4 hearts are part of us from birth is just his mere assumption. With reasons relating to nurturing playing a huge role in a person’s morality inclination, I believe that human nature is, at best, neutral; and the 4 hearts are values that are to be learnt from others.