Mencius is an ancient Chinese Confucian philosopher who adamantly champions the view that humans are born good. This paper will briefly discuss his conception of the inborn goodness in human nature, contemporary researches on the existence and origin of innate human goodness. Finally, this paper will offer its own view on whether preserving and developing innate human goodness will continue to be a persistent theme in modern human development.
Mencius explains human goodness through the metaphors of the four “sprouts” that need nurturing and the “water” that naturally flows downwards. The four “sprouts” respectively represent ren (compassion), yi (rightness), li (propriety), and zhi (wisdom) (2A6 Bloom). The “flowing water” metaphor shows that goodness will naturally develop and manifest itself without external interference. “Moral sprouts” and “flowing water” represent the inborn basis that allows the noble qualities of the human spirit to emerge, as opposed to those animalistic, “lower” instincts that aim to satiate one’s sensual and physical desires (6A14 Bloom).
Mencius believes humans “inherently have” higher spiritual qualities like benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom. Each of these qualities respectively gives us the potential to feel “compassion,” “disdain,” “respect,” or “approval and disapproval” (147-148 Ivanhoe). However, Mencius does not believe human nature is fully good immediately at birth. This belief is reflected in his consistent effort invested in theorizing about the development of goodness throughout his literature. Thus, Mencius believes that at the very least, it requires time for these spiritual qualities to fully manifest and integrate themselves into one’s thoughts and actions.
However, if one compares the above-mentioned interpretation of the “flowing water” metaphor and the “sprouts” metaphor, one will start seeing some ambiguity in Mencius’ theory of what it takes for people to become good. In certain interpretations, these two metaphors may contradict each other because the “sprouts” metaphor shows that proactivity is necessary for one to become fully good, whereas the “water flowing downward” metaphor indicates that only non-interference is necessary, so proactive and conscious effort is unnecessary—people will become good by default as time goes and only external force will hinder and end this process.
To pursue this argument further, one can see that the “sprouts” metaphor implies although one may be born with goodness, goodness may die without proper upbringing and protection since “sprouts” start out easily crushable. Meanwhile, the human psyche also has its “lower” aspects, which are our sensual desires such as “eating and drinking” (6A14 Bloom). One will not have enough mental resources to grow one’s “moral sprouts” properly if one also indulges in satisfying these “smaller” aspects of oneself, which Mencius views as a direct threat to the survival and development of the “moral sprouts.” Therefore, raising “moral sprouts” requires consistent positive interference and protection. On the other hand, according to the “flowing water” metaphor, one can only stifle the flowing of one’s goodness towards its full expression by “splashing it” with one’s hand or “damming it” (6A2 Bloom). Humans naturally develop towards goodness just like water flowing downward due to gravity. One may detect that Mencius is emphasizing incompatible attitudes on moral development: 1) Becoming fully good requires lots of active effort, and 2) one becomes fully good nonetheless as long as nothing interferes with the process.
This paper supports the view that Mencius believes to become fully good requires active efforts and “moral sprouts” should serve as the official conception for goodness than “flowing water” because “moral sprout” explains everything “flowing water” tries to convey and more. Before this paper proceeds to presenting this point, this paper will discuss Mencius’ view on how environmental factors affect the development of one’s goodness. Then it will reinterpret the “flowing water” metaphor based on this view to resolve the theoretical incompatibility between the “moral sprouts” metaphor and the “flowing water.”
Mencius believes for one’s inner goodness to persist and develop, a hospital external environment is also necessary. He mentions that when one’s external circumstances are inhospitable, most originally benevolent people can actually “become violent” because various factors, such as “the fertility of the soil” and “the nourishment of the rain,” may affect the outcome of the growth of one’s goodness despite “the human effort” to cultivate it (6A7 Bloom). This statement reveals that Mencius believes one’s environment has a large influence on whether one’s good tendencies will be suppressed/flourish.
Now let’s reconsider the “moral sprouts” and “flowing water” metaphors based on this “environmental determinism” perspective. If one takes into account the fact that humans are born in different locations and socioeconomic backgrounds, the outcome of the development of everyone’s “moral sprouts” is different. Similarly, where each person’s goodness starts flowing like water, whether on a downward slope, plain, upward slope, a desert or lake, etc., is also different. “Sprouts” may die because the weather is too harsh and the soil is infertile. The “flowing water” may evaporate and/or stop flowing if it starts out in or reaches a very hot area or is dammed “on a mountain top” (145 Ivanhoe). For water to flow downward consistently throughout time is arguably as difficult as raising a sprout because the terrain and temperature limit how well the water flows downward. The water metaphor, therefore, does not imply non-interference because non-interference is not a given part of nature even for water to start or be able to continue flowing downward.
This paper’s new interpretation asserts that the water metaphor simply does not aim to say anything about how one can become better. It is more fitting to see the “water flowing downward” metaphor’s entire purpose as to only convey that there always exists a default direction of human development towards goodness, which is only a part of what the more sophisticated “moral sprouts” metaphor conveys. The “water flowing” metaphor thus does not contradict the “sprouts” metaphor. Just like that “sprouts” tend to grow upward towards the sun, “water” flows downward towards the earth. Both metaphors share a similar purpose of demonstrating that human goodness grows towards a default direction, although humans often have trouble doing so due to unavoidable and influential environmental factors. These two metaphors are analogous and compatible. However, the water metaphor, according to this new interpretation, is thus less comprehensive than the “sprouts” metaphor because the water metaphor no longer serves the purpose of explaining how one can grow one’s moral goodness. This paper believes Mencius has used the more complex “sprouts” metaphor to fulfill this challenging task and will now attempt to show how he does so.
In terms of what the individual can do, Mencius believes the first step to becoming fully good is to tap into one’s “sprout” of wisdom and employ one’s mind to reflect, reason and “apprehend” what is truly important to one’s personal development, especially when our senses cloud our judgment (16A15 Mencius). Doing so allows one to identify distracting desires originating from our lower instincts and discover and re-focus on our true priorities, which are to develop within ourselves “the nobility of the Heaven”—“humaneness, rightness, loyalty, and truthfulness” (6A16 Bloom). It is only when humans “do not think about…what is honorable” within themselves that they fail to listen to “their desire to be honored” and stop nurturing their “moral sprouts” (6A17 Bloom). Furthermore, one must invest consistent effort to develop one’s virtues because even the most easily growable sprout will die if one “exposes it to the heat for a day of warmth, and then…to the cold for ten days” (6A9 Bloom). Developing one’s goodness is a slow and laborious endeavor that requires patience, discipline and focus.
In addition, the “moral sprouts” metaphor offers a concrete theory that explains why people can become bad because one may divert one’s resources to satisfying one’s lower instincts, so one forgets to attend to the “sprouts” and cause them to wither and die. Mencius states that “some parts of the body are superior and others inferior…those who follow the part that is small become small persons” (6A15 Bloom). If one’s animalistic desires, such as the desire for power or fear of pain, overtake one’s mind and behavior, one will stop prioritizing becoming a virtuous person and set morals aside when morals hinder the process of fulfilling these desires. The “moral sprouts” will fail to come to fruition due to one’s willful neglect as one “becomes a confused animal” (6A14 Bloom). “A confused animal” has neither the self-control nor the wisdom to know how to cultivate its noble qualities on a daily basis.
Many contemporary research studies have supported the Mencian view that goodness is inborn. According to Hamlin, Wynn and Bloom’s study of six and ten-month-old infants, humans have an innate ability to distinguish between helpers and hinderers in a graphically represented scenario and prefer the helpers. Fourteen out of sixteen ten-month olds chose the helper, while all twelve six-month olds chose the helper (559 Hamlin et al).
Another study conducted by Tomasello concludes that humans have a stronger inclination to share the fruits of collaboration equally than chimpanzees and do so very early on, while humans also show an aversion towards free-riders. His theory is that these behaviors emerge during the first stage of the human development of morality before the absorption of pre-existing or later developed cultural norms. This is strong evidence that humans are hardwired to cooperate and cultural environments are not the sole producer of such behaviors.
Both two studies support Mencius’ observation that humans do inherit “sprout” traits. They seem to have some innate basis like a zhi “sprout” to reason about yi to decide what is fair, figure out how to be fair, and who is being unfair. They also perform li as they naturally reach an agreement about how to allocate resources peacefully and politely, and have ren to care for each other and perform altruistic activities.
A study conducted by Hrdy provides a theory based on our concern for survival and reproduction for why humans are cooperative and inclined to have “moral sprouts.” The study states that unlike female chimpanzees who are very possessive towards their children, humans allow others to provide care and food. The parents may not be able to find enough food to sustain the family and human infants are difficult to raise, so people who are not in the immediate family work together to manage to provide enough resources to raise each other’s children. Cooperative parenting was foundational to the survival and evolution of the human species and contributed to the development of our ultra-social traits.
Therefore, many contemporary studies indicate that humans have “moral sprouts” and there is a logical basis for us to have “moral sprouts”. This paper supports the view that social cooperation increases one’s chance of survival, so people engage in altruistic behavior to ensure everyone’s survival. However, this paper also holds doubts about whether the human tendency to be “good” serves only a utility value for some more important purpose because nature has not hardwired humans to be “good” after our survival needs are ensured.
Studies have demonstrated that working class people, who have less leisure time to pursue personal projects and are less likely to be guaranteed to have their survival needs satisfied, have more empathy and more interdependent self-concepts than those who are in higher socioeconomic classes (Manstead). Also, considering the drastic decrease (40%) in empathy in college students since 2000 (Psychology Today) and the strange behavioral patterns that modern humans exhibit, one may easily suspect that humans do start ignoring the “sprouts” after their survival needs and social needs are fulfilled. It is difficult to argue whether growing the “moral sprouts” to their ultimate form is where human spiritual development always flows towards. Sometimes “moral sprouts” seem like some expendable trees we grow and use to climb onto another plane of human development that allows greater freedom of personal pursuits without being dependent on others (i.e. clone animals), regardless of what noble/less noble pursuits this plane entails. The purpose of growing “sprouts” may change for many modern humans when they get to this stage.
Citation
Manstead, Antony S. R. “The Psychology of Social Class: How Socioeconomic Status Impacts Thought, Feelings, and Behaviour.” British Journal of Social Psychology, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (10.1111), 28 Feb. 2018, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bjso.12251.
Bloom, Irene, et al. Mencius. Columbia University Press, 2009.
Weisberger, Mindy. “Why Are Human Babies So Helpless?” LiveScience, Purch, 2 May 2016, www.livescience.com/54605-why-are-babies-helpless.html.
“Shocker: Empathy Dropped 40% in College Students Since 2000.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/born-love/201005/shocker-empathy-dropped-40-in-college-students-2000.
Ivanhoe, Philip J., and Van Norden Bryan William. Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy. Hackett Publ., 2007.
Hamlin, J Kiley et al. “How infants and toddlers react to antisocial others.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America vol. 108,50 (2011): 19931-6. doi:10.1073/pnas.1110306108
University, Cambridge. YouTube, YouTube, 5 Mar. 2010, www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGTtdcTn2Vk.
You can also read: