Mencius

[den...@osu.edu]

So Mencius says that we feel about ourselves when we do good deeds,
because the natural inclinations of men are to do good. Therefore we
are exercising that seed in our body that wants us to do good. Now
what does that say about people that get a "rush" when they do harm?
When they get a rush when they steal or rape someone. Does that mean
that those people are born with negative intentions in life. That
their seeds are composed of bad intentions and when they exercise
those seeds that they get that rush. If that is the case does that
solve the case of nature vs. nurture? That because people are born
with these negative intentions that violent crimes and acts will arise
no matter what. What do you guys think about this thought and do you
want to elaborate on anything that I said?

[wasser...@osu.edu]

>From how I understand it, Mencius would argue that, since it is a
natural, human desire to do good, those who lack this desire (or find
pleasure in harming others) aren't fully human. Think about how we
talk about serial killers--fairly often, you'll hear them referred to
as "inhuman," or "monstrous." The language that we use implicitly
suggests that some acts are characteristic of humanity, and some
aren't. I think that was the assumption that Mencius made.

[Charles Reichheld]

I think what wasserman said is correct. Some human finding pleasure in
doing harm must not be human at all. But what would be interesting is
a child who seems to find pleasure in doing harm naturally. How would
mencius explain the actions of a properly nurtured child that seems to
have seeds of hatred rather than compassion? I don't think it would be
fair to call a child inhuman.

[wra...@osu.edu]

Here's my thoughts on the subject...

As you know, Mencius was trying to expand off of Confucius' idea that
all people have the potential to do good. He was going the extra step
saying that we do good because it is natural and it feels good. Now,
just because we have the potential to do good all the time, doesn't
mean we will be good all the time. It's equally natural for people to
be not so much evil, but I think a better choice of a word would be
imperfect because it's not always a case of killing or stealing that
causes people to fall short of perfection... but Mencius said that by
practicing the teachings of Confucianism and the virtues that it
teaches to be a better person and avoid possibly bringing shame to
one's family.

As for the idea of a nurtured child, my thinking is as follows. In
lecture, we were introduced to two questions at the beginning, "Does
education nurture what is already in the child? Or does it instill in
the child what was not already there by nature?" If the child were to
misbehave and cause harm to someone only once, then he was not fully
nurtured before the act and it would follow the belief in the first
question. If he is reprimanded or in some way corrected and re-
nurtured and then does the same thing to cause harm again afterwards,
the it is nature to do harm in the child and that the situation
follows a belief of the second question and that those virtues are not
part of that child already. So i think Charles is right in the sense
that it would be a bit unfair to classify a child as inhuman. but
either way it should follow from one of those two ideas. I hope that
this was off some help to you.

--Jesse Wray--