Mencius Instructor: Ellie Wang 10/19/2018 Chinese Philosophers Mencius Instructor: Ellie Wang 10/19/2018

Mencius Time (372-289 BCE) Like Confucius, Mencius focuses on two aspects of moral cultivation: How to be a good ruler? How to be a good person? - Expand Confucius’ view into a systematic theory. (more philosophical) - Shared premise: humans are perfectible Q: Why are we perfectible? Confucius: ??

Why are we perfectible? Mencius: we are fundamentally good by nature. Recall Y.S. Lin’s view: Puzzle: if the attainment of ren is so difficult (9.11), what does 7.29 mean? (Analects 7.29: “Is humanity far away? As soon as I want it, there it is right by me.” 「我欲仁，斯人至矣。」) Y.S. Lin: ren is our distinctive nature, “Confucius’ concept of ren entails an implicit notion of innate goodness of man.”

Human Nature is Good “human nature” ≠ what we are born with (the initial condition) perhaps one’s potential (possibility, a latent excellence or ability that may or may not be developed), inclinations, or capacities, the beginning state of our existence (67);  “If that is the case, then the way we are as mature beings is not simply the manifestation of our nature. It is, rather, the outcome of the fulfillment of our potential, inclinations, and capacities.”(67)

morally neutral vs. natural tendency toward goodness Q: tendency does not prevent things going the other way, why not just say human nature is morally neutral? A. C. Graham: “the xing (nature) of an animate thing … meant the course on which life completes its development if sufficiently nourished and not obstructed or injured from outside.” Further clarification of ‘nature’: one’s natural tendency (68, 71) (natural tendency vs. potential), the opposite development not projected in one’s original nature is thus not natural, but the result of external conditioning. A dichotomy between nature and nurture seems impossible in practice. no empirical evidence for good nature. Q: why debate? A: The implication of the position “natural tendency”: advocate ways to enhance the tendencies by education and encouragement (not curtail them w/ laws and punishment), and avoid obstructions. (agree??)

M’s assumptions on ‘nature’ Heaven, in giving birth to the multitudes of the people, As there are things, there are their specific principles (tse 則). When the people keep to their normal nature, They will love excellent virtue. ~Book of Odes III. 3. (260) Mencius’ ‘nature’ is a species-specific notion: different things have different norms; these norms define their respective natures.

M’s assumptions on ‘nature’ A species-specific notion – the nature of different things are different. Human nature is what distinguishes human from all other animals - moral virtues are innate to them. Things of the same kind are all similar. (Barley) All humans have the same nature. Human nature is universal in all human beings. Humans are alike by nature, the differences we see in mature human beings are due to external environment (conducive or not?) and individual effort (enough or not?). (vs. Confucius)

M’s assumption on heart/mind (心) Challenge: physical and biological attributes ≠ moral attributes  moral attributes cannot be determined biologically! M’s Reply p.69: human mind is also a human organ or a capacity that comes with birth. The mind can learn to think well and to have a fully developed moral sense, but the capacities or potential for thinking and morality must be innate in us. (potential or natural tendency?) Compare quote p.69 “what is it that hearts prefer in common? I say that it is the fine patterns and righteousness. … Hence, fine patterns and righteousness delight our hearts like meat delights our mouth.” (potential or natural tendency?)

M’s analogy between the mind and sensory organs 1. We humans are alike in out tastes for flavor… such that we would recognize great chefs… 2. Our minds cannot be so different from our sensory organs that they are not shared by all humans. 3. Therefore, minds must be all alike. 4. There are sages, whose moral attributes are generally recognized. 5. Therefore, our minds must appreciate morality just like our taste buds appreciate great food. (if natural liking for great cooking, then natural liking for sages’ moral attributes.) Do you agree with this analogy?

Argument from Analogy The general structure: Object A and object B share characteristics F, G, and H. A also has characteristic Z. Therefore, it is likely that B has characteristic Z. E.g., Fred has 4 legs, fur, a heart, and lungs; Jill has 4 legs, fur, and a heart; therefore Jill has lungs. The problem with this kind of argument: not valid; hard to determine the relevance of the extension Z. The point: try to make the similarities intuitively appealing and the dissimilarities less relevant.

Mencius and Gaozi: the debate The word ‘nature’ simply means ‘life’. Human nature is more like a blank slate (tree vs. wooden cups, water going east or west). Human nature itself is indifferent to good and evil. Desire for food and sex are natural to us. They define our nature. Moral virtues such as ren and yi are manufactured by human efforts (imposed on us from the outside).

Mencius and Gaozi: the debate Gaozi: (w/ Mencius’ criticisms) The word ‘nature’ simply means ‘life’. (M: then the nature of a dog is no different from the nature of a cow.) Human nature is more like a blank slate (tree vs. wooden cups, water going east or west). (M: does this analogy mean that moral education would harm human nature?) (M: water tends to flow to the low ground.) Human nature itself is indifferent to good and evil. (M: Human nature is like water, has natural tendency toward the good.) Desire for food and sex are natural to us. (M: the minor part.) They define our nature. (p76: the minor part vs. the major part) Moral virtues such as ren and yi are manufactured by human efforts (imposed on us from the outside). (M: no!)

M’s Reply In respecting the elderly, the feeling of respect ultimately comes from one’s own heart. Even if in different contexts we have to consider different conducts accordingly, there is one thing all considerations share in common: we wish to do the right thing in the right context. This wish is the sense of yi, a moral sentiment. (This is the internal sense of righteousness.) Human nature contains the seeds (moral sentiments: commiseration惻 隱之心, shame羞惡之心, reverence辭讓之心, rightness是非之心) of moral virtues: ren仁, yi義 (righteousness), li禮 (propriety), zhi智 (wisdom) The origin of morality is not pure human reason, but human emotions.

the roast and drink analogies Who brought up the terms “internal” and “external”? What’s Mencius’ first reaction to these terms? How do the roast and drink analogies work? Absurd analogies. Lau: “All [Mencius] set out to do, in both cases, was to show that his opponents failed to establish the externality of yi. He did not attempt to go beyond this and to establish positively that yi was internal.” (Chong 42)

Is yi “internal” or “external”? “internal”: coming from one’s heart “external”: being imposed on oneself from outside Q. Is the standard according to which one does the right thing determined from one’s heart/mind, or from external conventions? Gaozi: respect for elders – I do it because he’s old (age, external standard), not because he’s worthy of respect 72: “if Gaozi were to succeed in proving that the sense of righteousness was the result of external demands, then the individual on her own could not know how to do the right thing in each context. If the individual does not know what to do on her own, then she does not have moral autonomy.” (?)  “placing external restraints on people’s behavior” “The Confucian project of one’s moral self-cultivation will be aborted.” (why?)

Is yi “internal” or “external”? Liu: We wish to do the right thing in the right context. This wish is the sense of yi, a moral sentiment. The four sprouts, the moral sentiments, are internal to us. Chong: Gaozi’s argument that yi is external is invalidated by Mencius’ “absurd” analogies. Here Mencius did not assert that yi is internal.

Is yi “internal” or “external”? Chong: Yi (and ren, and the 4 sprouts) is not internal in the sense that taste and sensation are internal: Take compassion for example: The focus of sensory and appetitive desires is on fulfilling these desires, and thus, one’s desire can be transferred. The focus of compassion is outward-directed, it is the direct concern for the object and it thus cannot be transferred, object not substitutable or negotiable. (Q: Why not transferable to another target worthy of compassion?)

Is yi “internal” or “external”? Chong: Yi (and ren, and the 4 sprouts) is not internal in the sense that taste and sensation are internal: (2) Mencius can be understood as describing the relations that can obtain between oneself and others or certain states of affairs, on the basis of certain primitive responses such as the 4 sprouts. Environmental factors (and one’s own effort, such as reflection on their priorities) play a role in the failure to nourish, nurture, and sustain one’s heart. (Why is it thus not internal in the same sense as sensory and appetitive desires?)

The internality of Ren and Yi for Mencius People may want more than life Disagree with Gaozi’s identification between human nature and ‘inborn’, and between human nature and ‘desire for food and sex’. The heart-mind can reflect and prioritize. Ren and yi, insofar as they are developed from the sprouts of the heart- mind, are internal, in a deeper moral sense. This can be seen from the contrast between humans and the brutes: 1. humans follow the path of morality (internal) instead of simply putting morality into practice (external); 2. ming命 vs. zhengming 正命 (the normative sense of ming)

Argument for the goodness of human nature Anyone who sees a young child about to fall into a deep well is bound to feel anxiety and commiseration in the heart. This is not for his self-interest. (A general claim, not a universal claim.) (Q: Why does the former work? Does this match the species-specific claim?) This example shows that people cannot bear to see the suffering of others. This very feeling is the beginning of ren仁 (the seed of commiseration). Therefore, humans have the beginning of ren in their nature.

Argument Two P1  P2 : hasty generalization? (illustration rather than arguing from one example) Argument one and two: the beginning of ren and righteousness is prevalent

The 4 sprouts are distinguishing human nature (species specific), this is the origin of morality, the foundation of ethics. Do you agree? (E.g., what makes them good?)

Explanation of Moral Failures If morality is natural to us and yet we are not moral, then there must be some reasons why we fail morality. If people often fail morally, then there has to be a way to teach people to avoid moral failures. 2 factors: external environment (conducive or not?) and individual effort (enough or not?) p76: the minor part vs. the major part p.77: Moral failures, in most cases, are the result of the mind/heart’s not fulfilling its 4 functions (and its desires lost in the competition with the desires of the minor part) The causes of moral failures 78-80

Method of Moral Cultivation: Extension A feasible way to establish moral virtues: extension Natural inclination: love our own family more than we would love a stranger (acknowledged by Confucianism: love with distinctions 愛有差等) Mozi: correct these tendencies and achieve impartiality in our sentiment（兼愛） M: take a step further, extend these natural preferences to others. “Treat with respect the elders in one’s own family, and then extend that respect to include the elders in one’s own family….”（老吾老以及人之老，幼吾幼以及人之幼） the difference between sages and brutes

Discussion Consider the argument Liu presented on p.70, and answer the following questions: Do you agree with Liu’s criticism of this argument? Why or why not? What do you think of this argument? Explain why you think it is good or bad.

For Next Time Read assigned material Mencius ch6.pdf Raise 2 thoughtful questions about the material and send them to our assistant, Jeanie <105154002@nccu.edu.tw>, due next Thursday at 5pm.