Mencius thought that virtue was a matter to be developed while Xunzi felt that what was required was not development, but reshaping. The first is like a sprout coming out in a tree whereas the second is like a piece of wood being shaped into an object required by humans. (Chinese Philosophy)
Apart from the argument as to whether goodness comes to man from birth or the state, man should practice goodness according to both the philosophers. In those days, living in a state was for the benefit of the state, and this philosophy certainly benefited the state. The general acceptance among them was also that men could be good if they chose to and it did not matter from where this came - birth or inclination. The difference was in thoughts as to where this morality originated from - Mencius believed that it came from the heart and not through enforcement by the state. According to his beliefs, the inherent quality of any child is to be good and men have only got to carry that forward. On the other hand, Xunzi felt that the state has to control behavior of men and decide what principles needed to be enforced within the state. These are needed for the development and survival of the state, and certainly this viewpoint is more practical. His point can be put as saying that humans have to wait for a teacher before becoming correct in terms of behavior as also for observation of the principles of rituals. This is because of the nature of men being essentially evil. (Xunzi (Hsun Tzu) (310-220 BCE?))
This teacher will be thus a representative of the state, and his teachings are in common interest. The good instincts highlighted by Xunzi are of courtesy in relationships and the ability of controlling one's own desires and instincts. This has to be pushed ahead by the state, as these are not natural. The knowledge of the rituals of behavior will lead to orderly behavior by men. When men do not understand needed principles, the behavior of individuals will continue to be wild and irresponsible. This happens as he feels that humans are essentially evil, unlike Mencius. At the same time, this explanation is quite close to...
Mencius saw Tian as the source of morality and social sanction (if the king was good, Heaven enabled him to rule). Hsun Tzu, on the other hand, perceived heaven as dispassionate and unresponsive at best to human predicament and existence, He therefore advocated that man should not look to Tian for assistance or attempt to placate or please tian, but rather endeavor to craft his own fate (Watson, 2003).
He exemplifies by saying that anyone witnessing a child about to fall in a well would immediately turn to rescue the child without seeking any advantages in doing so. But while this position has been argued on the grounds that "such an example is not intended to prove that all men will actually take some action in such circumstances" (Allinson apud Chan 1996), Chan has defended Mencius by emphasizing
Human Nature Throughout history intelligent human beings have tried to better understand exactly what it is that makes people human. Some of the questions that are most frequently asked has to do with a supposed universal human nature, a basic idea which somehow is a part of all people regardless of culture, ethnicity, gender, religion, or whatever other divisive characterization that can be thought of. Human nature refers to the ability
In contrast Mozi argued that people should always care for others equally. Linking the thoughts of different philosophers The ancient Chinese sacrificial practice was very common whereby the historical dynasties had carried out human sacrifices quite extensively. However there was the disappearance of this ritual during the periods of spring and autumn as well as the warring periods. Though it was practiced privately this ritual of sacrificing humans was replaced at
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now