grow ripe by summer solstice. If they don't grow the same—it's because of inequities in richness of soil, amounts of rainfall, or the care given them by farmers. And so, all members belonging to a given species of thing are the same. Why should humans be the lone exception? The sage and I—surely we belong to the same species of thing.
"That's why Master Lung said: Even if a cobbler makes a pair of sandals for feet he's never seen, he certainly won't make a pair of baskets. Sandals are all alike because feet are the same throughout all beneath Heaven. And all tongues savor the same flavors. Yi Ya[34] was just the first to discover what our tongues savor. If taste differed by nature from person to person, the way horses and dogs differ by species from me, then how is it people throughout all beneath Heaven savor the tastes Yi Ya savored? People throughout all beneath Heaven share Yi Ya's tastes, therefore people's tongues are alike throughout all beneath Heaven.
"It's true for the ear too: people throughout all beneath Heaven share Maestro K'uang's[35] sense of music, therefore people's ears are alike throughout all beneath Heaven. And it's no less true for the eye: no one throughout all beneath Heaven could fail to see the beauty of Lord Tu. If you can't see his beauty, you simply haven't eyes.
"Hence it is said: All tongues savor the same flavors, all ears hear the same music, and all eyes see the same beauty. Why should the heart alone not be alike in us all? But what is it about our hearts that is alike? Isn't it what we call reason and Duty? The sage is just the first to discover what is common to our hearts. Hence, reason and Duty please our hearts just like meat pleases our tongues."
8
Mencius said: "The forests were once lovely on Ox Mountain.[36] But as they were 15 near a great city, axes cleared them little by little. Now there's nothing left of their beauty. They rest day and night, rain and dew falling in plenty, and there's no lack of fresh sprouts. But people graze oxen and sheep there, so the mountain's stripped bare. When people see how bare it is, they think that's all the potential it has. But does that mean this is the nature of Ox Mountain?
"Without the heart of Humanity and Duty alive in us, how can we be human? When we abandon this noble heart, it's like cutting those forests: a few axe blows each day, and pretty soon there's nothing left. Then you can rest day and night, take
in the clarity of morning's healing ch'i—but the values that make you human keep thinning away. All day long, you're tangled in your life. If these tangles keep up day after day, even the clarity of night's healing ch'i isn't enough to preserve you. And if the clarity of night's healing ch'i isn't enough to preserve you, you aren't much different from an animal. When people see you're like an animal, they think that's all the potential you have. But does that mean this is the human constitution?
"With proper sustenance, anything will grow; and without proper sustenance, anything will fade away. Confucius said: Embrace it and it endures. Forsake it and it dies. It comes and goes without warning, and no one knows its route. He was speaking of the heart."
UNDERSTANDING THE TEXT
What is the rhetorical purpose of the character Kao at the beginning of this selection? How does he set up Mencius's argument? What kinds of objections to his own theory does this device allow Mencius to anticipate?
How does Mencius present the difference between "benevolence" and "righteousness"? Why does Kao Tzu see the first as internal to human nature and the second as external to human nature?
What role does human nature, for Mencius, play in the love we show to our family members? What role does it play in the respect that we show to strangers?
A great deal of the debate between Mencius and Kao Tzu concerns the origin of propriety, or proper social behavior, which is synonymous in the text with "righteousness." For Kao Tzu, propriety is a matter of social convention that has nothing to do with human nature. For Mencius, the standards of propriety are based on qualities that are inherently part of human nature. Which of these views do you find more convincing? Why?
How might Mencius perceive the nature of evil? If human beings are naturally good, where might evil originate? Support your answer with evidence from the text.
Do you agree with Mencius's statement "Men's mouths agree in having the same relishes; their ears agree in enjoying the same sounds; their eyes agree in recognising the same beauty"? How does this idea of conformity, and with it Mencius's argument, conflict with modern ideas of the individual?
MAKING CONNECTIONS
Mencius and Hsun Tzu (p. 84) disagree completely about human nature, yet both are dedicated Confucians. What elements of their respective philosophies justify their inclusion as members of the same school of thought?
Compare the thoughts of Mencius and Kao Tzu with those of Ruth Benedict (p. 112) or Edward O. Wilson (p. 356). Does the comparison between East and West, ancient and modern, make either Chinese philosopher more relatable? Why?
What does Mencius imply about people who change the appearance of natural phenomena, such as trees or mountains? How is this argument similar to Rachel Carson's in "The Obligation to Endure" (p. 328)?
How would you extend Mencius's view of human nature to answer the question "What is good government?" If human beings are essentially good, then what kind of government serves them best? How does this compare to Lao Tzu's thoughts on government (p. 384)?
WRITING ABOUT THE TEXT
Take one of the metaphors that Kao Tzu and Mencius debate over—either the willow metaphor or the water metaphor—and use it to support your own view of human nature.
Compare Mencius's and Hsun Tzu's (p. 84) essays on human nature. How are the two texts similar? How are they different?
Examine the role of ritual in contemporary society. Where do social conventions such as manners, dating behavior, dressing and grooming practices, and so on come from? Do they have as their basis anything natural to human beings?
What kinds of government best suit, respectively, Mencius's and Kao Tzu's assumptions about human nature? Write an essay exploring this question, being sure to explain how different perceptions about the nature of human beings lead to different assumptions about the role of government.
hsOn tzu
Man's Nature Is Evil
[CIRCA 300 BCE]
IN BOTH THE STYLE OF HIS WRITING and the nature of his philosophy, the Chinese scholar Hsun Tzu (circa 300-230 bce) could not have differed more from his slightly older contemporary Mencius (circa 371-circa 289 bce). The writings of Mencius consist largely of parables and of what appear to be transcripts of debates that he had with other philosophers. Hsun Tzu wrote sustained, well-developed philosophical arguments that, while they feel quite familiar to the modern reader, were something of an anomaly in his own time.
Both men were Confucians, but Hsun Tzu did not share Mencius's belief that human nature is inherently good, even divine. Whereas for Mencius the Confucian sense of propriety derived from inclinations that all people possessed, Hsun Tzu saw Confucian rites as valuable because they restrained and redirected humanity's inherent disposition toward evil. Hsun Tzu believed that strict discipline could make human beings good despite their natural inclinations. Most of his known writings deal with forces that, in his estimation, steered people toward righteousness: education, music, ritual, and law.