Researches of ancient Chinese philosophy have become popular within the academic field nowadays, especially in the Western world. The study of ancient Chinese philosophers, indeed, provided a critical insight for scholars to understand Chinese philosophy and history. This paper examines three renowned ancient Chinese philosophers, namely Mencius, Xunzi and Han Feizi, which is conducive to outline the evoluti on of the discussion of the ideas of human nature and political governance across the warring-state period. By studying their philosophical origins and perspectives, this paper re-examines the ancient classical compositions and existing analyses and contributes to the academic domain in threefold. It provided a comprehen-sive elucidation of the above philosophers’ arguments, both origins and core values, compared and contrasted the philosophical ideas among them, as well as illuminated the misconceptions or misinterpretations on current scholastic literatures.
The debate on humans’ nature is an important political philosophical topic during the pre-Qin period. Three notable philosophers, namely Mencius, Xunzi and Han Feizi, expressed their views towards humans’ nature as well as its correlations with society and political governance. Given the timeline of Ancient Chinese history, from Mencius to Han Feizi, the latter two philosophers developed their philosophical arguments on the anterior ones, thus their perspectives were exceptionally related to each other. This paper examined the origins and offered interpretations of philosophical ideas on human nature among the three pre-Qin philosophers. Moreover, it compares and contrasts the three above philosopher’ pivotal political ideas and their origins. This is crucial to offer vital insights for why Legalism (Fajia) could prevail and Confucianism did not welcome among the state governors within the warring states period. Besides, it elucidated the misconception of previous works on Xunzi’s and Han Feizi’s philosophy.1
Mencius born amid the warring-state period. His educator is a student of Zisi, while Zisi is the grandson of Confucius. Therefore, the ideas of Mencius are extraordinarily swayed by the philosophy of Confucius and Zisi [
Mencius proposed that human possessed inborn virtue by utilizing a story to delineate this idea: “When a man saw an infant almost fall into the well, he immediately ran to help and rescue the body”5. He analysed the action of that man and pinpointed he, as with every human-beings, would not bear to see the sufferings of others. While his action to help is not based on any calculations or contemplations, such as trying to please the infant’s parents or establishing a good reputation within the community, rather it is simply a reflection of innate virtue6. Therefore, humans are inborn virtue. Mencius then further proposed his theory of “Four Cardinal Virtues”, which argued that “benevolence” (ren仁), “ritual propriety” (li?), “rightness” (yi?), and “wisdom” (zhi智) are the components of moral virtues. In addition, he mentioned the four basic human sentiments: “feeling of compassion”, “feeling of shame”, “feeling of consideration for others” and “sense of right and wrong” are the starting point of “humaneness”, “ritual propriety”, “rightness” , and “wisdom” respectively7. It is crucial to note that Mencius believes the four fundamental human sentiments are vital to distinguish human-being and other species as well as they are inalienable with humans’ nature as we possess four appendages8. Since Mencius believed humans are characteristically good, what they need is to self-cultivate their innate virtues9.
Besides, Mencius’s idea of human nature can also be concluded from the debates between him and Gaozi. Gaozi first argued against Mencius’s idea of man’s nature is intrinsically good. He used willow and bowls as an analogy, which people utilize willow to produce bowls. If willow is equals to human nature and bowls are viewed as benevolence and righteousness, then Mencius is just treating raw materials as products. However, Mencius replied when we used willow to yield bowls, we would damage the nature of willow10. If we, according to Gaozi’s logic, would can to a conclusion that people need to injure humanity in order to practice benevolence and righteousness, which is completely preposterous11. Gaozi then employed another analogy by saying that human nature is just like water currents, which it does not regarded good or bad as water current can flow towards the east or the west12. Yet, Mencius affirmed that water currents can only flow to the lower area and it is just similar as human nature that inborn virtue13. Regardless of striking it upwards, it may leap up a little, but it still flow downwards14. Thus, human are internally possess good virtue, but the society caused them act against the moral principles in certain social contexts.
Ironically, when the time that Mencius’s expressed his musings on human nature as inborn virtuous, China was experiencing the warring-state period. It is not rare to see rulers act against the moral principles, such as fighting wars or practice tyrannical governance, and the ordinary citizens lived under extraordinary awful social conditions and they also violate moral norms for survival. In this manner, major doubt on Mencius’s idea is if humans’ nature is inborn virtuous, then why would people act against the moral principles within the society? Mencius argues there are two reasons that make people behave badly [
Mencius’s theory of original goodness of human nature established a foundation for his idea of political governance, which is rule by Kingly Way17. A ruler should possess moral character and employ moral goddesses as means of governance. Therefore, Mencius accentuated rulers’ has two political missions: self-cultivation and inspiring people towards moral goodness [
Notwithstanding Mencius and Xunzi belong to the school of the Confucianism, numerous scholars regards them as two isolated factions [
Xunzi has learned about Mencius’s idea on human nature and thoroughly disagree with it. Within one of his articles, he argued against Mencius’s arguments. Mencius argues that people’s nature is good as they can learn to be good. However, from Xunzi’s perspectives, “nature” means something that are inherent when we were born, such as the abilities of hearing and watching. Therefore, if moral norms and principles can be acquired, how can they be defined as “nature”?19 Moreover, Xunzi disagrees Mencius’s of humans are inherently good and the reason that they act against moral principles is they have lost their inner nature. Yet, what Xunzi observed is people need to act against their lusts when they practice moral behaviours, for example people would wait for the elderlies to eat first even though they were hungry, it regards as a kind of “politeness”20. Thus, if Mencius is right, the human nature and their moral actions should not against each other but mutually benefit. The last rebuttals referred to Mencius’s core idea of human are inherently virtue. Xunzi casted doubt on the assertion. He doubted that if humans are truly, as Mencius mentioned, are inborn virtues, why people need to be educated to be good?21
Akin to Mencius, people casted doubt on why people practice moral customs if they are inherently bad as Xunzi mentioned. The Xunzi’s response is the society act as a source for people to be morally educated. Sages, who create the moral tenets, uphold a same view with Xunzi’s that they need to limit human innate bad nature by moral virtues. Similar to potters acquired to produce bowl, the sages realized human nature is innate evil and people’s ability to learn in order to change their badness. Thus, the moral principles or rules are set up by sages to educated people to practice good virtues, and laws are made to restrict the expansion of bad human nature. Also, Xunzi believed learning do distinguish between bad and good. As he argues all human-beings, no matter a benevolent governor or a tyrant, share the same bad innate nature, but people can learn to be good and practice benevolence to change their badness. This is the reasons why we admire and respect good rulers, such as Emperor Yao (?) and Shun (舜), are they can alter their innate malignancy (化性) and establishing good personnel and practice (起?)24. Likewise, people should also learn be good by practicing moral rituals and understanding the moral thoughts of the sages, then everyone would has an opportunity to be as good as Yao and Shun.
Xunzi’s philosophies of human nature also become his fundamental bedrocks of his theory of rule by rituals (li) and laws [
Han Feizi is the originator of the Legalism, his philosophiesal together significantly influenced by the “legalist ancestors”, such as Shen Dao, Guanzi and Shang Yang [
Beyond his educational background has impact on his ideologies, the social context of his period also contributed his formation of thoughts [
Han Feizi characterizes human nature as “pursue interests and avoid dangers”26 (?吉避凶) and “cherish self-seeking”27 (?自?心). This view is similar to Xunzi that human act according to their desires. Unlike Mencius who advocates human-beings are heterogeneous form animals as we possess moral virtues, Han Feizi regards humans are almost identical to creatures [
In terms of external society, Han Feizi shared a similar view with Xunzi that society as a force of moral virtues. As mentioned above, Xunzi regards society as a spot to educated citizen to be good. However, Han Feizi hold a marginally heterogeneous view that he deems society is an external force that compels humans to act morally28. Whether moral actions originate from people’s heart, Han Feizi holds a negative view. Therefore, Han Feizi does not deem moral education is necessary. Since human nature is unchangeable, it is no point to focus on educating people with moral virtues. Moreover, Han Feizi absorbed the view of “adapting the nature” from Daoism, while Laozi believes that the moral principles are the destruction of human nature. Thus, Han Feizi argued that only favors and punishments can shape people’s behaviours, which follow their human nature. If people acted what social desires, then favors should be placed in order to encourage people to follow suit; If people behave against what the social desires, punishments should be exerted to prohibit people to do so. As long as human nature is “pursue interests and avoid dangers” and “cherish self-seeking”, they can be shaped as the individuals that the society desire.
Since human nature is “pursue interests and avoid dangers”, Han Feizi believe the only effective way to govern the country is rule by law, which refers to the employment of favours and punishments29. What behaviours do the rulers favour and what are not should state in the laws, while the rulers control people through two means: favours and punishments. Social order can only be achieve when laws are clear, but not the employment of rituals30. Moreover, Han Feizi also proposes rulers to educated citizens by laws. As law clearly provided an objective guideline of behaviours, people should be educated by it. Therefore, social norms would form according to the laws and extended around the society. Once laws become a social norm, people would educate their descendants automatically. Finally, from Han Feizi’s perspective of “abolish penalties by means of penalties”, no laws, favours and punishments would be needed31.
After the above scrutinization of the first-hand literatures and the interpretations of the current academic publications, it generated a comprehensive understanding of the main principles among the three ancient Chinese thinkers on human nature and political governance. Thus, several significant aspects can be compared and contrasted.
With regard to the discussions on human nature, three of them basically uphold dissimilar perspectives. Mencius formed his convictions that human own innate cardinal virtues from his observations that individuals’ good deeds do not originate from the considerations of personal interests, but the inborn care and concern to his/her fellows. Yet, Xunzi’s views completely against Mencius’s. Xunzi argued the main point behind the explicit good deeds is the abnegation of self-evil. The demonstrations of ethics are exclusively the external self, while the inner self or genuine human instincts of human beings filled with lusts and desires, which, in Xunzi’s perspective, are iniquitous. The major difference between Mencius and Xunzi is the former focused on external actions, while the latter accentuated the internal character oneself. Although the society was, in Han Feizi’s eyes, rife with immoralities, he did not share the same page with Xunzi. Indeed, he held a neutral view and argued that human beings are self-interest creatures that favor personal benefits and dread perils. What distinguished Han Feizi from the other two thinkers is he did not comment on human nature. In a similar vein, their views on how society influenced individuals’ instinct are distinct from each other’s. Mencius views society as a realm that allures people to abandon self-moral cultivation as there were too many immoral temptations. In contrast, Xunzi espoused society is an area that compels people to act morally by introduce sages as people’s role models and adopted their principles as social guidelines and norms. Han Feizi thought society is a place of an exemplification of human inner self, which he did not conceive society served any functions to change people’s internal senses.
Since their theories on basic human nature and society are nonidentical, it is not surprising that they advocated different political ideologies. Mencius promoted the rule of rituals (Lǐzhì). Rulers should self-cultivate his moral characters and be the model to their citizens. He also needs to practice benevolence, which extends his moral characters to the entire society, as well as educates his people by moral principles and norms. This is, indeed, conducive to his citizens to cultivate their inner good characters as well. Xunzi partly concurred with Mencius’s political philosophies. He argued merely relied on rituals is not adequate to maintain social order. He proposed laws should be employed concurrently with education. Therefore, the rules should utilize both as tools of governance. Laws should be used to restrain people’s detestable acts, while rituals served to socialize his citizens to practice good deeds. Similar to Daoism, Han Feizi chose to “conformity to nature” (??自然). As he deemed human’s nature need not to or cannot be changed, he suggested rulers can achieve a social order by well-exploit the human’s inherent characters. A set of transparent and comprehensive laws are the only essential implement for rulers to clearly define what sorts of the behaviours would be rewarded and punished. According to his definition of human’s nature as “favour interests and benefits, and to abominate dangers”, they would act according to the laws. Also, he asserted laws served the function of education. When laws become the social norms and guideline of the people, the ancestors would school their descendants, which the society can automatically educate itself. Thus, no laws would be needed eventually.
This paper examined the philosophical views on human nature and its relationship with the idea of political governance among Mencius, Xunzi and Han Feizi. From their philosophies and the relations among them, it can observe that how the debate on human nature in ancient Chinese history evolves during warring state period. This also offers a vital foundation for the historians and philosophical scholars to understand why Legalism and Confucianism would prevail during a chaotic and peaceful period respectively within the ancient Chinese history by comparing the different theories of the three main thoughts. Moreover, the arguments of the three great pre-Qin philosophers provided critical insights towards the domains of philosophy as well as inspiring many philosophers and rulers in later generation, such as Qin Shihuang and Han Wudi.
The author declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
Ngai, T.C. (2019) The Debates on Human Nature and Political Governance in Ancient China: Mencius, Xunzi and Han Feizi. Open Access Library Journal, 6: e5369. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1105369