After Confucius died, his followers disagreed about many things, but the most famous debate was about human nature. If people are to become good, what are we working with? Are we naturally inclined to goodness, or naturally selfish? The two great Confucian thinkers of the following centuries gave opposite answers, and their debate became one of the classic arguments in Chinese philosophy.

Mencius: human nature is good

Mencius (Mengzi, about 372 to 289 BCE) argued that human nature is good. He did not mean that everyone behaves well. He meant that everyone has natural beginnings of goodness, which he called the four sprouts:

• the feeling of compassion, the sprout of humaneness (ren);
• the feeling of shame, the sprout of righteousness;
• the feeling of deference or respect, the sprout of propriety (li);
• the sense of right and wrong, the sprout of wisdom.

His most famous argument is a thought experiment. Anyone who suddenly sees a child about to fall into a well will feel alarm and distress. This feeling does not come from wanting to win favor with the parents or praise from neighbors, or from dislike of the child's cries. It is immediate. That shows, Mencius says, that compassion is part of human nature.

Like sprouts, these feelings must be nourished. Mencius tells of a farmer from Song who, worried his crops were growing slowly, pulled on the shoots to help them, and killed them all. Moral growth cannot be forced; it needs patient cultivation and a decent environment. He also compared human nature to Ox Mountain, once wooded but stripped bare by axes and grazing animals. Its bareness is not its true nature.

Mencius drew political conclusions. Rulers must provide for the people's livelihood, because people without secure means of living will not keep a steady heart. He also taught that Heaven's mandate follows the people's welfare. A ruler who destroys humaneness and righteousness is no longer a true ruler but a mere “fellow,” and his overthrow is not murder of a king. This made Mencius an important source for later ideas of legitimate resistance.

Xunzi: human nature is bad

Xunzi (about 310 to 235 BCE) argued the reverse: human nature is bad, and goodness comes from conscious effort. Left to ourselves we are born with desires for profit, envy and the pleasures of the senses. If we follow them, conflict and disorder result.

Xunzi used craft images. Warped wood must be steamed and pressed against a straightening board before it is straight; metal must be put to the whetstone before it is sharp. So people need teachers, ritual and law to become good. For Xunzi, li was invented by ancient sages to channel and satisfy desires in an orderly way, so that limited goods could be shared without strife.

Xunzi was a strong rationalist. He argued that Heaven (tian) is natural and regular, not a will that rewards or punishes rulers. Eclipses and strange events should not frighten us; what matters is human effort. Two of his students, Han Feizi and Li Si, became leading Legalists, which later led some to blame Xunzi for the harshness of that school (Level 5).

Weighing the debate

The difference is smaller than it looks. Both agree that education and ritual matter enormously, and both believe anyone can become a sage. They disagree about whether morality grows out of our nature or is imposed on it. Later Chinese tradition, especially Neo-Confucianism, sided mostly with Mencius. Critics of Mencius ask why, if we are naturally good, wrongdoing is so common; critics of Xunzi ask where the first sages got their goodness if no one is naturally inclined to it.

Worked example: two teachers, one difficult student

Imagine a village school in ancient China. A boy named Jun has been caught stealing food from other students. Two teachers discuss what to do.

The Mencian teacher says: “Jun is not bad at heart. I have seen him comfort a younger child who fell. That is the sprout of compassion. He steals because his family is poor and he is often hungry. Our task is to feed that sprout and remove what is stripping it bare, like the axes on Ox Mountain. Let us make sure he eats, give him responsibilities, and praise his kindness. But we must be patient, not pull on the shoots.”

The Xunzian teacher replies: “Of course he is hungry. All of us are born wanting things and will grab them unless we are taught otherwise. That is why we have ritual and rules. Jun must learn clear rules about property, see them applied consistently, and practice the forms of courtesy every day until they become second nature. Warped wood needs the straightening board.”

Notice how much they agree on in practice. Both want Jun fed, taught and given steady guidance. Both believe he can become good, even a sage. They differ in where they think goodness comes from, and so in emphasis: one stresses nurturing what is already there, the other stresses shaping through structure.

Ask yourself which teacher you would rather have, and whether a wise teacher might use both approaches with different students, or with the same student on different days. Many later Confucians quietly did just that, though officially they sided with Mencius.