Introduction
In reading about ancient thinkers and chasing the timeline leading up to the modern worldview so heartily embraced yet so fiercely denied by so many today, I thought to root out the source of the idea that “human nature is inherently good”. Besides its true author (the devil), there have been many recognized speakers who held to this view, but I saw in several places a man named Mencius cited as an origin. I was confused by his apparently Latin name (the Greeks and Romans largely held to the exact opposite view), and knew nothing about who this person was, so I kept digging. At last, I found a resource to tell me a good deal more about him, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which proved excellent. It contained a thorough exploration of Mencius’ views as well. It was educational and interesting, but I’d like to respond to a few of those views from a Christian perspective.
Man’s Wisdom vs God’s Wisdom
The article quotes Mencius, and indeed claims this to be one of his most significant contributions to philosophy, in saying,
…no sage would kill an innocent person, even if it meant obtaining control of (and being able to benefit) the whole world.
- Translated and quoted by Van Norden
Note that he means this to be evidence of his idea that people are inherently good, at least in the sense that he is confident that all people have a basic morality, which when nurtured, would produce sages in us all.
Let’s ignore, for this essay, his presupposition that complete control of all people would ultimately benefit all people, since it’s a mute point. When reading Mencius’ view of supremely basic morality, I was reminded of First Corinthians, in which Paul says,
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the understanding of those who have understanding, I will confound.” Where is the wise person? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than mankind, and the weakness of God is stronger than mankind.
- 1 Corinthians 1:18-25, NASB
Put crudely, it’s saying that in God’s wisdom, He killed one innocent person to save the world. It’s the exact opposite of Mencius’ view. The contrast is so significant, in part, because the Bible predicted it. Mencius acts like his opinion is a foregone conclusion. No one would do it, not if they were moral. But that’s man thinking about man. Man doesn’t have the right to take the life of the innocent, any more than they have the right to kill their own children. And, in his heart, the sage knows no one is truly innocent anyway. But God’s way is perfect, in that He makes and He takes away. No one has greater justice than He, no greater claim to a man’s life and ways than He. Yet He alone can display the perfection of God, so God became man, that the innocent One might die for the many, for only such a perfect sacrifice could pay for the sins of those many. And the greatest sages among us will indeed call it foolishness, unless they can humble themselves to admit that God is God and they are not; that God is wise, and they, as all the truly wise acknowledge, know and understand very little. Would that we all could embrace and maintain this stance first in all our thoughts:
I am certainly more stupid than any man,
And I do not have the understanding of a man;
Nor have I learned wisdom,
Nor do I have the knowledge of the Holy One.
Who has ascended into heaven and descended?
Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
Who has wrapped the waters in His garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name or His Son’s name?
Surely you know!”- Proverbs 30:2-4, NASB
Human Nature According to Mencius
According to Mencius,
As for what they (people) are inherently, they can become good. This is what I mean by calling their natures good. As for their becoming not good, this is not the fault of their potential. Humans all have the feeling (read emotion) of compassion. Humans all have the feeling of disdain. Humans all have the feeling of respect. Humans all have the feeling of approval and disapproval. The feeling of compassion is benevolence. The feeling of disdain is righteousness. The feeling of respect is propriety. The feeling of approval and disapproval is wisdom. Benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom are not welded to us externally (that is, by our environment). We inherently have them. It is simply that we do not reflect upon them.
- Van Norden, translating and quoting Mencius, parenthesis and emphasis added by me.
He also says,
The reason why I say that all humans have hearts that are not unfeeling toward others is this. Suppose someone suddenly saw a child about to fall into a well: anyone in such a situation would have a feeling of alarm and compassion—not because one sought to get in good with the child’s parents, not because one wanted fame among one’s neighbors and friends, and not because one would dislike the sound of the child’s cries. From this we can see that if one is without the feeling of compassion, one is not human.
- Translated and quoted by Van Norden.
Before responding, let’s carefully observe what he’s really saying.
First, pay attention to what he’s arguing against, namely, the idea that we all are moral for purely utilitarian reasons (what it can do for the greater good). He also irresolutely argues against the idea that people behave morally for purely self-centered reasons (my heart unbridled is the best guide to morality), if only because he believes that environment (which in his time amounted to the law and order enforced by society), education (one facet of that enforcement and the instruction in what Mencius called “reflection”), and wellbeing (a thing only partially controlled by oneself) are crucial in order for people to “nurture the sprouts” of their innate moral tendencies. These two other ideas of morality (utilitarian morality and self-centered morality) came from contemporaries, and history seems to agree that his was the strongest argument of the three.
Allow me to further define a few of his terms. I do so especially because the moment he defines his terms, the holes in his arguments become clearer:
- When he argues that all humans have compassion, he only ever seems to talk as though compassion is something that those in power show to those beneath them, and that it essentially never works the other way around. This bears out in the way he makes his arguments, the examples he gives of people displaying this trait, and is supported by the translator’s choice of the word “benevolence”. I’m not here going to debate whether this definition has merit, only noting how he uses the word for clarity and food for thought.
- One of his weaker definitions is that of evil. At least within the context of the summary provided by Van Norden, Mencius argues that the best way to understand what is right is by identifying all those things we don’t like (naturally or emotionally) and labeling them “bad” or “evil”. By this definition, he should rightly conclude that all people are inherently evil, because there is no one who lives entirely free of the hate of others. If, in the course of his philosophizing, Mencius did, in fact, offer up a serviceable response to this logical follow through, I have not stumbled across it.
- Another troubling word usage is seen in his statement “The feeling of respect is propriety”. In the end, this statement is designed to glorify and indemnify the rituals and social expectations that dictated a great deal of human behavior in his day. I know this because the word respect was never quoted without the word ritual also appearing in that sentence as the form that respect always takes. In this statement and the explanations offered, Mencius clearly denies the possibility of false humility, of self-serving self-control, of hypocrisy, and the abuse of ritual to kill human spirit and corral useful chattel. I, too, would like to live in such a world, but I do not.
Human Nature According to the Bible
The Bible has a very different take and wastes no time on word play. Genesis 1-3 clearly shows that we were made perfect, in unity with God, but then we chose evil, and came to know good and evil. Since then, we, while knowing the truth about God and righteousness (Romans 1:19-21, 1:32, 2:2, 2:14-16, 7:13-25) are incapable of actually doing it. Indeed, we are cursed by, inclined to, committed to, trapped by, blind to, and perversely proud of, sin (Romans 1:18-32, 3:9-18, 7:7-25, pretty much the entire old testament, etc.). In this sense, Mencius wasn’t wrong in observing that within us there is a guide which points to moral behavior, that both logically and emotionally pulls us towards actions which are not wholly self-serving, but are consistently just. But his conclusion is off-base, because he misses or ignores a couple other crucial realities. First, we have impulses towards the good, but we also have impulses towards the bad (Genesis 3, The book of Judges, Psalm 14:1-3, Romans 7:14-25). Second, we are often very confused about which is which (Genesis 3, Proverbs 30:20, 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, Romans 7:14-25). Deceived is the word most often used. Third, in the Bible’s view, it might be said that both impulses are native to our spirits, and yet again both are strengthened or empowered by external forces (Romans 7). If anything, our nature is not defined by either good or bad, but by our ability to choose both. Further, even if it is not strictly our nature, our whole story as a race and as individuals is painted red and black with an overwhelming preference for evil.
Humanity’s mistake in this present age is looking back on those long shadows of our history and imagining that the curse which plagued our forebears has now been cured in ourselves through greater commitment to the dictates of our hearts and the dogma of self-proclaimed scientists. Indeed, Mencius should be proud. A great social experiment has been conducted based on the premise of his teachings. Unfortunately, that’s what the generation before me thought; when the cold war was over, nations all over the world were modernizing to become some flavor of first world, the middle-class was living it up like little kings, and we’d survived the trials of the sexual revolution without the complete collapse of society. Apparently, it wasn’t popular to suggest that bad ideas sometimes take a while to sprout.
Now optimism feels naïve to my peers. I myself look at people who think the present mess will pass, that the wheel will turn and “things will just work out if you let them”, with distant admiration. I agree that a better future will come. But optimistic or disinterested people seem to believe that without significant action on the part of many united minds (the view of most humanists) or a jarring act of God (my view and the Biblical narrative) the world will find peace and stability all on its own, given time. I admire this stance for its simplicity and practical value. I stand at a distance from it, because it’s ticking. How long can a person put up with a world growing worse and worse, stay still, and cling to the few precious things left while the smoke grows thicker? How far goes the belief that if one just stays still the tiger will pass on? Will that person wait till they get claws in their face? How many will they take with them on the way down?
An Important Side Note
“Why strive or try at all then, if you think nothing but an act of God can fix the trajectory of the world,” clever readers may ask. But I do fight on, and the reason is simple. I’ve been given a life, gifted with an inquisitive mind, and elected for saving faith in an evil time because there’s work God wants me to do. My first duty, and the only rational thing to do in such a circumstance, is to stand by faith. That alone will take all I have and more, but God supplies my needs. There is also Paul’s saying:
How then are they to call on Him in whom they have not believed? How are they to believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? But how are they to preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!”
- Romans 10:14-15, NASB
So, I’ll continue pointing people to God’s truth and pointing out the most obvious errors of their thinking, in the hope that some people will hear, believe and call out to God. They will be saved out of the evil of this age and the evil in their own hearts. And yes, I think hope and optimism are different, but that is an essay for another time.
Righteousness According to Mencius
For a final concern I have with Mencius’ teachings, I would add that he clearly conflates doing good things with being good in an ontological sense. But that confuses the true meaning of good and evil. The Bible clearly explains that if you break “one tittle” of the law, you have broken the law; ergo, you are a lawbreaker… You are a sinner (Romans 3:9-18, Psalm 14:1-3). The opposite of an evil person is not “does good sometimes”, but perfection. Indeed, according to the Bible, “doing good sometimes” doesn’t even elevate you above being evil (Matthew 7:9-11). This is what Christians really mean when they say that “people are inherently bad” or “inevitably evil”. Any bone-wielding savage or friendless psychopath is capable of showing mercy to a child, but that won’t justify him before God for a lifetime of sinful choices, chief of which (and the sum of which) was his rebellion against his Maker.
Mencius considers this the sign of goodness, that no one human will let a child fall into a well if he can prevent it. What does he do with the fact that there really are people who will do just that? With people who’s hate burns so fiercely that given the opportunity they would in fact throw children down cliffs with their own hands (2 Kings 8:12, Isaiah 13:16)? Are they truly… not human? According to what metric? I recognize that when he says “one is not human”, he doesn’t mean that in a literal sense, but in the metaphorical sense that lacking the heart to even respond in compassion to a child in trouble is to behaved in an immoral manner that would make men seem bestial or demonic, hardly worthy of the title or rights of humans. But did he know that? Because if he meant it literally, he’s left with the trouble of defining what humans who behave in inhuman ways are. If he meant it metaphorically, he quietly acknowledges that humans of the sort above do exist and represent a real challenge to his view of human goodness, not because they are exceptions that demand nuance from the rule, but because they aren’t exceptional. Not historically, and not Biblically.
Even with that ruler he’s so fond of pointing out, the one in need of education, there is the question of if Mencius understands people at all. That ruler would act to spare a pitiful looking cow but also throws the lives of his people away in wars and feigns ignorance and indifference when his whole province starves. Mencius is so excited about the connection of compassion he can elucidate to the uneducated ruler, to show him that if he’s capable of mercy to the cow, he is also capable of being merciful to his people. But he misses that the ruler’s behavior is the norm for men in power, that all people extend mercy when it suits them and act ruthlessly when that suits them better. Nor do I ever hear (at least, I haven’t heard yet) whether his nice example actually resulted in tangible change in the ruler in question. Is it not more likely that the ruler knew, long before Mencius opened his sage lips, the price in human lives that he was paying with the decisions he made or left to other, equally selfish men, and deemed it insignificant in comparison to his own desires?
You can’t even make the case that hate of this kind only arises around racial differences (which are really cultural differences at best, and totally fictitious at worst), because we have examples like the Japanese leadership talking not only their own soldiers (kamikaze), but even their own helpless citizens (residents of Okinawa) into committing suicide. Think the witch hunts in both Europe and America, child sacrifices in Mayan, Hittite, and other pagan cultures, blood feuds, and a fair number (though not all) of the civil wars that have occurred throughout the planet’s history. These all represent people turning not on “the other” or “the oppressor” or “the oppressed”, but ordinary people knowingly turning on their own.
The story of Cane and Abel clearly shows that it takes absolutely no distinction of birth, station, or skin color, no great length of time, and no significant wrong on either side to inspire homicide. Does God tell Cane that he isn’t human? Adam and Eve reject the word they heard directly from God and curse the entire human race. Does God lament that it wasn’t in their nature? When we attempted to attain godhood by uniting with the sons of God and filled the whole world with perversion, what was His assessment?
Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of mankind was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.
Genesis 6:5, NASB
Does He conclude he just has to educate them, to help them nurture the sprouts of goodness in their hearts, as Mencius suggests? No, but he says,
Then the Lord said, “I will wipe out mankind whom I have created from the face of the land; mankind, and animals as well, and crawling things, and the birds of the sky. For I am sorry that I have made them.
Genesis 6:7, NASB
He is moved to pity, and acts decisively. What of when humanity came together in the land of Shinar, to build a tower against God and His instructions to fill the earth? Is he surprised? Does he think they’ll wise up given time or greater ease for reflection? No, but He says,
Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.
Genesis 11:7, NASB
And only with this decisive action did man fulfill his destiny to spread across the whole face of the earth.
Conclusion
This, then, is our pattern, our most consistent behavior. Depending on your definition of “nature” (that, too is an essay for another day), this rebellion against God, this evil, not goodness, is our nature. This is why Jesus’ sacrifice was so necessary; God making straight the path to God, because His standard of perfection (the one He put in our hearts, which wars with our sinful impulses and usually loses) simply isn’t attainable for us. But Jesus did it, did it for us, and then paid the debt for OUR sins.
Most people don’t want to acknowledge that reality. We prefer to stick to quibbling over how to make people good enough for society to function. We keep our eyes low to avoid conviction. That way we can keep patting ourselves on the back for being a guide to the wise, and keep pointing fingers at the mealy masses and repugnant rich, warning them to do better if they don’t want to lose what little they have. But this is truly the blind leading the blind. So long as we remain in denial of God’s definition of righteousness, God’s instructions on how to be good, and God’s warnings of what happens to the willful sinner, we’ll never be good. Even though we all have the potential to do good, we’ll never choose it so long as we stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the One who is Good and Who defines good, which is the first, and perhaps the greatest good of which we are capable. Reject this good, and we’ll doom not only ourselves but all who listen to us as well.
But I have better hopes for you all. You’re hungry for something that works, not just things that sound good and feels good. God’s way work, and His Word works. I encourage you all to love the Mastermind’s plan for righteousness, and to encourage others to find it with you. We all long for peace, and are tired of wars great and small. So, may the wisdom of God change your hearts to reflect His beauty.
With grins,
You must be logged in to post a comment.