There are two aspects to what people are born with, one is the physical appearance of the so-called flesh, and the other is the so-called spirit of the desire. The first is the physical body, the second is the desire of the spirit, and the second is the so-called spirit. Later generations talk about arguing about human nature, also refers to the spirit. And the spirit contains a wide range: one is the knowledge and intelligence, two is the emotion, three is the will, four is also the quality of interest, five is the temperament character. Knowledge intelligence, is on the truth and falsehood is right and wrong; emotion, is on the joy, anger, sadness and happiness; will, is to resist the outside world to break the temptation embodied in the difference between the said; morality and interest, is on the face of the outside world to break the temptation of the attitude of choice and the community of human speech and behavior of the moral evaluation of the said; temperament and personality, is on the rigidity of the soft and quiet said. Obviously, knowledge and wisdom, emotion, will, and temperament cannot be said to be good or evil. Therefore, the "nature" of human nature does not refer to the whole spirit, but specifically to the human character and morality.
The philosophers discussed the "nature", there are five views: Mencius said that the nature of the good, Xunzi said that the nature of the evil, Dong Zi (Zhongshu) said that the nature of the three goods, Yang Zi (Xiong) said that the good and the evil mixed, and the nature of the suzuko said that the good and the evil. Roughly, the three qualities are the mainstream, and since the rise of the Song theory, the goodness of sex has become the mainstream.
Mengzi advocated goodness of nature and believed that everyone could become Yao and Shun. Therefore, he emphasized the importance of cultivating one's body and cultivating one's moral character, and holding oneself with benevolence and righteousness. The flaw in Mencius's theory of the goodness of nature was that it could not answer the question: Since human nature is good, where does the evil in human nature come from? If it is said that it is due to contamination with the evil in the social environment, then where does the evil in the social environment come from? Is society not made up of many, many individuals? Since "everyone can become Yao and Shun", that is to say, everyone's human nature is good, so how can evil arise in society? Moreover, if human nature is inherently good, then it would not be easy to change to good but not easy to change to evil. Why is it that in reality, it is easy for people to change to evil but not easy to change to good?
Xunzi thought that human nature is inherently evil, so he emphasized the use of rituals and institutions to regulate human behavior. The first time he did this, he was a member of the Chinese Communist Party, and he was a member of the Chinese Communist Party, and he was a member of the Chinese Communist Party, and he was a member of the Chinese Communist Party. The problem is similar to that of the "good" theory: human nature is evil, who is willing to be good? Who knows goodness? The first is that the first is the first to be a good one, and the second is the first to be a good one.
Yang Xiong thought: "The nature of man is also mixed with good and evil. If you cultivate its goodness, you will be a good person, and if you cultivate its evil, you will be an evil person" ("Dharma Words - Cultivation of the Body"). Yang Xiong's "theory of mixing good and evil" can answer the question of where good and evil come from, and is more enduring than the "theory of sexual goodness" and "theory of sexual evil". However, this view still fails to answer a further question: Are the outwardly visible manifestations of a newborn baby, such as crying, feeding and defecating, good or evil? If it does not matter whether these are good or evil, but there is indeed good and evil in the hearts of infants, how do we know the good and evil thoughts that infants do not manifest?
Dong Zhongshu believed that "goodness is like rice, and nature is like grain. Although rice is produced, it can not be called rice. The nature of the good, but the nature of the good can not be called good. ...... to rice for rice, to sex for good, these are saints following the sky and into the also, non-affective nature of the simple can also, so not for sex." He categorized people into three kinds: saints, the people of the bucket and the people in the middle. He believed that "the nature of the saints cannot be named, and the nature of the people of a small house cannot be named. The nature of the saints cannot be named, and the nature of the common people cannot be named. The nature of the middle man is the nature of the middle man. ...... nature can be good only after it has been taught." His definition of "nature" is "nothing to be desired but to be born."
In fact, Dong Zhongshu did not create the three qualities, but rather inherited ideas that had been popular throughout history. For example, Laozi divides people into three classes: the upper class, the middle class, and the lower class, while Zhuangzi has the division of the supreme man, the godly man, and the saintly man. In the Analects of Confucius, he said, "Only the wise and the foolish are unshakable" (Yangguo), and added, "He who is born to know is superior; he who learns to know is inferior; he who learns by doing so is second; he who learns by doing so is also second; if he is trapped and does not learn, the people will be inferior." (The Analects of Confucius - Ji Shi). Han Shu - Table of Ancient and Modern People (《汉书-古今人表第八》) explains Confucius' words, "Jiu Ji said: For example, if Yao and Shun, Yu, Jiji, and Seol are good, then they will do it; if they want to be evil, then they will put them to death. Jiu Ji, Jiu Seol and Yao Shun, if Yu, Jigen and Seol are good, they will do it. If hubbub wants to be evil, he will be executed. Jie and Zhou, Long Feng and Bigan will be executed if they want to be good, while Yu Xin and Chong Hou will be executed if they want to be evil. Can be with the evil, not with the good, is called the next fool. Duke Huan of Qi, Guanzhong phase of the hegemony, vertical sable auxiliary of the chaos. Can be with the good, can be with the evil, is called the middle man".
Dong Zhongshu first of all divided into three products, and then the vast majority of them on the issue of human nature, this idea is better than the human nature of each person to generalize. The three qualities are divided into upper, middle and lower qualities, of which the "saints (or upper wisdom)" of the upper qualities "may be associated with good and may not be associated with evil," and the "people of the bucket and basket (or lower stupidity)" of the lower qualities The lower class, the "lowly fools", "may be associated with evil and may not be associated with good", and the acquired environment has little influence on them, so they are not to be regarded as such. Dong Zhongshu even further limited human nature to the "human nature" of the "middle man", which was his shortcoming.
After distinguishing between the three classes, Dong Zhongshu began to discuss the human nature of the "middle man". However, it seems that he unconsciously got off the point here: he converted the question of human nature's goodness and evil into the question of the relationship between "sex" and "goodness". Indeed, human nature is not the same thing as good and evil, but no one thinks that "sex" is "good" or "evil".
Dong Zhongshu's statement that "goodness is like rice, and nature is like a grain of grass" is in fact consistent with the theory of goodness or the theory of mixing good and evil. Although rice is not a grain, it is a grain that is processed to remove the chaff from the stems and leaves. That is to say, goodness originally exists in human nature and is not added from outside. All ordinary harvests have grain and can be processed to obtain rice; all ordinary human beings have goodness in their nature and can be indoctrinated to obtain it. This is not "all middle-aged people can be Yao and Shun"! Dong Zhongshu did not say that the stalks and leaves and husks of the grain are evil, but he did not object to it either. If the stems, leaves and husks of the grain are compared to evil, then the processing of rice is a process of removing the evil and reserving the good. This and Yang Xiong's "human nature, good and evil mixed. If you fix the good, you will be a good person, and if you fix the evil, you will be an evil person".
Guizi's views on human nature are recorded in the book Mencius. According to the author, there is no such thing as good or evil in human nature, and whether a person is good or evil lies in the molding of one's influence in later life. Since none of the previous four theories of human nature can stand up to cross-examination, it is likely that the view of Suozi is correct. And this view is undoubtedly very easy for modern people to agree with. I also agree with it. However, it also seems that Suozi's view that there is no good or evil in human nature is directed at all human beings. This would be inconsistent with actual social phenomena. Similarly, living in a normal environment, being educated and influenced by good, some people show goodness, but some people do evil; similarly, living in a bad social environment, being educated and influenced by bad, but some people can "come out of the mud and not be tainted". This phenomenon shows that, although the saying of Su Zi that there is no good or evil in nature can withstand more scrutiny than the other four sayings, it is also flawed if it indiscriminately treats the human nature of all people as the same.
While the ancients held different views on the goodness of human nature, they were unanimous in their emphasis on education. Regardless of human nature, in order to make people good, we must use good things to teach and influence. And indoctrination must start when people are young.
I think that to solve the problem of human nature good and evil, we must solve the problem of three aspects: one is to distinguish between sex and habit, the second is to clarify what is meant by good and evil, and the third is not to engage in a one-size-fits-all approach, we must see that the individual in the human nature of the differences.
"Sex" is something innate, innate; "habit" is formed on the basis of the innate "sex" by the influence of the acquired social environment. It does not matter whether what is innate is good or evil, and the innate human nature cannot be evaluated on the basis of the good or evil that is formed later in life. What is commonly called human nature is actually "habit". In this sense, human nature is actually a pseudo-proposition. The accurate proposition should be: "People learn good and evil".
The so-called good and evil is a kind of moral evaluation. Morality is the rules of human behavior and behavioral evaluation standards formed in the interaction of human society. What is good? What is evil? Different peoples have different moral standards under different cultural systems. For a specific issue, the evaluation of good and evil is different or even opposite in different cultural systems. For example, the Western countries, which are regarded as models of democracy by many fake foreign devils, are in fact nothing but devils in the moral evaluation system of traditional Chinese culture. Columbus and Magellan, like robbers, are regarded as heroes by Westerners and Chinese who have been enslaved by Western culture, while Zheng He, who went to the West, was fully capable of being a robber but did not loot and colonize, which is still ridiculed and criticized by the Chinese who claim to be elites. Britain, France and other Western countries, such as the crime of massive slave trade, dumping of opium to other countries by force, killing and looting and colonization of the crime, so far, have not seen the Westerners to reflect on the admission of guilt, while the fake foreign devils are even praised for their virtues! When Britain, France and other Western countries' rogues, robbers and adventurers invaded the American continent, shouting the slogans of liberty, equality and fraternity, and deceived, plundered and even carried out genocidal exclusion and massacre of the Indians and other indigenous inhabitants, and then finally took over and established the United States of America, Canada and other countries, have they ever seen the modern Westerners (including the Americans), who have shouted these slogans even louder, confessing to their crimes? Ever seen the fake foreigners condemn? White Americans do celebrate the so-called "Thanksgiving Day" every year, but what they are thankful for is not the Indians who helped them, but their so-called "God"! Why? Because the moral standard under the western cultural system is different from the moral standard under the traditional Chinese cultural system. The nomadic people of history, such as the Huns, who took pride in plundering other people's property, also had a moral standard that was the opposite of the moral standard under the traditional Chinese cultural system. It can be seen that what I think is good may be considered evil by others. What I think is evil, others do not think is evil.
In fact, the criteria for evaluating good and evil depend on the attitude toward human desires: moderately suppressing desires and not allowing them to flourish is good; indulging desires and doing whatever it takes to fulfill them is evil. The desire of "the beginning of man" is nothing more than the instinct of survival, and it does not and cannot consciously exceed the "degree", so it does not matter whether it is good or evil.
To say that human nature is good or evil, I think that first of all, we should see the differences in the human nature of individuals. Human nature from the content point of view, are like a white silk, empty prints, no good and no evil. There is no good or evil. Both good and evil are influenced by later life. But in terms of the tendency or likelihood of being infected, each person is different. Some people are prone to the color of evil. Others are prone to the color of good. This receptivity to good and evil influences actually varies from person to person, and it is difficult to categorize them into three or more categories. But it is still possible to categorize them roughly into three grades. For a very few people, their nature is such that they are unable to be influenced by the colors of evil but are easily influenced by the colors of good, and this is the "saint or the wise". Similarly, for a very small number of people, their nature determines that they are unable to be tainted by the color of good but are easily tainted by the color of evil, which is the "evil man or the lower fool". Confucius said, "Only the wise at the top and the fools at the bottom are immovable." Absolutely true. For the vast majority of people (middle people), they have a certain degree of acceptance of good and evil contamination, so their goodness or evil basically depends on the influence of later life. Of course, there are differences in the degree of acceptance of good and evil contamination among the "middle people". This explains the difficulty in answering the question of the theory of the absence of good and evil in the human nature of Suzi.
Human beings have desires, and human desires are by their very nature excessive and have no upper limit. Everyone wants his desires to be fully satisfied, and there is a tendency to indulge them in the direction of evil. Developing towards good means that you must moderate your desires, which is of course difficult, while developing towards evil is easy, as long as you indulge your desires. To draw an analogy, human life is like a river, with good upstream and evil downstream. Seeking goodness is like rowing a boat against the current, you must work hard to paddle upward, and if you slack off a little, you will be driven by the water to run downstream. If one gives up paddling upward and lets go of the boat midstream, one will easily and quickly fall down.
Finally, my basic views are simply summarized as follows:
One, human nature is not good or evil, but there are good and evil habits;
Two, a very small number of people are either good or evil by nature, and there is almost no influence on them;
Three, for the majority of the people, the good and evil habits depend on the influence of the environment of the life after the fact, and there is a tendency to flow easily into the evil.