Mencius vs. Xunzi: Exploring Conflicting Philosophies on Human Nature

This essay delves into the contrasting philosophies of Mencius and Xunzi, two influential figures in Confucianism, focusing on their divergent views on human nature. Mencius argued that humans are inherently good, possessing innate virtues such as wisdom, benevolence, ritual propriety, and righteousness, while Xunzi posited that human nature is inherently evil, lacking a moral compass and heavily influenced by the environment. The essay highlights Mencius' belief in the mind's natural inclination towards moral goodness and Xunzi's emphasis on the necessity of external influences and learning to cultivate virtue. Ultimately, the essay suggests that Mencius' argument, emphasizing the inherent potential for goodness in humans, is more convincing, as it aligns with the intuitive understanding that humans are born with a moral sense that can be nurtured through understanding and practice of virtue.

Mencius Vs Xunzi
1
Student Name:
Roll Number:
Topic:

Mencius Vs Xunzi
2
The Confucian Philosopher, Mencius was referred to as "Second Sage" of the Confucianism, he
is known for his best claim “Humans are inherently good” (Norden, 2014). Xunzi and Legalists
are known for their claim that nature of human lacks a moral compass and hence are inherently
evil. Both the claims are divergent and are very extreme. At one end Mencius claims that heart or
mind has the tendency of being morally right, where Xunzi claims that heart or mind has a
problematic moral tendency. The difference between the two depends upon the type of studies
they did like according to Mencius human nature is imbibed with the four virtues that are
Wisdom, Benevolence, Ritual property and Righteousness and hence has a good nature. He said,
people are born with good intentions, and they need to work hard to maintain it. But, according
to Xunzi, human nature depends upon the environment he/she lives in. One must know the four
virtues before bringing it to the practice (writing, 2011). Their surroundings influence all humans
and so act accordingly.
Mencius had a more convincing argument that humans are inherently good, as the heart or the
mind of humans usually think of doing well. One must understand the four virtues and imbibe
them to do good to others. Inherently, humans are right, by birth; its some situations that make
them do evil. If one will understand the four virtues, the human will not attempt any evil then.
Humans are full of morals; it's only that they need to understand and act.

Mencius Vs Xunzi
3
References
Norden, B. (2014). Mencius. [online] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mencius/ [Accessed 10 Mar. 2019].
writing, b. (2011). The Differences in Views About Human Nature - Mencius and... | Bartleby.
[online] Bartleby.com. Available at: https://www.bartleby.com/essay/The-Differences-in-Views-
About-Human-Nature-FKN87A5HKU4Y [Accessed 10 Mar. 2019].