Author: lgifford

Mengzi’s Opinion

Mengzi’s General Moral Theory

Mengzi’s moral philosophy hinges on the presupposition that human nature imbues people with an inherent tendency towards goodness. However, it is up to the individual person to practice deep reflection in order to cultivate virtues within oneself. Although, Mengzi does recognize that environmental factors can make a large difference on whether or not a person ends up committing good deeds. And while it is natural to tend towards goodness, one must be an active participant in this tendency, regardless of the environmental factors that may be attempting to quash their morality. It is the moral responsibility of the individual to nurture this tendency and not inhibit it. And if one does this properly then one will be morally good. This responsibility to be moral is grounded in the personal good more so than the societal good. However, Mengzi does go on to say that, “Anyone who can with words fend off Yang and Mo is a disciple of the sages” (3B9). This is to say that one’s moral responsibility extends if they are able to enact good effectively.

First Moral Dilemma: I’ve always considered myself politically active, and when Black Lives Matter protests started happening, I really wanted to be apart of the movement. However, because of the pandemic I’ve been living with my immuno-compromised grandparents. Is it my moral responsibility to help the movement like I want to, or should I prioritize my families health and well being? It kind of is a matter of life and death.

The first prompt deals with the necessity of participating in protests for Black lives matter, a movement that started with holding police accountable for their murder of Black people, but has, in the past year, become the foundation upon which a broader the resistance to white supremacy and fascism is expressed. Given the safety of protesting outdoors and the protection afforded to you by an N95 mask, realistically, transmission risk is quite low. Whether or not you actually are politically active hinges on you taking action, not whether you see yourself that way or now. Mengzi might remind you to honor your just inclinations as your desire to support this cause flows naturally from your sprouts of virtue that honor righteousness and benevolence. Mengzi’s challenger states “Human nature is like a willow tree; righteousness is like cups and bowls. To make human nature benevolent and righteous is like making a willow tree into cups and bowls”, (Mengzi 6A1) and Mengzi responds that the shaping or virtue does not require the destruction of our moral inclinations, rather the extension of our desire to be just and benevolent in the face of injustice. Mengzi is also not a consequentialist, so even if the outcome of attending in person protest may put your grandparents at a higher risk of COVID exposure, that hypothetical outcome should not overshadow your just inclinations. Regardless of your youth, you also put your own body on the line in protest, both in terms of possible long term health consequences and the high probability that you will be shot, gassed, or assaulted by a white supremacist.

Second Moral Dilemma: Of course we have a duty to act ethically, and it’s ethical to work to make the world better – but how far does our duty to work towards improving the world extend? How much, or how little, should we work towards improving the world and not acting directly in our own interests?

The second prompt dealt with the question of how far does our obligation to act ethically and make the world a better place extends. The question here involves duty. Just how much should we seek to change the world for the better? Should we constantly be making grand efforts with the goal of ending injustice and proliferating righteousness? Mengzi’s writings focused primarily on self-cultivation and making yourself a better person through nourishing virtues. Mengzi would then argue that if one focuses on cultivating themselves, the good deeds and ethical actions would follow naturally as “the office of the heart is to reflect. If it reflects, then it will get [Virtue]. If it does not reflect, then it will not get it,” (6A15). Therefore, one should always attempt to help others and better the world but should not do so with the wrong motivation. One should cultivate themselves and the virtues within them so that then they will truly desire to help the world and it will not feel like a chore. Mengzi says that in terms of virtue and virtuous actions “seek it and you will get it. Abandon it and you will lose it,” (6A6). Your obligation lies first to yourself and making yourself the best you can be and then from there ethical actions will naturally follow.

The Nahuas Know Best

Nahuas General Ethical Theory:

Similarly to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Purcell dicusses the Nahuas ethical point of view in his article Eudaimonia and Neltiliztli: Aristotle and the Aztecs on the Good Life. Nahuas’ ethical point of view starts from a conception of what it means to live a good life and from there works backwards to decide what moral actions are right and wrong. While Aristotle defined the best life as one of eudaimonia, or fulfilled happiness, the Nahuas believed that the best life was one of rootedness. Key to understanding this ethical standpoint is the fact that the Nahuas believe that surroundings have great effect on a person and they describe the world around us as slippery and transient. Therefore, the best life is one in which a person is rooted “in one’s body, in one’s psyche, in one’s community by social rites and role, and in teotl,” (16). From this description of a good life, the Nahuas proceed to determine what is morally praiseworthy and how people should act ethically. The Nahuas greatly emphasized the importance of your community when it comes to acting morally. Accordingly, the “only way that people live decent lives is if they are excellent at living; If they do their job within a society and do it well,” (15). The Nahuas stress the need to perform one’s societal role excellently as this is how one will become rooted not only in themselves but also in their community. They define right actions based on whether or not they promote “a good human and communal life,” (15).

First Situation: https://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/j454wd/sick_mother_58f_wants_money_from_me_29m_but/

A man’s mother was diagnosed with cancer earlier in the year, and he has been paying for a caregiver for her ever since. Something to note, however, is that he has not had any sort of relationship with his mother in 11 or more years since he moved to the United States due to her abusiveness. He did have a job coding but now he is starting graduate school and will be living on a much tighter budget than before and will be unable to spend the required money on a caregiver for his abusive mother. Should he find some way to make the funds work out, or should he stop paying for her altogether?

From the Nahuas point of view, the moral action is determined by if it fulfills one’s societal role excellently and there are various societal roles at play in this moral situation. First of all, there is the commonly accepted societal duty of children to support their sick and aging parents as their parents supported them when they were too young to do so themselves. From this standpoint, generally the Nahuas would say the moral action would be for the son to perform his societal role well by taking care of his mother. Yet there is the issue of whether or not the fact that the mother was abusive would change the societal duty of the son. The mother very clearly acted immorally according to the Nahuas’ standards by forsaking her societal role as a mother and performing her duties poorly. The Nahuas do not explicitly discuss extenuating circumstances so it is impossible to be certain of their perspective. Yet it seems likely that the Nahuas would say that because the mother acted immorally and performed her societal role poorly, the son then has no obligation to fulfill his role as a good son. 

There is also the perspective of the son’s societal role as a student and a contributing member of society. The son’s place in society was as a computer coder and now that he is attending graduate school his role is to learn his craft as well as he is able. If the son is sending money home this would make his education more difficult to accomplish if not jeopardizing it entirely. By sending money home, the son would be performing less excellently at his societal role as a student and a contributing United States citizen. Therefore, it appears that the Nahuas would say that it would be moral for the son to stop sending money to his mother and as such he should cease the payments. 

Second Situation: https://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/ir2jwx/my_16m_parents_dont_approve_of_my_girlfriend_17f/

A 16 year old brought his girlfriend over to his parents’ house to have dinner with his family, and it was going well up until his parents asked his girlfriend where she was from. She is British, and when she told them this information, they became upset and soon asked her to leave. After she was gone, they told their son how angry and disappointed in him they were and how they can’t believe that he would do this to them, advising him that he should break up with her. He later told his girlfriend about this and she is understandably quite distraught. What should be done to remedy this situation?

The Nahuas philosophy is interdependent with social rites, thus transgressions of these traditions would be considered a slip on the path to developing a more rooted life. From the parent’s perspective, the son failed to consider their wishes in his choice of partner, and brought a person into their home that they feel does not lead him along the right path. A proper partner for their son, based on our limited context, would have to satisfy the qualifications of being reserved in her physical presentation and from the same nation as their son. Their son’s relationship should also contribute to the wellbeing of their small family community. A benefit to this family would be the increased emotional intelligence of the son, as he is learning through this interaction to be sensitive to the emotions of his girlfriend and offer her care in a way that works for her. The development of this skill may be of huge help during future inevitable familial conflicts. Even with this post, the consideration that the son has of his parent’s wishes demonstrates that he values connection and rootedness with his family. Given the Nahuas lack of emphasis on happiness, the reaction of the parents to the girlfriend in terms of their discomfort is relatively negligible. In fact, the impact of their behavior on the choices of the son, who may end the relationship at their advice may impede his natural transition through social rites important to the other communities he is a part of and detract from his flourishing.

The Nahuas would most likely recommend that the son temporarily accept the demands of the parents and continue to see his girlfriend. Their restrictions on his meetings with her are not horribly stringent, and he will have an opportunity to develop further connectedness with her family if they spend more time at her house. The philosophy of the Nahuas would encourage the son to continue to attempt at integration with the family if the relationship turns out to be long term. He would be increasing the flourishing of his familial community by bringing someone into their lives that he values and increases his happiness and knowledge, and the rootedness of the family in a worldly community.