Category: Reader Submissions

Mengzi makes it clear that, in his eyes, all humans are born with the mental tools that they need to live a morally good life. He writes that humans have a set of tools (‘hearts’) such as compassion and approval, which when internally practiced and followed produce the ‘sprout’ of virtues (2A6). “Benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom are not welded to us externally. We inherently have them” (6A6). However, while we have the hearts that are necessary to produce good virtue, he makes it clear that humans have a responsibility to use the tools they have been given. “People having these sprouts is like their having four limbs. To have these four sprouts but to say of oneself that one is unable to be virtuous is to steal from oneself” (2A6), he says.

In this post, we will consider two different situations that challenge Mengzi’s conception of human nature and virtues.

1. I have a friend who is part of the LDS church and does not believe in gay marriage (I definitely do). We have been friends since we were in kindergarten, and of course at that time we didn’t think about these differences. Should I not be friends with him since he doesn’t value LGBTQ+ rights?

From our contemporary moral standpoint, it is clear that the homophobic friend is being immorally discriminatory. We think Mengzi would agree, as it seems that they are choosing not to use their heart of compassion and relying too much on their heart of disdain. Mengzi also makes multiple mentions to the slightly intuitive nature of intrinsic morality. He suggests that someone not burying their parents would feel a visceral moral guilt (6A15), and that even when individuals choose to ‘chop down the trees’ of their natural goodness, they have not destroyed the nature of their goodness (6A8). Instead of the friend’s hearts producing virtuous sprouts, they are hurting the people around them and choosing to ignore their moral potential. Mengzi writes that human nature is like water naturally flowing downwards, but cautions that water can still move uphill with force or intervention. Even if there are problems, the friend can still make choices to return to their virtuous nature, but is choosing not to and instead continues to push the water uphill. He also mentions that a significant part of acting virtuously is taking the natural feelings of care that we have for those we love and extending it to everyone, near and far (1A7). This friend is doing the opposite, insulating themselves from others which Mengzi suggests would actually hurt his ability to provide for himself and his family.

In response, one might point out that Mengzi makes multiple references to the impact that environment has on whether someone is acting virtuously or not. He writes that “in years of plenty, most young men are gentle, in years of poverty, most young men are cruel” (6A7), and uses the metaphor of the same seeds in different soil and water conditions to highlight the importance of one’s surroundings on their hearts. A good modern example of this could be Edmund Kemper or David Berkowitz – two serial killers that are obviously not virtuous people, but looking into their history, we can infer the factors that stunted their emotional growth and capability to develop empathy. They were both horribly abused physically, sexually, and emotionally by their mothers, which definitely contributed to their lack of empathy. This impacted the way they treated women, because their growth was stunted and they were. Mengzi would claim that even given this, it in no way justified their actions. I will expand more on why he thinks this in a minute.

Growing up as a member of the Mormon church, surrounded by a community that largely holds homophobic beliefs, there is cause to believe this person has grown up thinking that their beliefs were not only moral, but that believing anything contrary would in fact be the immoral decision. Jules, who grew up in Salt Lake City, Utah, took the city bus past the temple and the mall owned by the Mormon church every day. They have seen firsthand how the ways in which someone is raised can impact their worldview and perspective on others. As part of the LGBT community they experienced great discrimination from many members of the church in their youth, and late into my teen years. Mengzi would probably argue that constant indoctrination from a young age is what influenced these people to discriminate against the community when they saw that they were not living the life that they viewed as ethical or good. Interfering with someone’s ability to live the good life can be derived from a lack of empathy, which comes from a lack of understanding. From a very young age, these people learn many lessons about how homosexuality and sexuality in general are a sin. This means that it is likely that this person’s childhood friend is exhibiting symptoms of their upbringing. The friend believes they are helping the writer achieve benevolence and live a virtuous life, but his intentions are guided by naivety.

Mengzi writes that “if one must violate and rob the willow tree in order to make it into cups and bowls -must you also violate and rob people in order to make them benevolent and righteous” (6A2)? Jules has seen mormon friends change their opinion after exposure to new ideas, and even leave the church itself when they realized that the institution of the mormon church was doing more harm than good. This further supports the argument that, ultimately, the poster is justified in feeling upset with their friend, because they are no longer a child and there are limitless opportunities and resources one can use for education today.

However, despite Mengzi’s acknowledgement of the impact surroundings can have, he still places the responsibility squarely on the individual to grow and continually apply their tools to be, and remain, virtuous. “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” (6A15). Even virtuous people need to be constantly reflecting on their place in the world, and this friend is not excluded from that responsibility. Ultimately, the poster would definitely be justified in ending the friendship from Mengzi’s moral perspective. Although this is an example of a lack of personal introspection and growth on a smaller scale, tendencies like that can have a very significant impact when they are displayed by those in power.

2. Are individuals justified in wishing death upon Donald Trump?

On October 2, 2020, Donald Trump’s lack of consideration for others caught up to him, and he contracted the Coronavirus. Examining Donald Trump’s upbringing can better help us understand how he has failed to develop moral virtues by Mengzi’s definitions. Trump grew up in New York and made his money from real estate his father gave him (“a small loan of a million dollars”) to start off his life. One million dollars is a significant amount of money, especially considering that in 2020, 40% of Americans couldn’t afford a 400 dollar emergency (ABC News). However, despite being set up so well, he continually made poor business decisions and relied on his financial status to hire lawyers and send people hush money to cover up his failings. Mengzi states that “those who follow their greater part become great humans. Those who follow their petty part become petty humans” (6A15). He is not being good when he does not even know what the “Common man” wants and thus is a faulty leader and following the pettiness that lies in his heart.

Trump also seems to be so far past cultivating his hearts that he no longer resembles Mengzi’s ideas about human nature. Mengzi believes that humans have all the tools they need to be virtuous, but understands that circumstances can affect how easy it is for someone to flourish. “Although there are some differences, these are due to the richness of the soil, and to the unevenness in the rain and inhuman effort” (6A7 149). However, Trump is not simply the victim of bad circumstances. He has continually chosen, when given the opportunity, to do what is best for him, even at the cost of others. In 6A7, Mengzi says “in years of plenty, most young men are gentle; in years of poverty, most young men are cruel,” and yet we see Trump continually living years of plenty and remaining cruel which allows me to believe he is closer to an animal than a human (148).

Death is the true equalizer in the human experience. Not only does it happen to all humans but we know that it will happen to all humans. We think that Donald Trump is a despicable man and leader, who has torn families apart that were, and still are, looking for a better life. As a result of his mishandling of the global pandemic, 205,000 people have died. The only thing that matters to Trump is his own life. Because he has actively chosen to ignore his human nature at every point in his life, we think that individuals would not be morally wrong in wishing for his death.

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.

How far should our moral responsibility extend?

Last week, we talked about the Nahuas’ moral philosophy and their belief in rootedness. This week, we are moving on to Mengzi, who interpreted the Confucian Way. Similarly to Aristotle and the Nahuas, Mengzi’s philosophy supports a virtue-based ethics, emphasizing intention right along with the acts themselves as well as repetitiveness of those acts as the way to emulate good virtues. He focuses on benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom as the four main virtues, and says that each human being has “sprouts” of these; if we grow these sprouts, we will be on the way to becoming our best selves (2A6). While we all naturally lean towards being good, environment and circumstances matter:

“As for the people, if they lack a constant livelihood, it follows that they will lack a constant heart. And if one simply fails to have a constant heart, dissipation and evil will not be avoided.”

Mengzi 1A7

Human nature naturally tends toward goodness, but our circumstances can hinder or get in the way of that nature. Once our environments are stable, we can stop focusing on basic needs and begin to reach outside of our immediate environments to extend goodness to others. Mengzi says that part of human goodness comes from the care and compassion we feel for those close to us. Thus, in order to be good to others, we must extend those natural feelings and treat others with the same care and compassion we usually reserve for those close to us:

“Treat your elders as elders and extend it to the elders of others; treat your young ones as young ones, and extend it to the young ones of others; then you can turn the whole world in the palm of your hand.”

Mengzi 1A7

The best way to know whether or not we are on the right path, we must reflect in order to keep the greater good in mind. While we all have the capacity to be good, sometimes our circumstances can lead us astray from that and we must reflect in order to learn from our mistakes and stay on the right path. 

A Pandemic Dilemma: Grandparents’ health or BLM protests?

“I’ve always considered myself politically active, and when Black Lives Matter protests started happening, I really wanted to be a part 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 wellbeing? It kind of is a matter of life and death.”

Priorities. That’s always the question, isn’t it? For this specific case, our protagonist is torn between their familial responsibility to protect their immuno-compromised grandparents during the COVID-19 pandemic and their responsibility to their community to advocate for social justice with the Black Lives Matter movement. While our protagonist would love to attend the BLM protests, they must also consider the health risks to their grandparents that may result from this decision. They’ve turned to us for help in answering this life or death question: “Is it their moral responsibility to help the [BLM] movement like they want to, or should they prioritize their family’s health and wellbeing?”

According to Mengzi’s ideology, benevolence should be extended to others in order to be considered a good person and one should fulfill their four sprouts (natural tendencies). In this prompt, the individual asks whether or not going to the BLM protest is her moral responsibility or whether she should prioritize her immuno-compromized grandparents. From Mengzi’s perspective, there is an order of nurture when extending. In order to extend benevolence, one should start with the people closest to them. In this case, the individual would start by taking care of their grandparents. Additionally, Mengzi would say that because the individual chose not to go to the protest, they are showing proper action and their sprouts have been properly nourished. If they had gone to the protest, they would have risked their grandparent’s health for the greater good of the protest. Compromising one’s grandparents for what may feel like the best way to show support for BLM seems to be unethical, especially because there are plenty of ways to show support for the BLM movement and still be politically active in ways that don’t require going to the protests. Even at that, they run the risk of spreading COVID-19 to even more people at a protest! Not just their grandparents! 

Outward Extension: Exactly how far outwards?

“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?”

To what extent must we act in an ethical manner? “How much, or how little, should we work towards improving the world and not acting directly in our own interests?” This is our protagonists’ dilemma. If one chose to act in a manner that benefits their personal life, will they be frowned upon for not spending their time on actions that have impacts on a larger community? In other words, should our goal be to always make a change in a large manner or is it acceptable to focus on smaller change?

Mengzi’s philosophy remains centralized around the fundamental theme of hearts for capacities for virtue and the underlying goodness of the human person. While big questions like this may be difficult to answer, using Mengzi’s philosophy, the “answer” becomes more evident. As every individual already possesses the proper tools to become a virtuous person, the question about morality in the greater community starts here. To do what is best for the community is to do what is best for the individual. A closer investigation of this may clarify the point; if one expends all their energy just to accomplish tasks to better the community but consequently results in worsening the individual themselves, as a whole, the community is not really better off. Even with the extra attention on the community, it is the individuals within the community that determine its moral standing. Maintaining a moral life will result in a moral community, it is not something individuals have to try to reach. 

Conclusion

Both prompts ask the question of “Should I focus on the moral issues in front of me or should I focus on the larger and more complex issues out in the world?” Where the first prompt focuses on a smaller scope and asks about whether or not they should compromise their grandparents’ health or attend a Black Lives Matter rally, the second prompt extends this outwards and asks just how much they should be working towards assisting the world, rather than focusing on the problems directly in front of them (acting in their own interests). The second prompt assumes that the problems in the world are not in their own interests, but, depending on the issues within the world, these problems could be directly affecting that person and their own interests.

If we want to ‘make the world a better place’, one way to do this is to act with compassion towards other people, regardless of their characteristics. Not only will we actively be working on our own characters, but also extending our moral characters to serve our communities. As stated in the first prompt, it is easier and generally more helpful to work on the issues directly in front of us. By thinking about the world as our loved ones, we serve both ourselves and the world.

Here, we have two prompts that both address the ethical standard question in some capacity. The first prompt describes the concern an individual has with superimposing their career desires and aspirations on their boyfriend. I suppose this individual is experiencing a sense of guilt for compromising their boyfriend’s autonomy. The individual may also be concerned for future stability. The boyfriend’s priority is being with the individual, but it may cost him a focused and esteemed career path. The boyfriend may be content with following this individual because he does not have a clear career path in mind.

I believe Mengzi would lack sympathy for the boyfriend and challenge the partner to help the boyfriend self-realize his irrational decision-making. Mengzi believes that everyone has the potential, innate tendencies that “tend toward goodness” (6A2). However, the environmental conditions that an individual exists in could influence their trajectory. Like the barren mountain, which lacked the necessary nourishment to actualize its nature, the boyfriend must insert himself under the material conditions necessary for his flourishment (6A8). Moreover, the individual must recognize that their selfish desire to stay close to the boyfriend may prevent his ability to self-cultivate. This individual must emphasize to the boyfriend that his spontaneous tendencies are misled by the “office of the ears and eyes” (6A15). Mengzi would suggest that the boyfriend listens to his heart, for “the office of the heart is to reflect,” and if he reflects, “then he will get virtue” (6A15). With reflection, encouraged by the boyfriends partner, he may find reconciliation with prioritizing his conditional needs.

The second prompt addresses an interesting ethical standard dilemma between prioritizing others and prioritizing the self. Similar to the previous prompt, this individual, who is considering not physically participating in the Black Lives Matter protest, is potentially denying herself an opportunity for self-cultivation. With that being said, I believe Mengzi would recommend this individual to show a level of benevolence and awareness toward her grandparents. As much as the BLM protest is an opportunity for self-cultivation and self-discovery, empathizing with the grandparents is an opportunity toward making her virtues independent of self-interest. Because of this, I believe Mengzi would argue that caring for the grandparents would have more impactful implications on the path toward goodness. “Treat your elders as elders, and extend it to the elders of others; treat your young ones as young ones, and extend it to the young ones of others; then you can turn the whole world in the palm of your hand” (1A7).

Mengzi would have trouble with both these scenarios given that they each sacrifice opportunities for cultivating specific innate virtues. Ultimately, Mengzi would argue against any feelings of cognitive dissonance or uncertainty. In the case of the clingy boyfriend scenario, the boyfriend’s partner has feelings of uncertainty toward allowing the boyfriend to sacrifice self-growth for their physical partnership. This concern is a result of self-reflection, which is “the office of the heart” (6A15). Mengzi would admit that an internally disharmonious individual is acting in accordance with their humanity, for “there is no human who does not tend toward goodness” (6A2). However, it is exactly this internal struggle that should alarm an individual of their decision-making. The same could be said for the BLM scenario. Mengzi would suggest that the concern she has for her grandparents suggests that she reflected, and is trending toward goodness. The next important step, however, is to trust these feelings of uncertainty to lead the individual toward an unraveling of their innate virtues.