The Shortcoming of Confucian Thought on Human Morality (Essay Sample)

The Shortcoming of Confucian Thought on Human Morality
Name
Institution
Confucianism argues that human beings are inherently (naturally) good. This view was popularized by the 4th century Chinese philosophers Mencius (also known as Mengzi) and Lao Tzu, who held that human beings are born virtuous, but are corrupted by the evil in society. Good virtues and morals, they argued, are nurtured when human beings live in a socially ordered environment. According to the philosophers, benevolence and righteousness were the most important virtues to cultivate. Another aspect of Confucian morality is that individuals naturally love those close to them, such as relatives and siblings, emphasizing the inherent goodness in human beings. The show of compassion and love, they observes, demonstrated that human beings have a virtuous nature in them.
However, my view is that this philosophical perspective on human nature is flawed due to its one-sided argument. It ignores the selfish nature of human beings, whereby they are naturally inclined to act for self-preservation. In addition, human beings do not act benevolently by nature- when they do so they are compelled by societal values and expectations, such as the obligation that one owes to family members. For instance, not all human beings show compassion to strangers, suggesting that they do not have the natural instincts to love indiscriminately. Mengzi uses the example of the natural reaction of an adult who sees a child about to fall into a pit to demonstrate that humans are moral by nature. The adult will “naturally” react by saving the child from falling into the pit (Ivanhoe & Norden, 2005, p. 113). This natural instinct suggests that as moral agents, human beings are hardwired to act benevolently. However, Mencius’ argument fails to take into account the fact that human beings only act benevolently when it does not compromise their own welfare. In the above example, the adult would not act instinctively to save the child if it endangered his life- if there was a possibility that he will slip into the pit, he would be cautious- act in self preservation. In other words, the adult would mind his own safety first before considering rescuing the child. Conversely, even an immoral person, say a hardcore criminal, could have acted to save the child- suggesting that acts of benevolence do not always indicate that a person is moral or virtuous.
The anecdote that Mencius provides to illustrate the inherent goodness in human beings suggests that people are only good as long as their own interests are not threatened by acts of benevolence. To put this into perspective, consider a scenario in which a boat is about to capsize, and there is only one life saver jacket for the two sailors on board. It is unlikely that anyone of them will act benevolently and let the other to have the life saver jacket. Each one will be thinking about self survival, and it is possible that they will fight over the life saver jacket. In this regard, it is only when human beings have nothing to lose, or have something to gain- such as the acts of charity by politicians and businesses as a PR strategy- that they act selflessly.
This being the case- that human beings are only benevolent when their own wellbeing is not endangered- I tend to agree with Aristotle’s and Wang Yang Ming’s view that a moral character is forges through repeated efforts (DeLue & Dale, 2015, p. 47). Human beings are nurtured by societal values and laws to act morally. For example, the adult person who saves a child from falling into a pit does so because society will recognize and praise such actions.
The existence of l...