Divergent Doctrines

China experienced a turbulent epoch, some 2500 years ago, during what is called the Warring States Period. For two to three centuries following the previous collapse of a steadfast and ethical rule—the Zhou (pronounced “Jo”) Dynasty—chaos governed, as numerous small states that had once been allied under the Zhou began to fight among themselves.

For the Chinese population, the Warring States Period was very disturbing, because their culture had always valued collective cooperation, but now their civilization seemed to be disintegrating. Those were distressing times.

Over a period of a couple of centuries during that warring period, a number of teachers and philosophers came to the fore and offered their analyses of the plight, along with their counsel about how to get things back on track and foster once again a moral society that valued unity. Out of this struggle came the teachings of several Chinese sages—the most famous today being Confucius.

As the conflicts wore on, without peace, other philosophers came into prominence and offered their ideas for how to get back on track. Some of them were Mencius, Mozi, Lauzi, Zhunzi, Zhuangzu, Zon Yau, Sunzi, and Han Fei. Many of them formed their own school, whose students later carried on the doctrines of the masters. This process was very similar to the assorted philosophical schools of ancient Greece—and in fact, at about the same time period.

Coming from divergent backgrounds and at different times during the Warring States Period, the teachings of the various philosophers often clashed. Had one of them—say Confucius—put forth a suggestion early on, which ended the ongoing conflicts, we may never have had the alternative and sundry ideas the other teachers offered. As a result, we have a wide variety of rich philosophical doctrines—each of which conflicts with and/or supplements the others in various ways.

I will focus here on two of these sages, Mencius and Zhunzi, who seem to have reached diametrically opposed conclusions on human nature. As the Warring States conflicts persisted, many people began to wonder about the essential qualities of human nature, and whether those qualities are moral or not. The core question: Is human nature good or bad? Are we basically virtuous or harmful creatures? Are we born as benign beings or as evil individuals? Thus, if the first case is true, do we try to encourage and promote our natural goodness or, in second case, purge ourselves of our wickedness?

Mencius took the position that we are inherently good—we're born innocent and our job is to nurture those sprouts of goodness, in order to come to realize our full potential as honorable people. Zhunzi took the opposite view: that human nature is basically bad—we're born as pernicious people and our job is to learn to purge ourselves of this baleful behavior. Life is a constant struggle to overcome that devilish trait of ours, Zhunzi maintained.

It's fascinating that both Mencius and Zhunzi, although they seem to be diametrically opposed, considered themselves to be pupils of Confucius. They both agreed that Chinese society must get back on the track of peace and order, but viewed humans as starting from opposing places. I won't try here to delve any deeper into the teachings of these two sages or explain their divergent doctrines. I'm sure that interminable debates could chew on this issue and never reach an agreed explanation, since the topic remains relevant and controversial, 2500 years later.

This kind of contention between scholars is not unique to Chinese philosophy. Western theologians have similarly disagreed. For example, within Christianity there is an analogous type of disagreement—between the Catholic doctrine of original sin and the Quaker concept of “that of God” within every person.

This question of the basic quality of human nature is a philosophical query—one that is as relevant today as it was three millennia ago. I find it fascinating that most all questions of science—unlike philosophy—get slowly, step-by-step, answered. Is the Earth at the center of the universe or not? Is there a “cure” for cancer? We may not know the answers at any given point in time, but the inevitable advancement of scientific knowledge will most likely one day offer an answer. Philosophical questions, however, often have no final answer. Are we innately good or bad? Tune in next century for the ongoing debate.