Social norms change human nature
The theory of sexuality and the theory of vocal music is one of the most classic discussions of human nature. Mencius argues that human nature is good, and vocalism is Sunja's claim that human nature is evil. When we see the late Lee Soo-hyun who sacrificed himself to save a Japanese drunk who fell on the subway, or when we see people suffering from the pain of non-human animals, we agree with the claim that human nature is good.
However, if you encounter incidents such as murder, robbery and kidnapping in newspaper articles that you read every morning, or see an Internet space filled with various malicious comments, you can put a weight on vocalism, saying that human nature is originally evil. In fact, the question of whether it is Sungseon or Vocal music seems like a mystery that cannot be concluded forever.
But why did Mencius and Shunja argue over what human nature is? Why is knowing human nature so important? First, let's look at Mencius' claims. “If you follow an innate basis, you can be good, which means that the nature I am talking about is good. Being ungood is not the fault of your natural material. Anyone has a heart of compassion, a heart of shame, a heart of respect, and a heart of judging right and wrong. The compassionate heart is humanity, the shameful heart is righteousness, the respectful heart is politeness, and the heart that judges right and wrong is intelligence. This human will is not given from outside, but I have it from the outside, but people think and do not find it.”
To say that Mencius is good in nature does not mean that humans never do evil. What Mencius wants to say here is that the origin of moral behavior is in man. Moral acts such as courtesy are not imposed on humans from outside, but are derived from human nature. What we do morally is that we have acted according to our inner nature, not by any external force. For Mencius, moral behavior is voluntary. Here we can see that the human nature mentioned by Mencius is a moral reason different from emotions and desires.
Sunja speaks of human nature as follows: “Everything man's nature is the same for both the wage and the net wage, the king and the king. The nature is the same with respect to men and women. Now, let's think of courtesy as something that man has. If so, what would be the premium or post-paid, and what would be the lord? The reason why wages paid, right wages, and warlords are valued is because they made artificial efforts by changing their natural nature, and created courtesy through artificial efforts. Then, for an adult, courtesy is no different from a potter making a tile by breaking the mud. In this way, how can we say that courtesy is inherent in man's nature?”
Sunja sees human moral behavior, such as courtesy, not as a result of human nature, but rather as a result of artificial efforts that changed nature. Therefore, in order for humans to be good, there must exist objective social norms that can control and change their nature. Here, it can be seen that the human nature that Sunja is talking about is not rational, but based on emotions and desires. Mencius and Shunza use the same term for nature, but they mean different things.
Mencius insisted on the rule by the morality of the ruler from the position of Seongseon. Mencius urges the Qi monarch to launch a politics of love that extends his compassion for animals to the people. However, Sunja saw that the solution of social problems could not be solved simply through the moral awakening of the ruling class or the politics of love for the people. Sun-ja saw that the cause of social conflict stems from the pursuit of infinite needs of humans with different ways of life and intelligence.
Since humans have infinite desires from birth, the larger their needs, the less and less social goods become, and the social wealth thus deprived inevitably leads to social conflict. Therefore, he saw that social division of labor is essential to promote social production, and argued that humans should be classified according to their capabilities. Sunja emphasized that deposit as an objective social norm is the most ideal way of governing rather than governing by pure morality.
0 Comments