The Nature of Evil

Wendy Swartz

The Nature of Evil

Hsun Tzu's philosophy is built from the idea that human beings are by nature inherently evil, and the good they produce will only come through their conscious activity. Hsun Tzu believes that if man follows his nature and indulges in his natural desires, without transforming himself by conscious activity he is doomed to fall victim to his evil nature. "Any man who follows his nature will inevitably become involved in wrangling and strife, will violate the forms and rules of society, and will end as a criminal." Despite the pessimistic tone of Hsun Tzu's message he does propose conscious activity as a solution to man's evil. This paper will examine Hsun Tzu's perspective in light of both Mencius and Lao Tzu, and the path it proposes for man to raise from his evil nature and become good.

Starting at the foundation of Hsun Tzu's message we accept that humans are inherently bad, incomplete, and weak. After accepting the imperfect nature of man, we see why man must become a student before he will rise from his evil nature. Learning is defined as the unconditional good for man, because with every lesson learned man is controlled less by his passions. Hsun Tzu warns that to forsake learning "is to become a beast" (18). The extensive self-improvement effort, which Hsun Tzu refers to as "conscious activity" is the pathway for man to overcome his evil nature and embrace his good (158). This self-improvement (which includes learning) is defined as the ideal action, because as Hsun Tzu teaches "There is no greater godliness than to transform yourself" (16). In his view, such a transformation requires an aspiration to perfection and completeness. He held absolute esteem for "completeness and purity"(22) and held such a strict definition of completeness that he believed "he who misses one shot in a hundred cannot be called a really good archer" (22). Hsun Tzu makes an important distinction as to why "conscious activity" brings an ultimate good with an analogy, "ice is made of water but it is colder than water ever is" (15). It is precisely this conscious activity of development that Hsun Tzu believes is the crux of man overcoming his evil nature.

While Mencius believes that humans are inherently good, but can be corrupted by circumstance, Hsun Tzu argues that man is not inherently good at all. He rejects this view, saying that Mencius "has not really understood man's nature nor distinguished properly between the basic nature and conscious activity" (158). Hsun Tzu does admit that humans have some inherent good in them: "man possesses energy, life, intelligenceÐ'..." (45). Even so, Hsun Tzu believed that any such inherent good can be lost completely, and that the evil of man can overwhelm him beyond hope: "in the case of the incorrigibly evil men, punish them without trying to reform them" (33). This means that self-improvement alone (and not nature) can save humans, as Hsun Tzu believed that all humans start with the same basic nature: "the gentleman by birth is no different from any other man" (16). Hsun Tzu again returns to his belief that for man to evolve beyond his evil nature, "learning must never cease" (15).

Hsun Tzu's teachings sharply contradict those of Lao Tzu. While Lao

Tzu believed in action through inaction, Hsun Tzu linked "dull and determined effort" with "brilliant achievement" (18). Hsun Tzu also emphasized self-improvement through "conscious activity" (158), but Lao Tzu believed that the ideal human "disregards himself" (Lao Tzu, 7) and "does not want to be anything for himself" (22). Lao Tzu rejected morals and sense of duty, while Hsun Tzu was pleased that "man possesses energy, life, intelligence, and in addition, a sense of duty" (45). Also, Lao Tzu advised people to "give up learnedness" (Lao Tzu, 19), but Hsun Tzu said that "learning should never cease" (15). Hsun Tzu frowned on the "naÐ"ЇvetÐ"© of the child" (159), saying that humans require learning to move beyond such naÐ"ЇvetÐ"©. At the heart of their disagreement, Lao Tzu and Hsun Tzu seems to each have a different picture of what learning means. Lao Tzu favored experience over learning, but Hsun Tzu