Morality Internal or External?

[Illuminaughty]

Supposing people see a child all of a sudden fall into a well – they all have a heart-mind that is shocked and sympathetic. It is not for the sake of being on good terms with the child’s parents, and it is not for the sake of winning praise for neighbors and friends, nor is it because they dislike the child’s noisy cry.
- Mencius

Judging by this, without a heart-mind that sympathizes one is not human; without a heart-mind aware of shame, one is not human; without a heart-mind that defers to others, one is not human; and without a heart-mind that approves and condemns, one is not human.
- Mencius

​

Lately I've been doing a bit of reading on Confucian teaching. Within the greater tradition of Confucianism a few different views on the nature of morality and it's source seem to have been put forth. The view of Mencius, which later came to be the orthodox position among Neo-Confucians, stressed the inherent goodness of human nature. According to Mencius every person is born with certain roots of goodness. If these roots are properly maintained and nourished they will grow into the full perfection of the said moral qualities.

A later school of Confucian thought (the Lu - Wang school of Neo-Confucianism) expanded the Mencian idea of natural goodness and claimed that we don't merely have the roots of goodness but rather that we have the full perfection of goodness already within us. All we have to do is discover it and manifest it in our life. This view has some resonances with Chan/ Zen ideas of Buddha Nature and Tathagatagarbha theory. A "realize the sage within that is already fully formed" type thing .

An alternate view was held by the great Confucian philosopher Xunzi. According to Xunzi human nature is inherently wayward. Morality comes from the outside and its practice requires the complete reformation of ones original nature. Certain in between positions that steered a middle course between the two were also developed within the Confucian tradition but made a relatively minor impact.

What's your take on the whole thing? Is the source of morality and goodness within us or must it be imposed from outside (maybe, to use some western examples, from the commandments of a God, the Platonic world of forms, etc...)?

 

[Illuminaughty]

In regards to Mencius illustrating his point of inherent goodness in man via the child falling into a well scenario I should point out that he goes on to say that people might not actually go on to help the child. He is talking about the immediate knee jerk sort of response of empathy. That's why he says "all of a sudden". This immediate response is supposed to be the result of the root of goodness which can either be embraced and nurtured or passed over for selfish reasons.

I tend to think an empathetic first response would be almost universal save maybe for a few people with severe sociopathic psychological problems.

 

[Paradoxum]

I guess I agree more with Mencius. Most humans are born with the capacities to be moral, but these have to be worked on to actually have a moral character, and to know what acts are moral and immoral.

I would disagree to some extent with Mencius, since I think sociopaths are human.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Is the source of morality and goodness within us or must it be imposed from outside

I think that's a false alternative.

The source of good character is a dynamic interplay of both internal psychological forces and external teachings. You can think of it as being a diamond in the rough, which may be somewhat ugly and yet holding great promise, which then needs to be chiseled to achieve its full beauty.

First, let me say that I don't think that we are born naturally good. Rather, we are born with a range of motivations that need the integrating power of reason, and of habituation, to become a properly good character.

This doesn't mean that I think that we are born naturally evil, either. We aren't Orcs by nature.

If there is something good about human nature from birth, it is that we have the potential for goodness. Think of having the potential to ride a bicycle. We can't ride a bicycle unless we learn how. Once we practice, we make riding a bicycle "second nature". Our "first nature" includes the ability to learn motor skills, and "second nature" includes those skills.

Or consider the way in which our brains are naturally primed to learn a language. We have the capacity for language, but we must listen to others in order to pick up an actual language.

I think that something is similar regarding moral character. We have the natural ability to learn character, which is internal, but we need some help getting there, which is external.

(Incidentally, I don't think that sociopaths are fully human. They are damaged goods.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Who made our arms and legs? Was it us or was it God?

See this way: axiological embeddedness (living in a world of value differentials) is a evolved trait of humans, and probably many other creatuers. Morality is behavioural adaptation (or meta adaptation) to that phenomenological adaptation.

The origin is not so much in us, or outside, but it is just an evolved trait which functions just as any other adaptation - to increase survival and replication chances. That is the function of morality.

What actually constitutes intelligent adaptive or meta-adaptive culture in the face if this predicament is another question.

But analysing the nature of morality is not a bad start, as if we are forming a map of the something like an inherently important topological domain. Otherwise we end up arguing about branches withot knowing the roots.

Then there can be fitness landscapes for moral systems judged by how they promote welfare and flourishing of the species, or at a closer level of the individual.

For example (see image below) in modern capitalist culture, perhaps

• left - right altruism vs egoism
• front - back equals no education vs education
• up - down equals health and fitness of person

see link for image:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2431/3718107618_17cd45ced0.jpg

Or maybe in some world or other, or for one person or another (for the same image);

left - right short termmism vs long termism
front - back number of children
up - down equals physiological and neurlogical health and flourishing

Then we have human network (society) trying to square the circle. when in fact although the form of the geometry of moral space time (basic psycholoical powers and phenomenological domain) and is similar for each one, solutions can differ... greatly... due to genetic, developmental and environmental peturbations.

That may sound abstruse, but I think I'm right.

As for the actual question, its probably a fuzzy many valued multi-dimensional cloud thing, yes and no and maybe all at once, just as a twig approaches the light imperfectly or a hand catches a ball imperfectly in terms of theoretical optimisation. What game(s) are we playing in our culture and society and what plant(s) have we planted in "mind garden", these points need to be noted too. It is not always the tallest tree and best catch that serves the interests of the moral network best, even though that may be a "good life" considered in isolation from the rest of the network. Thus with two players we already have 3 (two plus one) answers (mine, yours, and yours + mine).

Ball's in your thought...

 

[Lethe]

Who made our arms and legs?

My mother and father.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

In a sense yes. And they (or their dna) combined to make your psyche. I think that humans may or may not be inspired, they may be alone or not. But unless "the spirit" or divine influence takes grip of our mental life then I think that we are ultimately alone to at least try to become good, and to fathom it all out. That is unless revelation ir obsious and compelling, we still have to acknowledge our responsibility and effort in accepting and acting on it or not.

 

[Lethe]

"In a sense?" I have video proof that I came out of my mother.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Action theory in philosophy discusses stuff like when one becomes resoponsible for an action, like the consequences of giving to charity or droppin a banana skin etc.


You were formed in your mothers womb yes, but the evolutionary history of arm and leg (and "aesthetic sense") development goes back way further than that. So your mom and dad didn't cause them in that sense as the genes for that stuff developed long before they, and even modern man, existed.

Also although they may have planned to have a child, they had no control over which sex it would be, never mind intellect and hair colour etc. So they diid not choose to have you, merely token of the human species is all they could have expected. Of course they will have loved you I imagine, but they would have known you after birth not before, so they could not have intended you that fully just as you cant intend to cause such and such a stream of affairs by giving a donation in a charity tin.

 

[quatona]

Supposing people see a child all of a sudden fall into a well – they all have a heart-mind that is shocked and sympathetic. It is not for the sake of being on good terms with the child’s parents, and it is not for the sake of winning praise for neighbors and friends, nor is it because they dislike the child’s noisy cry.
- Mencius

Judging by this, without a heart-mind that sympathizes one is not human; without a heart-mind aware of shame, one is not human; without a heart-mind that defers to others, one is not human; and without a heart-mind that approves and condemns, one is not human.
- Mencius​

I fail to see how the second paragraph follows from the first.

​

Lately I've been doing a bit of reading on Confucian teaching. Within the greater tradition of Confucianism a few different views on the nature of morality and it's source seem to have been put forth. The view of Mencius, which later came to be the orthodox position among Neo-Confucians, stressed the inherent goodness of human nature. According to Mencius every person is born with certain roots of goodness. If these roots are properly maintained and nourished they will grow into the full perfection of the said moral qualities.

I´m afraid I am not quite sure how the term "morality" is used here and what those "said moral qualities" are supposed to be? Are you referring to sympathy, shame, deferring, judgement?

A later school of Confucian thought (the Lu - Wang school of Neo-Confucianism) expanded the Mencian idea of natural goodness and claimed that we don't merely have the roots of goodness but rather that we have the full perfection of goodness already within us. All we have to do is discover it and manifest it in our life. This view has some resonances with Chan/ Zen ideas of Buddha Nature and Tathagatagarbha theory. A "realize the sage within that is already fully formed" type thing .

An alternate view was held by the great early Confucian philosopher Xunzi. According to Xunzi human nature is inherently wayward. Morality comes from the outside and its practice requires the complete reformation of ones original nature. Certain in between positions that steered a middle course between the two were also developed within the Confucian tradition but made a relatively minor impact.

What's your take on the whole thing? Is the source of morality and goodness within us or must it be imposed from outside (maybe, to use some western examples, from the commandments of a God, the Platonic world of forms, etc...)?

I tend towards the notion that the general will to be and to do good is within us whereas the detailed concepts and theories what that means and what it is that we should do is the result of nurturing, conditioning and socialisation.

It also needs to be said that the world is more complex than such questions suggest.
Of course, everyone will agree that war is horrible. Yet, people find a way of justifying wars.
Moral considerations - in practice - deal with dilemmas rather than with the reaction to and judgement of an isolated aspect.
Typically, they also - due to several reasons - necessarily predefine certain aspects as relevant or irrelevant for the "situation".

I´ve always admired the movie L.A.Crash for demonstrating all this in a great way.

 

[Illuminaughty]

is a evolved trait of humans, and probably many other creatuers. Morality is behavioural adaptation (or meta adaptation) to that phenomenological adaptation.

Interesting post. Whenever I read the writings of ancient philosophers I tend to wonder how the reality of evolution would effect what was being said. How they would have integrated that knowledge were they made aware of it. That's a major fact about reality that just hadn't been taken into consideration back then.

 

[Illuminaughty]

I´m afraid I am not quite sure how the term "morality" is used here and what those "said moral qualities" are supposed to be? Are you referring to sympathy, shame, deferring, judgement?

For Mencius the "four moral sprouts" or "roots" that provide the basis for moral action are:

1. Ren / Humanity or Benevolence
2 Li/ often translated as either ritual propriety, etiquette, or morality
3. YI /Justice and righteousness.
4 Zhi / wisdom

"For Mencius, the four ethical attributes, ren, yi, li, and zhi, result from our cultivating four kinds of predispositions of the heart/mind that everyone shares. These include commiseration, the sense of shame, a reverential attitude toward others, and the sense of right and wrong. He referred to these as the four ‘sprouts’ or ‘beginnings’, and regarded the four ethical attributes as growing from these predispositions in the way that a plant grows from a sprout. Besides commiseration and the sense of shame, he also regarded love for parents and obedience to elder brothers as the starting point for cultivating ren and yi respectively. His view that the heart/mind has these ethical predispositions provides the basis for his response to the Moist and the Yangist challenges.

Mozi did not believe that human beings have the appropriate predispositions to begin with, but thought that one could restructure one's motivations accordingly after endorsing the doctrine of indiscriminate concern. However, in the absence of such predispositions, the practice of indiscriminate concern seems humanly impossible, a point seized upon by Mozi's opponents. Mencius, on the other hand, held the view that human beings have ethical predispositions that relate to the ethical ideal in the way that a sprout relates to a full-grown plant. Such predispositions contain within them a direction of development in the way that a sprout contains within it a certain direction of growth, and they also provide the appropriate emotional resources that one can draw on to achieve the ideal. In his debate with a contemporary Moist Yizi, Mencius put the point by saying that the ethical way of life has one root — both the validity of that way of life and the emotional resources required for living it have one root in the relevant predispositions.

Related points are made in Mencius's debate with another contemporary intellectual Gaozi. Mencius opposed Gaozi's view that yi (propriety) is external, and also opposed part of a maxim of Gaozi's that says: “what one does not get from words, do not seek in the heart/mind”. While the nature of these disagreements has been subject to different interpretations, it is likely that Mencius was again making similar points about the basis of our ethical life. For Gaozi, yi (propriety) is external in that one should seek it from ethical doctrines, and if one cannot obtain it from doctrines, there is no point in seeking it from within the heart/mind. By contrast, Mencius believed that the heart/mind already has ethical predispositions that point in an ethical direction. Accordingly, yi is internal in that our recognition of what is proper derives from these predispositions of the heart/mind rather than from external doctrines, and so one should seek yi in the heart/mind rather than from doctrines.

-Mencius , Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy​