人性本善还是本恶

江帆，这星期我又想起我们上次讨论过的那个老问题了，人性到底是善的还是恶的。你现在还坚持你原来的看法吗？

Jiang Fan, this week I thought again about that old question we discussed before, whether human nature is fundamentally good or bad. Do you still hold your original view?

当然还坚持。我一直站在孟子这一边，相信性善论，也就是人生下来心里就带着善良的一面。你还记得那个经典的例子吗？如果一个孩子突然要掉到井里，不管是谁看到，第一反应都是害怕，都会立刻冲上去救他，根本来不及去计算，救了他对自己有没有好处，会不会有人因此夸自己。这种反应，难道是后来学出来的吗？

Of course I still hold it. I've always been on Mencius's side, believing in the theory that human nature is good, meaning people are born with a good side already in their hearts. Do you remember that classic example? If a child suddenly starts to fall into a well, no matter who sees it, everyone's first reaction is alarm, and everyone rushes over to save the child, with no time at all to calculate whether saving the child benefits them or whether anyone will praise them for it afterward. Is that reaction really something learned later?

这个例子确实让人感动，不过我还是更认同荀子的性恶论。荀子认为，人生下来先想到的是自己的利益，看到好吃的、好玩的，第一个想法都是自己先拿，这才是人天生的样子。至于善良，不是天生就有的，是靠礼、靠规矩、靠教育，一点一点培养出来的。你说的那个例子确实存在，可是为什么同样是这些人，没人看着的时候，行为常常完全不一样呢？

That example really is moving, but I still find myself more convinced by Xunzi's theory that human nature is self-interested. Xunzi thought that what a person born into the world thinks of first is their own interest, and on seeing something tasty or fun, their first thought is to grab it for themselves first, and that this is what people are naturally like. As for goodness, it isn't there from birth, it's cultivated bit by bit through ritual, through rules, through education. That example of yours does happen, but then why do the very same people so often behave completely differently when no one is watching?

你这句话让我想起一件真事。我们公司茶水间里有咖啡和点心，谁喝了、吃了，就自己把钱放进旁边一个盒子里，全靠自觉，没有人检查。角落里本来装着一个摄像头，后来那个摄像头坏了，修了差不多一个月才修好。同事后来说，那段时间盒子里的钱明显变少了，可是还是有人照样每次都放钱，一分都不少。这是不是说明，至少对一部分人来说，善良真的不需要摄像头？

What you just said reminds me of a real thing that happened. In our office pantry there's coffee and snacks, and whoever drinks or eats some just puts money into a box next to it, entirely on their own honesty, with no one checking. There used to be a camera in the corner, and later that camera broke and took about a month to get fixed. Colleagues said that during that period the money in the box clearly dropped, but there were still people who kept putting money in every single time, not a cent less. Doesn't that show that, at least for some people, goodness really doesn't need a camera?

这正好证明了荀子的性恶论。摄像头一坏，一部分人立刻就变了，说明他们平时的善良，其实是被监督逼出来的行为，摄像头不在了，本性就露出来了。至于那些还照样放钱的人，我觉得也不是天生善良，而是这么多年养成的习惯已经变得自然，跟本能反应差不多。可这份自然，也是后天一点一点训练出来的结果，不是生下来就有的。你觉得，习惯和天生的善良，真的分得清楚吗？

That's exactly what proves Xunzi's theory right. The moment the camera broke, some people immediately changed, which shows that their usual goodness was actually behaviour forced out by supervision, and once the camera was gone, their true nature showed through. As for the people who kept putting in money anyway, I don't think they're born good either, I think it's that after so many years the habit has become second nature, almost like an instinctive reaction. But even that second nature is the result of training, bit by bit, through nurture, not something they had from birth. Do you really think habit and innate goodness can be told apart?

这正是我想问的。如果人天生连一点善良的种子都没有，礼和规矩又是靠什么让人愿意学、愿意养成习惯的？我觉得孟子会说，正是因为人心里本来就有看到别人受苦会心疼的那点感觉，礼和规矩才有基础可以培养，不然教育从哪里开始呢？

That's exactly what I want to ask. If people have no seed of goodness in them at all from birth, then what is it that makes them willing to learn ritual and rules and willing to build the habit in the first place? I think Mencius would say it's precisely because people already have that feeling of being pained at seeing someone else suffer, and that's why ritual and rules have something to build on. Otherwise, where would education even start?

你这个反驳有道理，我承认，教育总得有一个起点，不可能完全从零开始。可是我也见过相反的例子。小孩子还没学过什么规矩的时候，抢别人手里的玩具、不肯排队，这种事也很常见，看起来也挺自然。如果性善论完全站得住，这种自私的行为该怎么解释呢？

That's a fair rebuttal, I'll admit education has to have some starting point, it can't come from absolute zero. But I've also seen the opposite kind of example. Before children have learned any rules at all, grabbing toys out of other kids' hands and refusing to line up are also very common things, and they look just as natural. If the theory that human nature is good really holds up, how do you explain that kind of selfish behaviour?

这我承认，小孩子确实又会抢东西，又会在别人难过的时候主动去安慰。这两种事好像同时存在，谁也没有把谁比下去。所以我现在反而觉得，摄像头坏了之后那件事，可能只能说明监督会影响一部分人的行为，说明不了人性本来是善还是恶，因为孟子和荀子说的，也许根本不是同一个问题。

I'll grant that, children really do both grab things and also spontaneously go comfort someone else when they're upset. Both things seem to exist at the same time, and neither one wins out over the other. So actually now I think that thing with the broken camera can probably only show that supervision affects some people's behaviour, it can't settle whether human nature is fundamentally good or bad, because what Mencius and Xunzi were talking about might not even be the same question to begin with.

这句话我倒是挺认同。说不定孟子说的性善论，讲的是人心里最初那一点反应，荀子说的性恶论，讲的是人在群体里长期会有的行为，两个人观察的角度本来就不一样。有意思的是，孟子和荀子其实都是儒家的重要人物，两人都算儒家学者，可是对人性的看法差得这么远，两千多年过去了，儒家内部也没有真正吵出一个结果。你说，如果哪天真有人证明了到底谁对，会不会反而没什么意思了？

I actually quite agree with that. Maybe what Mencius's theory is describing is that very first flicker of reaction in a person's heart, while what Xunzi's theory is describing is the behaviour people show over the long run inside a group, and the two of them were simply observing from different angles to begin with. What's interesting is that Mencius and Xunzi were actually both major figures in the Confucian school, both counted as Confucian scholars, and yet they disagreed this much about human nature, and over two thousand years later, the Confucian tradition still hasn't really argued its way to an answer. Do you think that if someone actually proved one day who was right, it would end up being less interesting?

哈哈，我猜不会没什么意思，只会换一个新问题接着吵。不过说真的，这场争论吵了两千多年都没有结果，也许这本来就不是一个有标准答案的问题，倒是提醒我们，以后遇到没人看着的时候，多留意一下自己会怎么做。

Ha, I doubt it would be less interesting, people would just switch to a new question and keep arguing. But honestly, this argument has gone on for over two thousand years without a result, so maybe it was never a question with a standard answer to begin with, though it does remind us to pay a bit more attention to what we do the next time no one is watching.