Man's Nature Is Good: Annotated Bibliography

Zhang, Wei-Bin. "Mencius (371-289 bc): Human Nature is Good." Confucianism and Modernization (2000): 1(1), 97-121. Print.

Zhang (2000) uses Confucian Philosophy in an attempt to explain the nature of human. According to the article, human nature has a meaningless origin hence the difficulty in tracing the specific point at which it began to exist. The author argues that humans started shaping their characters before they came into the world hence the difficulty in proving the existence and the origin of human nature. Zhang's argument, however, lies on the side which supports human nature being good because of the article emphasis on the concept of humanity from the view that humans are naturally inclined to helping one another (97). Zhang takes an example of small children who are kind to one another to the point of sharing objects (116). The author argues that by the time children reach two years, they have significant knowledge of societal codes of conduct.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

This article is useful because it borrows a lot from the Confucian theory and focuses on the concept of humanity which differentiates good and evil individuals. It will be a useful source of literature in supporting the view that humans, from the time they are born, are good but their continued character at adulthood is shaped by society.

Lee, P. "Human Nature and Moral Goodness." The Normativity of the Natural (2009): 16(1), 45-54. DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-2301-84. Web.

Lee attempts to posit the negative correlation between moral goodness and human nature arguing on the non-normative perspective of human nature. First, Lee argues that human nature is not related to moral goodness is based on the fact that the nature of human is not a moral criterion in determining the permissibility of an action (47). Lee contends that the act of judging the permissibility of human behavior basing on the relationship between the wrongness of an action and non-conformity to human nature is oversimplified because human nature is not normative (52). Secondly, the author argues that human nature is not the main criterion for determining moral and ethical norms in society. Lee supports this point by arguing that "the nature of a being is its internal structure or set of tendencies that distinguish it from other types of beings, coming from within, rather than imposed from outside" (54).

This article is useful in arguing against Mencius principle that attributes human nature with goodness. It will be used in supporting the non-normative perspective of human nature by portraying human nature as a spiritual and biological tendency which does not create a criterion for judging human morality.

Palmquist, Stephen R. "The Propensity to Evil in Human Nature." Religion (2015): 2(3), 119-124. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118619599.ch2. Web.

Palmquist argues that human nature is inherently evil. The author uses empirical evidence to posit that the corrupt nature of humans from the onset of their moral life. According to the author, human goodness is corrupt because of the propensity to immoral and evil deeds (119). This article thus appears to be countering the Mencius concept of the goodness of human nature by arguing that propensity to evil among humans is inevitable because of competition, religious and political differences, and conflicts. The article concludes that human nature is evil because even individuals "who appear to be good may be concealing an evil heart" (121)

This article is useful in providing answers to Mencius contention on whether human nature is evil or good because it promotes the philosophical understanding of the evil concept from religious and political perspectives and portrays the evil in human nature to originate from "the perversion of an originally good predisposition."

Perrett, Roy. "Evil and Human Nature." The Monist (2002): 2(1), 304-319. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist200285220. Web.

Perrett (2002) argues that there is a thin line between evil and goodness in human nature. In that way, the article suggests that humans were neither born evil or good but their resultant behavior is shaped by the environment they grow in. Perrett suggests that "humans are complicated species with physiology and environment dictating their moral or evil behavior" (306). The article follows the viewpoint that evil and good, since time immemorial, characterize the worst and best in human respectively since Homo sapiens began to evolve socially. It can be concluded from the article that evil characterizes human nature.

The journal is a useful source of information is proving counterarguments against Mencius assertion that human nature is good because it provides the description of evil which can be used in epitomizing the judgment on human behavior and whether evil defiles or upholds human civilization.

Lara. Rethinking Evil: Contemporary Perspectives. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011. Print.

Lara argues that the concept of good and evil in human nature is coined from the myth held by a human that "we are born good, they are born evil". This implies that a given individual, society or religious group believes that their action, beliefs, and values are goo while those of others are evil. Lara believes that whether human nature is evil or good lies in the concept of fascism which posits that people are born pure and noble but their environment they grew shape who they become (29).

The article is useful in refuting Mencius assertion that man's nature is good because Lara suggests that goodness does not flow in people's blood but their evil or goodness nature is determined by societal values and codes of conduct (38).

Calder, T. "Evil, Ignorance, and the 9/11 Terrorists." Social Philosophy Today (2004): 20(1), 53-66. Print.

Calder argues that humans are neither good nor evil. The author takes a critical look at the tendency of individuals to commit genocide and mass killings such as the 9/11 terrorist act. The article uses evolutionary psychology to explain that humans are born good but have the potential of becoming evil according to the grooming of society. Calder argues that terrorists do not have genocide genes and neither do be they wired to commit atrocities but are driven by occurrences in the society such as religious and social conflicts (59).

The article is essential in refuting Mencius concept that man's nature is good because it suggests the concept of evil or goodness is not inherent to everyone but are all circumstantial. The author's idea can be used in explaining that even the noblest and best people in the society can commit atrocities and evil due to ignorance, poverty, and diverse religious and social beliefs.