At the beginning of human beings, is it good or evil by nature?

Personally, I think it's still human nature.

<> question of good and evil in human nature is a major proposition in traditional Chinese philosophy, and there have been many lawsuits for thousands of years. The first four sentences of the "Three Character Classic" say: "At the beginning of man, his nature is good.

Sex is similar, Xi is far away. The first two sentences of the sentence are from "Mencius Tengwen Gongshang": "Mencius is good-natured, and his words must be called Yao Shun."

What is "Beginning"? It means "beginning". To make clothes, you must first cut the fabric into several pieces of material of a certain shape, and then sew and embellish these pieces to form clothes.

Commonly known as a garment maker as a "tailor", it refers to these two basic processes of garment making. Cutting must use a knife, so the word "beginning" from "clothes" from "knife" to show its beginning. Therefore, "the beginning of man" refers to the time when man is just born.

What is "sex"? It's something you are born with. This is the original meaning of "sex".

In ancient books, "sex" is sometimes used as "birth", which is proof. "Sex is similar, Xi is far away" is from "The Analects of Yang Goods": "Zi said:

Sex is similar, and Xi is far away. 'Xi' is the influence of the acquired environment. Anyone, no matter what nationality or race his parents are, and whether his parents are poor or rich, good or bad, their innate "sex" is like a plain white silk, without color, without traces of good and evil.

That's what it means to be "sexually similar"; After people are born, the environmental impact is different, and the sex changes accordingly, such as plain silk white practice is contaminated with various pigments, and gradually becomes more and more different, with a difference between good and evil. This is what "Xi is far away" means. From "sex is similar, Xi is far away."

It can be seen that in fact, Confucius clearly separated sex from habit: nature is sex, and acquired is habit. Historically, we have talked about sexuality, but we have not distinguished sexual habits, and as for the controversy over sexual ,—— sexual goodness and sexual evil, all of which have been born from this.

Morality distinguishes between "good" and "evil", and distinguishes "good" and "evil" very clearly, but this is only on the surface, that is, in a certain era or environment, in fact, after understanding the definition of morality in essence, you will find that good and evil are not so clearly distinguished. There is no absolute right and good, and there is no absolute right and evil, affected by various factors, such as resources, environment, time, the development of social civilization, etc., people's ideological concepts and values will be different, and the understanding of good and evil will be different, which is not easy for people living in the current world to foresee and understand. Just as it was not easy for people in ancient times to understand some of today's behaviors, and in their eyes, some of today's behaviors are "evil."

"Good" and "evil" are not absolute, and need to be viewed dialectically.

Mencius believed that people are born with a conscience and conscience, which is human instinct, and often contradicts him by a person who later called Gaozi, who is a representative of the theory of no good and no evil. Food, color, sex, too. - "Eating and sexuality" is not what Mencius said, nor did Confucius say, but what Confucius said.

Gaozi believes that people's instincts are food and sex, not those hearts of compassion and right and wrong. Confucius believes that human nature has no distinction between good and evil, just like when water flows, there is no division of things, where there is a ditch, it flows, but Mencius followed this metaphor and said that even if water has no things, it is still divided into upper and lower, and in extreme cases, water can also flow upward, but that is not the nature of water, reflected in people, people sometimes do evil, but it is obviously not human nature to do evil.

It is the nature of goodness (at the beginning of people, sex is a more classic sentence in the three-character classic).

The view that human nature is inherently good and inherently evil is incorrect, and the theory of sexual goodness cannot explain why children do bad things when they grow up; However, it is difficult to explain why people who do evil can abandon evil and follow good. Moreover, the good or evil actions of individuals are acquired, not caused by innate nature. The external causes of good deeds include the moral edification of the family and the moral education of the society; The external causes of vices include cultural influences and institutional deficiencies in society.

I think that in the beginning of human nature, in the middle of the mean, we are all the same at the beginning, with a vision of the world to come into this world, but the people or things we slowly come into contact with or other emotions and our experiences will affect our character, polarization, some people have become good people, some people have become big bad people, and some people have maintained their own moderation in this world to live.

At the beginning of man, nature is inherently good and nature is inherently evil, and he represents the views of Mencius and Xunzi respectively. Like Mencius, his main emphasis is that people are born to be good, and I agree with this view. Xunzi's words, he emphasized that the role of acquired education can make people continue to be good.

In fact, I think there is some truth in both views, but I still tend to be good at the beginning of human beings.

I think it's good. Everyone is good, and all evil deeds are acquired.

was originally kind, but then because of the environmental impact around him, he became evil, isn't there a sentence: the one who is close to ink is black,

At the beginning of man, nature is evil.

A few newborn children, don't teach them, let them grow up naturally to three or four years old, and then lock them in a room, put some food, and see what the consequences are?

When you are hungry, you eat your own food, and when you have a little food left, you compete with each other to eat, and even fight with each other to grab food.

Good is taught ...

Personally, I think that sex is inherently evil, because when we were young, because we were ignorant, we always hurt small animals, such as destroying ant nests and "dismembering" small animals, all because of the evil in our hearts that prompted us to do it. And we have good intentions, but we don't show it, and that's why we need to go where we need to learn. Therefore, people spend their whole lives trying to learn goodness, not only because they need goodness, but also because they want to enrich their cognition, know good and evil, and choose from them.

I agree with Mencius.

Mencius: Human nature is inherently good.

Mencius is a representative of the theory of sexual goodness. He believes that human nature is inherently good, just as the nature of water flows downward, it is all innate and inherent. The heart of compassion (benevolence), the heart of shame (righteousness), the heart of respect (courtesy), and the mind of right and wrong (wisdom) are all innate, not learned from the outside world.

If one day you see water flowing to a higher place, it must be forced by an external force. In the same way, if a person does something bad, it is also an external factor that affects the nature of the person. Therefore, Mencius advocated the theory of sexual goodness.

Mencius, put forward that "at the beginning of people, nature is good, sex is similar, and Xi is far away", people are born with kindness, but because of the growth process, the acquired learning environment is different, and there is a difference between good and bad temperament. Xunzi advocates that "human nature is evil, and its good ones are hypocritical", human nature is evil, and those good behaviors are man-made; Human beings are born with a desire for self-interest. But I'm actually quite willing to believe in the goodness of human nature.