Part 1 on Moral Theory:
A central debate in Classical Chinese philosophy is the debate over human nature. Although this debate crosses a number of traditions, the debate between Mengzi and Xunzi (two early Confucians) is the most well-known. Mengzi argues that human nature is good, by which he means (roughly) that each of us has innate feelings that, if cultivated, can be developed into full-fledged virtues. To argue for this view, he gives an example of someone seeing a child about to fall into a well. Mengzi claims that everyone would have an immediate and unreflective feeling of compassion upon seeing the child about to fall into the well. That the feeling is immediate and unreflective, and not motivated by gain, is evidence that it is a natural feeling, Mengzi thinks. The feeling is not motivated by gain, but it may still be stifled by it. If the bystander stands to profit from the death of the child, for example, they may let the child fall into the well. The feelings are merely “sprouts”:
They need to be cultivated to grow into virtues proper. By contrast, Xunzi claims that human nature is bad, by which he means (roughly) that each of us has innate dispositions which, if not constrained through learning and ritual, would, if acted on, lead to social strife and disorder. Xunzi has some of his own examples to illustrate how these dispositions lead to these bad outcomes, and how ritual and learning can constrain them. But he’s not as explicit as Mengzi in providing an argument that clearly demonstrates that they are innate. Write an essay in which you provide an example that supports Xunzi’s view of human nature, but that has the clear structure of Mengzi’s example of the child about to fall into the well. That is, give your own example, in which someone immediately and unreflectively has one of the ‘bad’ reactions described by Xunzi. Give your own example, but then also consider the common phenomenon of a spectator catching a fly ball at a baseball game. Everyone’s instinctive reaction seems to be to get the ball for themselves. The guy who graciously gives it to a nearby child after catching it seemingly only does so as a result of learning. Apply PDE reasoning, both to this baseball example, and also to your own example; i.e., be sure to identify:
(1) the object of the action (and whether it is good or bad or indifferent);
(2) the purpose of the action (and whether it is good or bad or indifferent);
(3) the intention behind the action (and whether it is good or bad); and
(4) the circumstances of the action (and whether they make the action more or less good, or more or less bad). Be sure to discuss all four components of the moral action involved in both examples (i.e., both in your own example and in the baseball game example). How would you resolve the debate over human nature? Does Mengzi win the debate, or does Xunzi? Should we distinguish between learned responses and innate responses?
Part 2 — ESSAY QUESTION #2 on Applied Ethics:
Read all of Chapter 5 in Rushkoff, Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus (pages 224–239): and also read Rushkoff’s one-page article on the extraction of value:
“Rich Customer, Rich Company” (see the PDF online at: ). Explain how our new media technologies can distribute value creation and enable a sustainable economy, instead of simply digitizing industrial extraction and growing even more capital that stays stored in share price. Contrast Rushkoff’s “digital distributism” with the three other types of economic operating systems (Rushkoff, Chapter 5, pages 225, 233), especially with digital industrialism. Explain how “digital distributism” is not leftism, but rather an emphasis on subsidiarity (Rushkoff, Chapter 5, pages 228-232, especially page 231) that retrieves key aspects of the artisan economy. Use the tetrad of Marshall McLuhan to compare the industrial corporation with a genuinely digital, distributist business (Rushkoff, Chapter 5, pages 237-238). In particular, what do you think of the business model of Bas van Abel’s “Fairphone” as an example for future commerce? View the “Fairphone” documentary before answering: .
