Additional material: https://cchu9014.weebly.com/additional-material1.html
Objectives for week 9:
- To examine the assumptions on human nature which underpin many prevalent philosophies, social theories and religious worldviews;
- To apply the notion of “dual human nature” as a framework for comparing different religious concepts on our “higher self” and “lower self”;
- To consider how Kohlberg’s model of stages of moral development can shed light on the progression from the lower self to the higher self, as well as the moral motivations of different types of social and religious behaviour;
- To reflect on how the world’s major religious traditions seek to protect and nurture the moral and spiritual development of humanity by connecting our inner spiritual nature with the ultimate spiritual reality through the mediation of a central, pivotal figure.
Introduction
When we discussed mindfulness meditation a few weeks ago, we considered observing things coming into our minds and letting them go. This kind of meditation is connected with certain Buddhist teachings about how we consider the self. From this perspective, what constitutes us is not something stable, but the comings and goings of the ideas and thoughts that come to our consciousness. We tend to see ourselves as a being that is stable and long-lasting; but these teachings and experiences lead us to question that that idea we have about ourselves; and we also questioned everything in our world.
Up until this week, in the previous lectures, we have been exploring a variety of ways of considering and questioning “who we are” and our relationship with the universe. We considered different types of ontologies or “operating systems”. In a naturalist or materialist ontology, a person is generally considered to be primarily a body with conscious subjectivity. In other ontologies, such as animism, analogism and Buddhism, we explored different types of mental operating systems.
Through exploring these different ontologies, we have questioned naturalism and materialism in different ways. Our questioning started with our discussion of Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, and their ideas of absurdity. If we really consider the world to be purely material without any meanings, significances and whatsoever – then the questions of “what are we” and “where are we going” will seem absurd. Then, we talked about mindfulness. We tried to detach our consciousness from itself – to step out of our own minds so as to look at our objects of consciousness. Next, we went to the other extreme to look at animism, which considers that everything has significance, and most things have consciousness and the capacity to communicate with human beings. That is a completely different way of relating with the world. These are very different ways of seeing “where we are”, “what we are”, and “what is our relationship with the world around us”.
Last week, we started to look more at processes of individual and social transformation. The question is no longer “how do we relate to the world”, but rather “how do we transform ourselves and the world”, as well as “what is the role of religious traditions in doing this” – although these questions are, of course, deeply interrelated. We are going to focus more on what are called “world religions” or “universal religions”, which have clear starting points in history, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, the Baha’i Faith, and so on. Many of the worldviews and practices we have discussed so far, are not “world religions” in the sense of a single tradition that has spread to different parts of the world. For example, animism is not a single religious tradition, but a certain type of religion that you can find in many different societies around the world. When we were talking about mythology and rituals, we were also looking at phenomena that we find across different religions and cultures. In our discussion of the enchanted body, although the focus was on Daoism, we were considering a certain type of relationship to the body, which can similarly be found in either Hindu or Tantric Buddhist traditions. In our observation of the mindscape through mindfulness meditation, we were also looking at a technique for observing our own minds; although it is commonly found in Buddhism it can also be applied in other religious traditions or outside of any religion.
Today, we’re going to start looking at some specific religious approaches to defining who we are, how we should act in the world, how we transform the world, and how the world transforms religions – the dimension of social change. The first half of the course was about questioning our ideas of what it is to be a human being. Now, we’re going to start looking at some very specific teachings of religions, that are not questioning what it is to be human, but saying very clearly what it means to be human.
I would like to draw your attention to the relationship between spirituality and religion, which we discussed at the very beginning of this course. Spirituality considers that there is “something” beyond the body and the material world, that there is “some” greater significance to life and to the universe; and then following a path of personal transformation to know and to connect with that “something”. Religion gives answers to what that “something” is. You may ask “what is the true meaning of life” or “what am I really”. Religion not only provides methods, techniques and practices that can make you ask those questions, but it also provides answers to such questions. It also gives descriptions or metaphors on the invisible order of the world, on what the universe is, what our place in it is, and how we should live our lives given that invisible order.
This brings us to questions of human nature on the one hand, and divinity – God or the ultimate reality – on the other, and to the question of the relationship between the two.
Up until this week, in the previous lectures, we have been exploring a variety of ways of considering and questioning “who we are” and our relationship with the universe. We considered different types of ontologies or “operating systems”. In a naturalist or materialist ontology, a person is generally considered to be primarily a body with conscious subjectivity. In other ontologies, such as animism, analogism and Buddhism, we explored different types of mental operating systems.
Through exploring these different ontologies, we have questioned naturalism and materialism in different ways. Our questioning started with our discussion of Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, and their ideas of absurdity. If we really consider the world to be purely material without any meanings, significances and whatsoever – then the questions of “what are we” and “where are we going” will seem absurd. Then, we talked about mindfulness. We tried to detach our consciousness from itself – to step out of our own minds so as to look at our objects of consciousness. Next, we went to the other extreme to look at animism, which considers that everything has significance, and most things have consciousness and the capacity to communicate with human beings. That is a completely different way of relating with the world. These are very different ways of seeing “where we are”, “what we are”, and “what is our relationship with the world around us”.
Last week, we started to look more at processes of individual and social transformation. The question is no longer “how do we relate to the world”, but rather “how do we transform ourselves and the world”, as well as “what is the role of religious traditions in doing this” – although these questions are, of course, deeply interrelated. We are going to focus more on what are called “world religions” or “universal religions”, which have clear starting points in history, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, the Baha’i Faith, and so on. Many of the worldviews and practices we have discussed so far, are not “world religions” in the sense of a single tradition that has spread to different parts of the world. For example, animism is not a single religious tradition, but a certain type of religion that you can find in many different societies around the world. When we were talking about mythology and rituals, we were also looking at phenomena that we find across different religions and cultures. In our discussion of the enchanted body, although the focus was on Daoism, we were considering a certain type of relationship to the body, which can similarly be found in either Hindu or Tantric Buddhist traditions. In our observation of the mindscape through mindfulness meditation, we were also looking at a technique for observing our own minds; although it is commonly found in Buddhism it can also be applied in other religious traditions or outside of any religion.
Today, we’re going to start looking at some specific religious approaches to defining who we are, how we should act in the world, how we transform the world, and how the world transforms religions – the dimension of social change. The first half of the course was about questioning our ideas of what it is to be a human being. Now, we’re going to start looking at some very specific teachings of religions, that are not questioning what it is to be human, but saying very clearly what it means to be human.
I would like to draw your attention to the relationship between spirituality and religion, which we discussed at the very beginning of this course. Spirituality considers that there is “something” beyond the body and the material world, that there is “some” greater significance to life and to the universe; and then following a path of personal transformation to know and to connect with that “something”. Religion gives answers to what that “something” is. You may ask “what is the true meaning of life” or “what am I really”. Religion not only provides methods, techniques and practices that can make you ask those questions, but it also provides answers to such questions. It also gives descriptions or metaphors on the invisible order of the world, on what the universe is, what our place in it is, and how we should live our lives given that invisible order.
This brings us to questions of human nature on the one hand, and divinity – God or the ultimate reality – on the other, and to the question of the relationship between the two.
Theories of human nature: Mencius and Xunzi
What does it mean to be human? Most people today, thinking within a naturalist ontology, would consider that to be a human being is to be a certain kind of animal, which happens to be more intelligent, and perhaps with a unique subjectivity. Homo Sapiens is a kind of animal that can make tools, talk, think, etc. Human beings are genetically nearly identical to chimpanzees. 98% of our genes are identical with those of chimpanzees, and 99% of our genes are identical to those of the bonobo. Thus genetically, we are only 1-2% different from our nearest animal relatives.
Philosophers have been debating about human nature for centuries, both in Chinese and Western philosophy. For instance, you all know of the debate about human nature between Mencius and Xunzi in China. Xunzi believed that people were born evil, and that education is necessary to make people good. On the contrary, Mencius believed that people were born good, but that lack of education would cause people to fall into evil. In fact, what Mencius and Xunzi wanted to achieve was the same. Both of them believed that morality is what defines humans, and that moral education is essential to nurturing our humanity – either to correct our innate evil, as for Xunzi, or to cultivate our innate goodness, as for Mencius. Without moral education, they agreed that the result would be the same – that humans would become inhuman.
Here are the words of Mencius on this topic:
Mencius said: All people have a heart that cannot stand to see the suffering of others. The ancient kings had this heart that could not stand to see the suffering of others, and, with this, operated a government that could not stand to see the suffering of the people. If, in this state of mind, you ran a government that could not endure people's suffering, you could govern the realm as if you were turning it in the palm of your hand.
Why do I say all human beings have a heart that cannot stand to see the suffering of others? Even nowadays, if an infant were about to fall into a well, anyone would be upset and concerned. This concern would not be due to the fact that the person wanted to get in good with the baby's parents, or because he wanted to improve his reputation among the community or among his circle of friends. Nor would it be because he was afraid of the criticism that might result from a show of non-concern.
From this point of view, we can say that if you did lack concern for the infant, you would not be human. Also, to lack a sense of shame and disgust would not be human; to lack a feeling of humility and deference is to be "in-human" and to lack a sense of right and wrong is to be inhuman.
The sense of concern for others is the starting point of humaneness (ren仁). The feeling of shame and disgust is the starting point of Righteousness (yi 義). The sense of humility and deference is the starting point of Propriety (li 禮) and the sense of right and wrong is the starting point of Wisdom (zhi 智).
People's having these four basic senses is like their having four limbs. Having these four basic senses and yet claiming inability to act on them is to cheat yourself. To say that the ruler doesn't have them is to cheat the ruler. Since all people have these four basic senses within themselves, they should all understand how to enhance and develop them. It is like when a fire just starts, or a spring first bubbles out of the ground. If you are able to develop these four basic senses, you will be able to take care of everybody within the four seas. If you do not develop them, you won't even be able to take care of your own parents.[1]
But can we really transform people through moral education? Can people be educated to become moral, to develop those “four limbs” of moral character? In student discussions in past years, many examples have been brought up to show that some people become morally better persons in their lives, while others become less moral and more self-centred. And it seems that the social environment – including education, but also other influences such as parents, friends, the media and so on – can be factors in these changes we see in people.
In considering this question, we first need to remember that there is a difference between education in general, and moral education in particular. Mencius said that we should start with moral education, onto which we can add other kinds of education. This is an important point, because in China, a lot of people consider that if you are well educated, you will be more moral. They think it’s not unusual for an uneducated farmer to commit a crime or act out of self-interest, but they are shocked when well-educated people behave immorally. The fact is, you may have a Ph.D. degree, and be the most knowledgeable and educated person in the world -- but if you don’t have a moral sense, you might do the worst things in the world. So the issue here is not education in general, but what kind of education can strengthen, preserve or develop our morality? Mencius and Xunzi held the belief that the appropriate kind of moral education can transform people, either making them better morally or protecting them from becoming morally worse. To them, human beings change, and the right kind of education could change human beings morally. They didn’t consider that people’s moral character – whether good or evil – remains unchanged forever.
Human beings can change morally, yet animals cannot. We can train animals. If we treat our pets or other animals well, after a while, they may become good to us. However, they cannot develop any moral sense through any kind of training. Only human beings can transform morally in either a positive or a negative way. It’s true that some children seem to naturally have very generous and caring dispositions – while it’s the opposite for other children. But no matter how they start off, can they be educated to become even better? Will a lack of moral education cause even good children to lose their moral qualities?
Philosophers have been debating about human nature for centuries, both in Chinese and Western philosophy. For instance, you all know of the debate about human nature between Mencius and Xunzi in China. Xunzi believed that people were born evil, and that education is necessary to make people good. On the contrary, Mencius believed that people were born good, but that lack of education would cause people to fall into evil. In fact, what Mencius and Xunzi wanted to achieve was the same. Both of them believed that morality is what defines humans, and that moral education is essential to nurturing our humanity – either to correct our innate evil, as for Xunzi, or to cultivate our innate goodness, as for Mencius. Without moral education, they agreed that the result would be the same – that humans would become inhuman.
Here are the words of Mencius on this topic:
Mencius said: All people have a heart that cannot stand to see the suffering of others. The ancient kings had this heart that could not stand to see the suffering of others, and, with this, operated a government that could not stand to see the suffering of the people. If, in this state of mind, you ran a government that could not endure people's suffering, you could govern the realm as if you were turning it in the palm of your hand.
Why do I say all human beings have a heart that cannot stand to see the suffering of others? Even nowadays, if an infant were about to fall into a well, anyone would be upset and concerned. This concern would not be due to the fact that the person wanted to get in good with the baby's parents, or because he wanted to improve his reputation among the community or among his circle of friends. Nor would it be because he was afraid of the criticism that might result from a show of non-concern.
From this point of view, we can say that if you did lack concern for the infant, you would not be human. Also, to lack a sense of shame and disgust would not be human; to lack a feeling of humility and deference is to be "in-human" and to lack a sense of right and wrong is to be inhuman.
The sense of concern for others is the starting point of humaneness (ren仁). The feeling of shame and disgust is the starting point of Righteousness (yi 義). The sense of humility and deference is the starting point of Propriety (li 禮) and the sense of right and wrong is the starting point of Wisdom (zhi 智).
People's having these four basic senses is like their having four limbs. Having these four basic senses and yet claiming inability to act on them is to cheat yourself. To say that the ruler doesn't have them is to cheat the ruler. Since all people have these four basic senses within themselves, they should all understand how to enhance and develop them. It is like when a fire just starts, or a spring first bubbles out of the ground. If you are able to develop these four basic senses, you will be able to take care of everybody within the four seas. If you do not develop them, you won't even be able to take care of your own parents.[1]
But can we really transform people through moral education? Can people be educated to become moral, to develop those “four limbs” of moral character? In student discussions in past years, many examples have been brought up to show that some people become morally better persons in their lives, while others become less moral and more self-centred. And it seems that the social environment – including education, but also other influences such as parents, friends, the media and so on – can be factors in these changes we see in people.
In considering this question, we first need to remember that there is a difference between education in general, and moral education in particular. Mencius said that we should start with moral education, onto which we can add other kinds of education. This is an important point, because in China, a lot of people consider that if you are well educated, you will be more moral. They think it’s not unusual for an uneducated farmer to commit a crime or act out of self-interest, but they are shocked when well-educated people behave immorally. The fact is, you may have a Ph.D. degree, and be the most knowledgeable and educated person in the world -- but if you don’t have a moral sense, you might do the worst things in the world. So the issue here is not education in general, but what kind of education can strengthen, preserve or develop our morality? Mencius and Xunzi held the belief that the appropriate kind of moral education can transform people, either making them better morally or protecting them from becoming morally worse. To them, human beings change, and the right kind of education could change human beings morally. They didn’t consider that people’s moral character – whether good or evil – remains unchanged forever.
Human beings can change morally, yet animals cannot. We can train animals. If we treat our pets or other animals well, after a while, they may become good to us. However, they cannot develop any moral sense through any kind of training. Only human beings can transform morally in either a positive or a negative way. It’s true that some children seem to naturally have very generous and caring dispositions – while it’s the opposite for other children. But no matter how they start off, can they be educated to become even better? Will a lack of moral education cause even good children to lose their moral qualities?
Theories of human nature: humans as essentially selfish
The European philosophers of the 17th and 18th century, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes, also debated about human nature. It was a different debate, yet it had something in common with Xunzi and Mencius, because it was also about whether humans have inmate goodness or not. Rousseau was sometimes associated with the idea of the “noble savage”, which we discussed before. He considered that before they had any education or culture, humans were wild, but they were good and pure. But then, sophisticated culture and education have actually made humans lose their purity and simplicity. According to this view, humans have an innately good nature.
On the contrary, Hobbes said that life is “nasty, brutish and short”.[2] All humans do is to struggle and fight against each other in their pursuit of self-interest. He saw human beings in a totally materialistic way, considering them to be only matter in motion. Humans are just like machines without a moral sense inside them.
Nowadays, we could say that some of the most prevalent theories that structure our social, political and economic life are derived from Hobbes. These theories are called “materialist reductionism”. At the core of most theories of economics, biology, and sociology, human beings are considered to be innately selfish. Of course, I am simplifying things, as there are many different theories with many variations. Nevertheless, most prevalent theories in biology, social science, economics and politics share similar basic assumptions about human nature.
Let’s take “rational choice theory” in economics as an example. It is the core theory in economics, and it has spread to other disciplines such as psychology and even sociology. It is an extremely influential theory with a very clear belief about human nature. It is a theory about what humans are, and what motivates human beings. It considers that humans are motivated to maximise their self-interest. They always make rational choices that maximise their benefits but minimise their costs. All human behaviour, according to this theory, can be explained by understanding how people try to maximise their utility – their self-interest. Therefore, human beings are essentially and fundamentally self-interested. According to this theory, even when people are acting selflessly, they are, in effect, being selfish. That is to say, even when they are being charitable, generous, kind to others and so on, they are maximising their self-interest in another way.
How could that be? For people who publicly do charity publicly, they are maximising their self-interest by engendering others’ good impression of them, improving their reputation, and so on. Moreover, even if they do charity secretly or privately, doing charity gives them a feeling of subjective well-being, which means they are acting in a self-interested way. According to this theory of human nature, humans can only be selfish, and are selfish all the time. Every type of behaviour you see in the world is only a different form of being selfish. For example, if I am speaking kindly to you now, it’s because I’m selfish – because I might benefit from your appreciation. If I yell at you, it is another way of being selfish. And the same, if I beat you. Whether I am honest with you or deceive you, these are different ways of maximising self-interest; depending on which one brings the most utility, I will choose to be honest or deceitful based on the circumstances. If I give you a good grade, it is one way of maximising my self-interest; and if I give you a bad grade, it’s another way of maximising utility for me. These are simply different ways of being selfish and maximising utility. Basically, rational choice theory reduces all human activities to one motivation – every human being has exactly the same motivation: to maximise self-interest. There are differences only because people have different definitions of their self-interest, and they have different information that leads them to make different choices.
I am painting a caricature of rational choice here, and I don’t want to belittle its explanatory power in many situations. But I just want to emphasise that although it claims to be an economic theory, it is based on a very strong belief – faith, I might say – in the deepest motivation of human behaviour.
There are other powerful theories that we should consider. Let’s think of Darwinian evolutionary theory. According to evolutionary theory in biology, evolution is operated by natural selection to the extent that individuals can transmit and spread their genes to the next generations. The basic drive of an individual in his or her life is to make more copies of his or her genes by passing them down to his offspring. What drives every individual is the overriding desire to have the most successful offspring, who can survive and carries the same gene. A man wants to have sexual intercourse with as many women as possible so that his genes can be spread out as widely as possible. It’s a self-interested drive. Humans exist only to reproduce their own genes.
In sociology, many theories are based on power. The idea is that individuals and groups are always engaged in a perpetual struggle for power. They struggle to impose their power on others, or to maximise their power over others, or, if they are weaker groups, they try to struggle for their empowerment. No matter whether we are talking about individuals or about groups, about the strong or about the weak, social life boils down to a struggle for power. So again, individuals or groups are fundamentally self-interested. Self-interest is the dominant paradigm of most of the dominant theories in the social sciences, in public policy, in economics and in politics. The postulate is that human nature is simply self-interested – that is what humans are, and that humans can never change.
Now, just think about these questions. Are human beings only self-interested? Or are they both self-interested and not self-interested? Can all of our behaviour be boiled down to a single basic motive, or do we have a more complex human nature?
On the contrary, Hobbes said that life is “nasty, brutish and short”.[2] All humans do is to struggle and fight against each other in their pursuit of self-interest. He saw human beings in a totally materialistic way, considering them to be only matter in motion. Humans are just like machines without a moral sense inside them.
Nowadays, we could say that some of the most prevalent theories that structure our social, political and economic life are derived from Hobbes. These theories are called “materialist reductionism”. At the core of most theories of economics, biology, and sociology, human beings are considered to be innately selfish. Of course, I am simplifying things, as there are many different theories with many variations. Nevertheless, most prevalent theories in biology, social science, economics and politics share similar basic assumptions about human nature.
Let’s take “rational choice theory” in economics as an example. It is the core theory in economics, and it has spread to other disciplines such as psychology and even sociology. It is an extremely influential theory with a very clear belief about human nature. It is a theory about what humans are, and what motivates human beings. It considers that humans are motivated to maximise their self-interest. They always make rational choices that maximise their benefits but minimise their costs. All human behaviour, according to this theory, can be explained by understanding how people try to maximise their utility – their self-interest. Therefore, human beings are essentially and fundamentally self-interested. According to this theory, even when people are acting selflessly, they are, in effect, being selfish. That is to say, even when they are being charitable, generous, kind to others and so on, they are maximising their self-interest in another way.
How could that be? For people who publicly do charity publicly, they are maximising their self-interest by engendering others’ good impression of them, improving their reputation, and so on. Moreover, even if they do charity secretly or privately, doing charity gives them a feeling of subjective well-being, which means they are acting in a self-interested way. According to this theory of human nature, humans can only be selfish, and are selfish all the time. Every type of behaviour you see in the world is only a different form of being selfish. For example, if I am speaking kindly to you now, it’s because I’m selfish – because I might benefit from your appreciation. If I yell at you, it is another way of being selfish. And the same, if I beat you. Whether I am honest with you or deceive you, these are different ways of maximising self-interest; depending on which one brings the most utility, I will choose to be honest or deceitful based on the circumstances. If I give you a good grade, it is one way of maximising my self-interest; and if I give you a bad grade, it’s another way of maximising utility for me. These are simply different ways of being selfish and maximising utility. Basically, rational choice theory reduces all human activities to one motivation – every human being has exactly the same motivation: to maximise self-interest. There are differences only because people have different definitions of their self-interest, and they have different information that leads them to make different choices.
I am painting a caricature of rational choice here, and I don’t want to belittle its explanatory power in many situations. But I just want to emphasise that although it claims to be an economic theory, it is based on a very strong belief – faith, I might say – in the deepest motivation of human behaviour.
There are other powerful theories that we should consider. Let’s think of Darwinian evolutionary theory. According to evolutionary theory in biology, evolution is operated by natural selection to the extent that individuals can transmit and spread their genes to the next generations. The basic drive of an individual in his or her life is to make more copies of his or her genes by passing them down to his offspring. What drives every individual is the overriding desire to have the most successful offspring, who can survive and carries the same gene. A man wants to have sexual intercourse with as many women as possible so that his genes can be spread out as widely as possible. It’s a self-interested drive. Humans exist only to reproduce their own genes.
In sociology, many theories are based on power. The idea is that individuals and groups are always engaged in a perpetual struggle for power. They struggle to impose their power on others, or to maximise their power over others, or, if they are weaker groups, they try to struggle for their empowerment. No matter whether we are talking about individuals or about groups, about the strong or about the weak, social life boils down to a struggle for power. So again, individuals or groups are fundamentally self-interested. Self-interest is the dominant paradigm of most of the dominant theories in the social sciences, in public policy, in economics and in politics. The postulate is that human nature is simply self-interested – that is what humans are, and that humans can never change.
Now, just think about these questions. Are human beings only self-interested? Or are they both self-interested and not self-interested? Can all of our behaviour be boiled down to a single basic motive, or do we have a more complex human nature?
The duality of human nature in religious teachings
Evolution has made us such that, for the imperative of animal survival, we have a strong concept of self and tend to revolve all our thoughts and actions around the ego, its survival, its desires and its power. But the ego is an illusion, both from a material and spiritual perspective. Materially, our bodies are ephemeral combinations of ever-changing molecules and cells. Spiritually, attachment to the ego is the ultimate cause of suffering and evil, of division between humans and alienation from the world and from reality. Religious teachings aim to free us from this attachment to the ego, and prescribe concepts and practices to align us to another understanding of ourselves, understood as our higher self or spiritual nature – one which is at one with others, with the universe and with the ultimate reality. Within the different religious traditions, there are different understandings of the ego, of our spiritual nature, of the ultimate reality, and of the foundational spiritual teachers and divine figures who are mediators between humans and the ultimate reality.
Most religious traditions consider that human beings have a dual nature. In spite of the fact that the world’s major world religious traditions, such as Daoism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam, have different theories and conceptions of human nature, they have one thing in common – a discourse on the complexity of human nature, which can be summed up as a dual understanding of human nature. A person has both a good side and a bad side, so to speak. In some traditions, the bad side comes first or is the most important (e.g., Xunzi’s view of human nature, or the doctrine of original sin in Christianity). In other traditions, the good side comes first, or is more important (e.g. Mencius). Either way, however, there is always the idea that we have both, and that we can change. We can’t be reduced to a single motive.
Religious scriptures often use different terms to describe human nature as twofold reality: the higher and the lower self, our divine and our animal nature, the everlasting and the perishable, the earthly and the heavenly, the material and the spiritual, the immortal soul and the mortal body... These two aspects of human nature co-exist and yet stand in contrast. The relative strength and weakness of these two sides of human nature are manifested in our daily actions and choices.
Religious texts usually consider that the true reality of human beings is their spiritual or higher nature, and is what distinguishes man from other beings. Our “spirituality” can be contrasted to our “animality” or to our “materiality”. In the Abrahamic tradition, humans are created “in the image of God”, and have the capacity to reflect divine attributes in this world – but our rebellion against divinity causes us to sin and prevents us from reaching our spiritual station. In the Buddhist tradition, our true nature is our “Buddha-nature” (foxing 佛性), which is the source of our true knowledge, wisdom and compassion – but our attachments and desires cause us to turn away from our true nature in ignorance. In the Daoist tradition, the more we connect with our true nature, the more we will be in harmony with Dao – but the more we crave for fame and fortune, the more we disconnect ourselves from this original harmony. In the Confucian tradition, our “heavenly nature” (tianxing 天性) allows us to act with authentic nobility (junzi 君子) – but petty-mindedness (xiaoren 小人) prevents us from reaching our true potential.
In all of these traditions, each individual decides, through his own thoughts and actions, to express either the higher or the lower side of his nature. According to this view, humans are beings endowed with some degree of free will, the faculty of rational thinking, and consciousness of the spiritual dimension of reality. Religious scriptures often prescribe a process of spiritual growth, transformation or transcendence, through which we strive to live according to our true spiritual nature. The journey of life can be understood as a dynamic process of continuously making choices, experiencing consequences, and reflecting on our ultimate purpose, within the spectrum of this human duality.
This idea is expressed in a simple fashion through this story of the “two wolves inside us” circulated in popular culture and usually attributed to a native American tribe:
Most religious traditions consider that human beings have a dual nature. In spite of the fact that the world’s major world religious traditions, such as Daoism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam, have different theories and conceptions of human nature, they have one thing in common – a discourse on the complexity of human nature, which can be summed up as a dual understanding of human nature. A person has both a good side and a bad side, so to speak. In some traditions, the bad side comes first or is the most important (e.g., Xunzi’s view of human nature, or the doctrine of original sin in Christianity). In other traditions, the good side comes first, or is more important (e.g. Mencius). Either way, however, there is always the idea that we have both, and that we can change. We can’t be reduced to a single motive.
Religious scriptures often use different terms to describe human nature as twofold reality: the higher and the lower self, our divine and our animal nature, the everlasting and the perishable, the earthly and the heavenly, the material and the spiritual, the immortal soul and the mortal body... These two aspects of human nature co-exist and yet stand in contrast. The relative strength and weakness of these two sides of human nature are manifested in our daily actions and choices.
Religious texts usually consider that the true reality of human beings is their spiritual or higher nature, and is what distinguishes man from other beings. Our “spirituality” can be contrasted to our “animality” or to our “materiality”. In the Abrahamic tradition, humans are created “in the image of God”, and have the capacity to reflect divine attributes in this world – but our rebellion against divinity causes us to sin and prevents us from reaching our spiritual station. In the Buddhist tradition, our true nature is our “Buddha-nature” (foxing 佛性), which is the source of our true knowledge, wisdom and compassion – but our attachments and desires cause us to turn away from our true nature in ignorance. In the Daoist tradition, the more we connect with our true nature, the more we will be in harmony with Dao – but the more we crave for fame and fortune, the more we disconnect ourselves from this original harmony. In the Confucian tradition, our “heavenly nature” (tianxing 天性) allows us to act with authentic nobility (junzi 君子) – but petty-mindedness (xiaoren 小人) prevents us from reaching our true potential.
In all of these traditions, each individual decides, through his own thoughts and actions, to express either the higher or the lower side of his nature. According to this view, humans are beings endowed with some degree of free will, the faculty of rational thinking, and consciousness of the spiritual dimension of reality. Religious scriptures often prescribe a process of spiritual growth, transformation or transcendence, through which we strive to live according to our true spiritual nature. The journey of life can be understood as a dynamic process of continuously making choices, experiencing consequences, and reflecting on our ultimate purpose, within the spectrum of this human duality.
This idea is expressed in a simple fashion through this story of the “two wolves inside us” circulated in popular culture and usually attributed to a native American tribe:
One way of looking at this, is to say that there are two levels of human nature. One is our biological nature, which follows the laws of Darwinian evolution. At this biological level, human nature is the product of evolution, which is about survival and genetic reproduction. Our biological nature gives us the drive to survive, which is self-interested. It is driven to meet our physical needs, and to fulfil our physical purpose and function. At that level, all of us always see the world from the self-interested perspective of our biology, just like any animal that, at the end of the day, is concerned for its own survival.
But then, there is another level, which could be called our spiritual nature. At this level we go beyond our animal or material nature. Something in us follows higher values or spiritual principles, and sees the world beyond our own self-interest, from the perspective of all of humanity or even the whole universe.
Religions consider that we all have this spiritual nature within us. In the traditions of these major world religions, this nature is described in different ways. It is called, for example, the “soul”, the “Buddha nature” (the idea that our true nature is the same as the Buddha), or the “heavenly nature” (there is something heavenly in us a), “we are created in the image of God” as in the Bible (something in us is as perfect as God), or our “higher nature” or “higher self” (as understood in Hinduism). There are many different ways of expressing the same idea – that there is something in our nature that transcends our self-interest.
Here are some passages from different religious scriptures that express different facets of this idea:
Once upon a time a king gathered some blind men about an elephant and asked them to tell him what an elephant was like. The first man felt a tusk and said an elephant was like a giant carrot; another happened to touch an ear and said it was like a big fan; another touched its trunk and said it was like a pestle; still another, who happened to feel its leg, said it was like a mortar; and another, who grasped its tail said it was like a rope. Not one of them was able to tell the king the elephant’s real form. In like manner, one might partially describe the nature of man but would not be able to describe the true nature of a human being, the Buddha-nature. (Buddhism: Udana, 6.4)
It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable and immutable. Knowing this, you should not grieve for the body. (Hinduism: Bhagavad Gita, 2:25)
They ask you concerning the Soul. Say: 'It is one of the things, the knowledge of which is only with my Lord." (Islam: Qur'an 17: 85)
Thou hast asked Me concerning the nature of the soul. Know, verily, that the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel. … Verily I say, the human soul is, in its essence, one of the signs of God, a mystery among his mysteries. (Baha’i: Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, LXXXII).
Mencius said: 'He who gets to the bottom of his heart comes to know his own nature; knowing his own nature, he also knows Heaven. Preserving one's mind in its integrity and nourishing one's nature is the way to serve Heaven. (Confucianism: Mencius)[3]
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Bible: New International Version, Genesis 1:27)
Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? (Bible: English Standard Version, I Corinthians, 3.16-17)
Your Lord said to the angels, "I am creating a human being from aged mud, like the potter's clay. Once I perfect him, and blow into him from My spirit, you shall fall prostrate before him." (Islam: Qur’an 15:28-29)
There is an old story told of a man who fell into a drunken sleep. His friend stayed by him as long as he could but, being compelled to go and fearing that he might be in want, the friend hid a jewel in the drunken man’s garment. When the drunken man recovered, not knowing that his friend had hid a jewel in his garment, he wandered about in poverty and hunger. A long time afterwards the two men met again and the friend told the poor man about the jewel and advised him to look for it. Like the drunken man of the study, people wander about suffering in this life of birth and death, unconscious of what is hidden away in their inner nature, pure and untarnished, the priceless treasure of Buddha-nature.” (Buddhism: Saddharmapundarika sutra 7 and Suramgama sutra)
Thou art even as a finely tempered sword concealed in the darkness of its sheath and its value hidden from the artificer's knowledge. Wherefore come forth from the sheath of self and desire that thy worth may be made resplendent and manifest unto all the world. (Baha’i: The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, 72)
Gongduzi asks, “We are the same in being humans. Yet some become great humans and some become petty humans. Why?” Mencius replies, “those who follow their greater part become great humans 君子; Those who follow their petty part become petty humans 小人.” (Confucianism: Mencius, 6A15)
In this idea of the duality of human nature, then, man has an animal or lower nature, on the one hand; and a spiritual or a higher nature, on the other. The lower nature is self-centred, selfish or self-interested, whilst the higher nature is selfless, altruistic or spiritual.
The concern for these religious and philosophical traditions, then, is how we can protect, rescue, develop or strengthen this spiritual nature. From the perspective of Mencius and Xunzi, it is about how to educate our spiritual nature to make it stronger and stronger. From the perspective of Daoism, it is how to transform it from a condition of “turbidity” (zhuo 濁) to a condition of “purity and tranquillity” (qingjing 清靜) at one with Dao. From the perspective of Buddhism, it is how to “awaken” it from a condition of illusion and ignorance, to knowledge of its true spiritual nature. From the perspective of Christianity, it is about how to prevent it from falling into sin, or to rescue it from sin into salvation. From the perspective of Islam, it is about how to lead it from a condition of pride to a condition of humility and submission before God. No matter how it is expressed, the question of spiritual transformation, education or salvation is fundamental in these different traditions.
But then, there is another level, which could be called our spiritual nature. At this level we go beyond our animal or material nature. Something in us follows higher values or spiritual principles, and sees the world beyond our own self-interest, from the perspective of all of humanity or even the whole universe.
Religions consider that we all have this spiritual nature within us. In the traditions of these major world religions, this nature is described in different ways. It is called, for example, the “soul”, the “Buddha nature” (the idea that our true nature is the same as the Buddha), or the “heavenly nature” (there is something heavenly in us a), “we are created in the image of God” as in the Bible (something in us is as perfect as God), or our “higher nature” or “higher self” (as understood in Hinduism). There are many different ways of expressing the same idea – that there is something in our nature that transcends our self-interest.
Here are some passages from different religious scriptures that express different facets of this idea:
Once upon a time a king gathered some blind men about an elephant and asked them to tell him what an elephant was like. The first man felt a tusk and said an elephant was like a giant carrot; another happened to touch an ear and said it was like a big fan; another touched its trunk and said it was like a pestle; still another, who happened to feel its leg, said it was like a mortar; and another, who grasped its tail said it was like a rope. Not one of them was able to tell the king the elephant’s real form. In like manner, one might partially describe the nature of man but would not be able to describe the true nature of a human being, the Buddha-nature. (Buddhism: Udana, 6.4)
It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable and immutable. Knowing this, you should not grieve for the body. (Hinduism: Bhagavad Gita, 2:25)
They ask you concerning the Soul. Say: 'It is one of the things, the knowledge of which is only with my Lord." (Islam: Qur'an 17: 85)
Thou hast asked Me concerning the nature of the soul. Know, verily, that the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel. … Verily I say, the human soul is, in its essence, one of the signs of God, a mystery among his mysteries. (Baha’i: Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, LXXXII).
Mencius said: 'He who gets to the bottom of his heart comes to know his own nature; knowing his own nature, he also knows Heaven. Preserving one's mind in its integrity and nourishing one's nature is the way to serve Heaven. (Confucianism: Mencius)[3]
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Bible: New International Version, Genesis 1:27)
Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? (Bible: English Standard Version, I Corinthians, 3.16-17)
Your Lord said to the angels, "I am creating a human being from aged mud, like the potter's clay. Once I perfect him, and blow into him from My spirit, you shall fall prostrate before him." (Islam: Qur’an 15:28-29)
There is an old story told of a man who fell into a drunken sleep. His friend stayed by him as long as he could but, being compelled to go and fearing that he might be in want, the friend hid a jewel in the drunken man’s garment. When the drunken man recovered, not knowing that his friend had hid a jewel in his garment, he wandered about in poverty and hunger. A long time afterwards the two men met again and the friend told the poor man about the jewel and advised him to look for it. Like the drunken man of the study, people wander about suffering in this life of birth and death, unconscious of what is hidden away in their inner nature, pure and untarnished, the priceless treasure of Buddha-nature.” (Buddhism: Saddharmapundarika sutra 7 and Suramgama sutra)
Thou art even as a finely tempered sword concealed in the darkness of its sheath and its value hidden from the artificer's knowledge. Wherefore come forth from the sheath of self and desire that thy worth may be made resplendent and manifest unto all the world. (Baha’i: The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, 72)
Gongduzi asks, “We are the same in being humans. Yet some become great humans and some become petty humans. Why?” Mencius replies, “those who follow their greater part become great humans 君子; Those who follow their petty part become petty humans 小人.” (Confucianism: Mencius, 6A15)
In this idea of the duality of human nature, then, man has an animal or lower nature, on the one hand; and a spiritual or a higher nature, on the other. The lower nature is self-centred, selfish or self-interested, whilst the higher nature is selfless, altruistic or spiritual.
The concern for these religious and philosophical traditions, then, is how we can protect, rescue, develop or strengthen this spiritual nature. From the perspective of Mencius and Xunzi, it is about how to educate our spiritual nature to make it stronger and stronger. From the perspective of Daoism, it is how to transform it from a condition of “turbidity” (zhuo 濁) to a condition of “purity and tranquillity” (qingjing 清靜) at one with Dao. From the perspective of Buddhism, it is how to “awaken” it from a condition of illusion and ignorance, to knowledge of its true spiritual nature. From the perspective of Christianity, it is about how to prevent it from falling into sin, or to rescue it from sin into salvation. From the perspective of Islam, it is about how to lead it from a condition of pride to a condition of humility and submission before God. No matter how it is expressed, the question of spiritual transformation, education or salvation is fundamental in these different traditions.
Kohlberg’s stages of moral development
The relationship between religion and ethics is not a simple one. Research has shown that we have the natural capacity to act morally or not and to make moral judgements, regardless of religion. The question, then, is, can spirituality and religion strengthen or reinforce our natural moral instincts, and restrict our amoral ones? In other roles, what role can spirituality and religion play in our moral development? The answer is not simple. According to the psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg, humans can potentially go through six stages of moral development. Later, Kohlberg also speculated on a possible seventh stage, of “Transcendental morality”, or “morality of cosmic orientation”.[4] Below is a chart of the six first stages.[5] From this chart, we can see that different forms of social and religious behaviour correspond to each stage of moral development.
Kohlberg’s basic idea was that as human beings grow up, they go through different stages of moral development. As babies, little children, older children, adolescents and adults, we have respective moral thinking at these different stages of life. These different stages have quite different ways of understanding morality. Of course, there is room to quibble about the specific details of these stages; for example, it may not be the case that we go through the stages that particular order. However, what is important is that Kohlberg does describe different types of morality very well.
Kohlberg talked about three different levels of moral development: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. The more you go down this list, the less self-centred the type of morality is – the more it really takes to heart the needs of others.
At what Kohlberg called the “pre-conventional” stage, we find what is actually a rather self-centred morality. The pre-conventional level refers to the stages at which we don’t really care much about social conventions, but are concerned primarily with ourselves. We act morally to avoid punishment or to get rewards.
The “conventional” here refers to social convention. At this conventional level, we simply follow the conventions of social behaviour, and act morally in order to gain the approval of other people in society. At the level of “post-conventional” morality, we become critical of social conventions from a moral perspective. We may find that social conventions are actually hypocritical; they are not necessarily moral. Therefore, at this level, to be a moral person does not necessarily imply following social conventions.
Kohlberg talked about three different levels of moral development: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. The more you go down this list, the less self-centred the type of morality is – the more it really takes to heart the needs of others.
At what Kohlberg called the “pre-conventional” stage, we find what is actually a rather self-centred morality. The pre-conventional level refers to the stages at which we don’t really care much about social conventions, but are concerned primarily with ourselves. We act morally to avoid punishment or to get rewards.
The “conventional” here refers to social convention. At this conventional level, we simply follow the conventions of social behaviour, and act morally in order to gain the approval of other people in society. At the level of “post-conventional” morality, we become critical of social conventions from a moral perspective. We may find that social conventions are actually hypocritical; they are not necessarily moral. Therefore, at this level, to be a moral person does not necessarily imply following social conventions.
Religion and the stages of moral development
Different types of religious behaviour also match with these types of moral stages. For example, if we look at Stage I – “obedience and punishment-driven morality” – what is right or wrong is determined by what is punishable. Moral action is essentially the avoidance of punishment. For example, little children cannot understand why they should act in certain ways. Therefore, we often train little children by means of punishment, because they don’t know how to reason morally. Likewise, it is a perfect way to train animals like horses and dogs, through reward and punishment. But this stage of moral development can also be found in religion. For example, the idea that if you do good, God will reward you; if you do bad, God will punish you. The purpose to be moral in this world is simply to avoid those punishments. In other words, why we should be good in this world is simply to avoid going to hell. “I don’t know why I shouldn’t do this, but I am afraid of going to hell, so I won't do this thing”. That is a very widespread type of understanding of religion.
In stage 2, we also have morality driven by self-interest. Here, what is right or wrong is determined by what brings rewards, and what other people want. Other people’s wants and needs come into the picture, but only in a reciprocal sense, i.e., to obtain a certain type of reward from another person. This is like the Chinese idea of guanxi or the Chinese way of using connections. I do something for somebody; but in my mind, I expect that person to do something back for me. This is self-interest-driven morality. People are good to others, but this goodness is driven by their self-interest. They are seeking for some kind of benefit from the people they are being good to. We see this in religion too. For example, when people go to a temple, like Wong Tai Sin Temple or a Guanyin Temple, they often try to “make a bargain” with the god: “I buy the incense and worship you, and give a donation to your temple, so you should give me what I want.” First, I offer a gift to the god, like burning incense, donating money, offering animal sacrifices, and so on. But I’m giving that in the hope of receiving something in return. I want the god to make me healthy or rich, or to give me a good grade, or to succeed in a business deal. And so, if the prayer is answered -- you actually get a very good grade or you make big profit from your business – you will return to the temple, and thank the god, giving more gifts back in return. This is a self-interest-driven transactional relationship. You are being good to the person or the god, because you want something in return from that person or that god. That’s “pre-conventional” morality. Why do we call it pre-conventional? Because it is self-interested morality. You’re being moral simply because you are afraid of punishment or because you expect something from somebody.
Now let’s consider the “conventional” stage. This is the stage in which being moral means to follow the expectations of the collective group. What the majority thinks is morally right is right by definition. Last year, a student mentioned the example of giving our seats to the elderly or the pregnant in the MTR. He said this belongs to conventional morality because we assume that as teenagers, we are healthier so that we should help older people who need our seats. We are doing this not because we want to, but because we are under a certain pressure. So, when I see an elderly person standing there, I don’t want to stand up and give my seat to this person; I really want to keep this seat. However, if I don’t stand up, everybody is going to look at me, as if they were saying ‘Who do you think you are? You are so selfish. Don’t you care about others?’ Because I don’t want anybody to look at me like that, I’m going to stand up, and be a good person. That is morality following social convention – simply doing what everybody in this society or culture considers to be moral. These are the things that you have to do, because if you don’t do them, people may think you are a bad or selfish person.
However, in your heart, maybe you don’t want to do these things at all. In fact, maybe most people don’t want to do it. But most people are doing it, because that’s the convention. There might be hypocrisy in this kind of activity. But at the same time, conventional morality does work for enforcing certain norms – so that the elderly can count on having a seat, even if most people are, secretly, not willing to give them a seat. Another example is public charity. Everyone thinks that it is good. A lot of people do it, because it makes them look good. People do charity because it is what is expected, rather than what they want to do. Companies even do it for public relations.
We also see conventional morality operating in religion. For example, there are people who go to church even though they don’t really believe in God or in the church teachings. Because in terms of social tradition and convention, in this neighbourhood, village or family, everybody considers that a good person will go to church. Because of that, if you are following conventional morality, you will go to church, even though you don’t believe in God. On Sundays, at church, people may be dressing up their Sunday best – looking elegant, polite, civilised and kind. But as soon as they go out of the church, who knows what they’re up to in the rest of their life? To give another example, in some Muslim countries, everybody prays outside, whenever there is a call to prayer. Many of those people, in their minds, are not thinking about their prayer at all. If they want to be seen as good people, they need to publicly show that they are very pious. All these are examples of conventional morality – being moral simply out of convention.
In Stage 4 of Conventional morality, being a good person consists in doing one’s duty, showing respect for authority, and maintaining the social order. Unquestioning acceptance of authority is considered to be the moral thing to do. This is something we see in most traditional societies and religious communities.
Finally, we advance to “post-conventional” morality. This is a kind of morality that is actually critical of social convention and thus does not necessarily follow social convention. On the contrary, it might even consider social convention to be hypocritical or immoral. At this level, we have Stage 5 that is based on the “social contract”. This is what Western liberalism is based on. Everybody has his or her interests. But to live together, everybody will come to a social contract so as to maintain his or her own interests on the one hand, and to respect the interests of others on the other hand. In this social contract, everyone has their own individual human rights. If social convention does not respect individual rights, the moral thing to do is to disregard the social convention and uphold individual rights.
Now, let’s go to Stage 6, which is driven by universal ethical principles. The idea of this stage is that moral action is driven by inner conscience, which may not be in agreement with the public opinion or the law. People at this stage may actually consider that the convention is actually immoral. Society is hypocritical, as customs or social conventions are morally wrong, including religious customs and conventions. Therefore, people follow their own conscience, trying to apply universal ethical principles. They follow these principles because they believe that the principles are right, and we should do what is right. It is not because I want to have a contract with somebody, or to find a way to negotiate my self-interests with somebody – it’s because I have a deep conviction that equality is right and must be upheld. It is right not because other people think it is right, and not because it brings me benefits, but simply because it is right, and so, I’m going to do something about it. For example, I may believe that justice and freedom are right. Hence, I’m going to fight for that, because I firmly believe in it. I don’t do it because other people want me to respect justice or freedom. I will follow these principles, even when people disagree with me. So this is no longer conventional morality. It is not about following conventions, and it may even be about breaking them. Here, as an example, we can think of the young French revolutionaries in the film Les Miserables.
In stage 2, we also have morality driven by self-interest. Here, what is right or wrong is determined by what brings rewards, and what other people want. Other people’s wants and needs come into the picture, but only in a reciprocal sense, i.e., to obtain a certain type of reward from another person. This is like the Chinese idea of guanxi or the Chinese way of using connections. I do something for somebody; but in my mind, I expect that person to do something back for me. This is self-interest-driven morality. People are good to others, but this goodness is driven by their self-interest. They are seeking for some kind of benefit from the people they are being good to. We see this in religion too. For example, when people go to a temple, like Wong Tai Sin Temple or a Guanyin Temple, they often try to “make a bargain” with the god: “I buy the incense and worship you, and give a donation to your temple, so you should give me what I want.” First, I offer a gift to the god, like burning incense, donating money, offering animal sacrifices, and so on. But I’m giving that in the hope of receiving something in return. I want the god to make me healthy or rich, or to give me a good grade, or to succeed in a business deal. And so, if the prayer is answered -- you actually get a very good grade or you make big profit from your business – you will return to the temple, and thank the god, giving more gifts back in return. This is a self-interest-driven transactional relationship. You are being good to the person or the god, because you want something in return from that person or that god. That’s “pre-conventional” morality. Why do we call it pre-conventional? Because it is self-interested morality. You’re being moral simply because you are afraid of punishment or because you expect something from somebody.
Now let’s consider the “conventional” stage. This is the stage in which being moral means to follow the expectations of the collective group. What the majority thinks is morally right is right by definition. Last year, a student mentioned the example of giving our seats to the elderly or the pregnant in the MTR. He said this belongs to conventional morality because we assume that as teenagers, we are healthier so that we should help older people who need our seats. We are doing this not because we want to, but because we are under a certain pressure. So, when I see an elderly person standing there, I don’t want to stand up and give my seat to this person; I really want to keep this seat. However, if I don’t stand up, everybody is going to look at me, as if they were saying ‘Who do you think you are? You are so selfish. Don’t you care about others?’ Because I don’t want anybody to look at me like that, I’m going to stand up, and be a good person. That is morality following social convention – simply doing what everybody in this society or culture considers to be moral. These are the things that you have to do, because if you don’t do them, people may think you are a bad or selfish person.
However, in your heart, maybe you don’t want to do these things at all. In fact, maybe most people don’t want to do it. But most people are doing it, because that’s the convention. There might be hypocrisy in this kind of activity. But at the same time, conventional morality does work for enforcing certain norms – so that the elderly can count on having a seat, even if most people are, secretly, not willing to give them a seat. Another example is public charity. Everyone thinks that it is good. A lot of people do it, because it makes them look good. People do charity because it is what is expected, rather than what they want to do. Companies even do it for public relations.
We also see conventional morality operating in religion. For example, there are people who go to church even though they don’t really believe in God or in the church teachings. Because in terms of social tradition and convention, in this neighbourhood, village or family, everybody considers that a good person will go to church. Because of that, if you are following conventional morality, you will go to church, even though you don’t believe in God. On Sundays, at church, people may be dressing up their Sunday best – looking elegant, polite, civilised and kind. But as soon as they go out of the church, who knows what they’re up to in the rest of their life? To give another example, in some Muslim countries, everybody prays outside, whenever there is a call to prayer. Many of those people, in their minds, are not thinking about their prayer at all. If they want to be seen as good people, they need to publicly show that they are very pious. All these are examples of conventional morality – being moral simply out of convention.
In Stage 4 of Conventional morality, being a good person consists in doing one’s duty, showing respect for authority, and maintaining the social order. Unquestioning acceptance of authority is considered to be the moral thing to do. This is something we see in most traditional societies and religious communities.
Finally, we advance to “post-conventional” morality. This is a kind of morality that is actually critical of social convention and thus does not necessarily follow social convention. On the contrary, it might even consider social convention to be hypocritical or immoral. At this level, we have Stage 5 that is based on the “social contract”. This is what Western liberalism is based on. Everybody has his or her interests. But to live together, everybody will come to a social contract so as to maintain his or her own interests on the one hand, and to respect the interests of others on the other hand. In this social contract, everyone has their own individual human rights. If social convention does not respect individual rights, the moral thing to do is to disregard the social convention and uphold individual rights.
Now, let’s go to Stage 6, which is driven by universal ethical principles. The idea of this stage is that moral action is driven by inner conscience, which may not be in agreement with the public opinion or the law. People at this stage may actually consider that the convention is actually immoral. Society is hypocritical, as customs or social conventions are morally wrong, including religious customs and conventions. Therefore, people follow their own conscience, trying to apply universal ethical principles. They follow these principles because they believe that the principles are right, and we should do what is right. It is not because I want to have a contract with somebody, or to find a way to negotiate my self-interests with somebody – it’s because I have a deep conviction that equality is right and must be upheld. It is right not because other people think it is right, and not because it brings me benefits, but simply because it is right, and so, I’m going to do something about it. For example, I may believe that justice and freedom are right. Hence, I’m going to fight for that, because I firmly believe in it. I don’t do it because other people want me to respect justice or freedom. I will follow these principles, even when people disagree with me. So this is no longer conventional morality. It is not about following conventions, and it may even be about breaking them. Here, as an example, we can think of the young French revolutionaries in the film Les Miserables.
The post-conventional morality of the founders of the world religions
This is important in the history of religions. Some of the world’s most influential religious figures broke the social, cultural and religious conventions of their time. Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad all went against the conventional morality of their day. For that reason, they were attacked and rejected by most people of their time. Gautama Buddha broke all the conventions about building a successful family and being a good prince. He also rejected most religious conventions of his day, which were focused on ritual and extreme asceticism. Jesus broke the religious laws of the Sabbath as well as many other religious laws and custom, and he ignored the moral conventions against associating with prostitutes, tax collectors and members of other ethnic groups. Mohammad broke the moral conventions of the Arab people in which the supreme moral good was to advance the interest and honour of one’s own patriarchal clan in competition and war against others. Instead he advocated equality and justice for all, and gave rights to women, slaves and religious minorities. All of these figures broke the conventional morality of their society to establish a higher morality based on universal ethical principles.
Later in his career, Kohlberg added an additional Stage 7 – Transcendental Morality, or the “Morality of Cosmic Orientation”. He added this stage later in his life, when he realised that there is another stage, which is deeply spiritual and even deeply religious. The reason for being moral is not that people believe in abstract principles of justice, equality or freedom, but that people have an inner love for all humans or for all living beings, which he called “agape”. This is the inner feeling that makes you suffer when other people suffer, and gives you joy when other people are joyful. It comes from inside of your heart. It is an expression of love and compassion for all of humanity and even all of creation. Such is the teaching of Confucius, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and Baha’u’llah. The teachings of these great religious figures tried to bring humanity to that transcendental level of morality.
Later in his career, Kohlberg added an additional Stage 7 – Transcendental Morality, or the “Morality of Cosmic Orientation”. He added this stage later in his life, when he realised that there is another stage, which is deeply spiritual and even deeply religious. The reason for being moral is not that people believe in abstract principles of justice, equality or freedom, but that people have an inner love for all humans or for all living beings, which he called “agape”. This is the inner feeling that makes you suffer when other people suffer, and gives you joy when other people are joyful. It comes from inside of your heart. It is an expression of love and compassion for all of humanity and even all of creation. Such is the teaching of Confucius, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and Baha’u’llah. The teachings of these great religious figures tried to bring humanity to that transcendental level of morality.
Axial figures and the ultimate reality
These figures considered that our true spiritual nature – the higher nature in us, that transcends our body and our ego – is an expression, or a reflection of, the ultimate reality – whether it be called Dao in Daoism, the Dharma (foxing 佛法) in Buddhism, or God in the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (note: God with a capital G as the supreme, all-knowing and all-powerful transcendental deity, in contrast to the multiple gods -- with small g -- of Greek mythology, Chinese religion, etc. who are not omnipotent and have very human passions and weaknesses). These religious traditions each have their respective understandings and expressions of the ultimate reality, as well as their own ways of imagining it. The ultimate reality is sometimes imagined in a human form – it is then called anthropomorphic --; sometimes, it is imagined as an invisible force in the universe; and sometimes, it is imagined as void or emptiness.
Notwithstanding these significant differences, all of these religious traditions postulate the existence of an ultimate, transcendental reality. And they postulate that there is a connection between our true spiritual nature and this ultimate reality. For example, our true self, the “uncarved block”, is at one with Dao. Our “Buddha-nature” is one with the Buddha-Dharma. Our soul is created in the image of God.
For these religious traditions, the purpose is how to protect, strengthen or educate our spiritual nature so as to bring it closer to the ultimate reality or the divine reality – or, if that connection has been broken, to restore it. And through this process, people would be led to a higher level of moral development. They would then love others, not because they want to gain benefit from them, not because they are afraid of punishment, not because they are constrained by social convention. Instead, they love all humans as God loves all, because everybody has been created in the image of God. They feel at one with all beings, because all beings are united with or expressions of Dao. At this level of transcendental moral development, there is no compulsion; pure morality is spontaneous (ziran自然), as the Daoists would say.
In the major religious traditions, then, we have the idea of the spiritual nature of humanity on the one hand, and the ultimate reality on the other hand. We have a dual nature – an animal nature and a spiritual nature. Our spiritual nature is connected with the ultimate reality of the universe.
Those important figures, such as Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad, had very important roles to play in teaching people about this connection. This type of figure is given various titles in different religious traditions, such as “Avatar”[6], “Awakened Ones” (juezhe 覺者), Prophets, the Messiah, Messengers of God, or “Manifestations of God”. They can also be called “Axial figures”, as I will explain next week.
These Axial figures, though living in this world, connected people with the invisible ultimate reality. For example, Shakyamuni, the Buddha, taught about the Buddha Dharma, an invisible order that nobody can see. How can we follow the Buddha Dharma? First, the Buddha talked about it, to make people aware of it. And then he gave teachings to live our lives, as well as some spiritual practices, which, if we follow, would connect us to the ultimate reality. And he lived his life in an exemplary fashion, so that others could follow his path to discover their true selves and the Buddha Dharma. Thus, the Gautama Buddha is the link through which we connect with our own Buddha-nature and the Buddha-Dharma.
Let’s take Jesus Christ as another example. We don’t know God. As a result, we are living in sin, being influenced by the temptations of all the bad things in this world. However, when we come to know Jesus, his teachings and life connect us to God. In this way, we are pulled out of our sin, and saved from all the bad things in the world and ourselves. Jesus, the Son, is close to us; it is through him, by welcoming him into our hearts, that we can know and connect with God.
Similarly, Mohammed is considered by Muslims to be a Prophet or Apostle of God – a Messenger who revealed God’s teachings and laws for humanity in the form of a Holy Book, the Qur’an. It is through studying the Qur’an and following its teachings in our lives, that we can overcome our pride and arrogance, and enter the world of God.
The Baha’i teachings consider that God is unknowable in his essence and hidden from direct human understanding – and so, from time to time, He “manifests” Himself in the form of these pivotal figures who are at the origin of the world’s great religions. By following the lives and teachings of the Manifestations of God, we can transcend our lower nature and realize the divine potential inside us.
What we see here is the basic structure of the world’s major religious traditions. In this basic structure, first of all, there is the idea that humans have a dual nature – a good side and a bad side, a spiritual side and a material side, a lower nature and a higher nature. However, according to these religious teachings, our true essence as humans is our higher, spiritual nature -- but it may be hidden, forgotten, ignored or weakened. It can’t grow and develop without help. Its growth requires spiritual education, protection, nurturing and enlightenment. This education and nurturing comes from the teachings of these “Axial figures” – whether Buddha, Moses, Christ, Mohammad or so on. The teachings and guidance of those figures, they believe, will give life to our souls, nurture our spirituality, bring us closer to, and connect us with the ultimate reality -- with God, Dao or Dharma.
All of the practices that we see during our different field visits to different religious communities were designed to help make that connection between our spiritual reality and the ultimate reality of the universe. All of those practices have that aim, be they prayers, meditation, rituals, or following the moral teachings of the religion.
At the same time, sociologically, when we look at what goes on in different religious communities, we will see that not all religious people are at that higher, transcendental level of moral development. Many of the religious customs and practices that we see in society today actually represent a “low” level of moral development, according to Kohlberg’s framework. These customs are about being afraid of punishment, about gaining something from that god, or simply about following convention. But if we look at the foundation of the great religions, what did Jesus or Buddha really come to do in this world? They did not engage in utilitarian exchanges with people, or tell people to keep following their customs and conventions. On the contrary, their aim was to bring humans to a higher stage of spiritual and moral development.
In the next few weeks, we’re going to talk about the consequences of these teachings and the communities that formed around them. We will look at how these religions, when they appeared in India, Israel, Arabia, Persia and other parts of the world, challenged the existing conventional morality and culture, how they created something new, and how the new communities and movements started to change and interacted with society. We will also look at their relations with modern society. How do religions become mere social conventions? How, on the other hand, do they become forces for bringing a higher level of moral development to society? And when do they, on the contrary, actually lead individuals and groups to lower levels of moral development?
Notwithstanding these significant differences, all of these religious traditions postulate the existence of an ultimate, transcendental reality. And they postulate that there is a connection between our true spiritual nature and this ultimate reality. For example, our true self, the “uncarved block”, is at one with Dao. Our “Buddha-nature” is one with the Buddha-Dharma. Our soul is created in the image of God.
For these religious traditions, the purpose is how to protect, strengthen or educate our spiritual nature so as to bring it closer to the ultimate reality or the divine reality – or, if that connection has been broken, to restore it. And through this process, people would be led to a higher level of moral development. They would then love others, not because they want to gain benefit from them, not because they are afraid of punishment, not because they are constrained by social convention. Instead, they love all humans as God loves all, because everybody has been created in the image of God. They feel at one with all beings, because all beings are united with or expressions of Dao. At this level of transcendental moral development, there is no compulsion; pure morality is spontaneous (ziran自然), as the Daoists would say.
In the major religious traditions, then, we have the idea of the spiritual nature of humanity on the one hand, and the ultimate reality on the other hand. We have a dual nature – an animal nature and a spiritual nature. Our spiritual nature is connected with the ultimate reality of the universe.
Those important figures, such as Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad, had very important roles to play in teaching people about this connection. This type of figure is given various titles in different religious traditions, such as “Avatar”[6], “Awakened Ones” (juezhe 覺者), Prophets, the Messiah, Messengers of God, or “Manifestations of God”. They can also be called “Axial figures”, as I will explain next week.
These Axial figures, though living in this world, connected people with the invisible ultimate reality. For example, Shakyamuni, the Buddha, taught about the Buddha Dharma, an invisible order that nobody can see. How can we follow the Buddha Dharma? First, the Buddha talked about it, to make people aware of it. And then he gave teachings to live our lives, as well as some spiritual practices, which, if we follow, would connect us to the ultimate reality. And he lived his life in an exemplary fashion, so that others could follow his path to discover their true selves and the Buddha Dharma. Thus, the Gautama Buddha is the link through which we connect with our own Buddha-nature and the Buddha-Dharma.
Let’s take Jesus Christ as another example. We don’t know God. As a result, we are living in sin, being influenced by the temptations of all the bad things in this world. However, when we come to know Jesus, his teachings and life connect us to God. In this way, we are pulled out of our sin, and saved from all the bad things in the world and ourselves. Jesus, the Son, is close to us; it is through him, by welcoming him into our hearts, that we can know and connect with God.
Similarly, Mohammed is considered by Muslims to be a Prophet or Apostle of God – a Messenger who revealed God’s teachings and laws for humanity in the form of a Holy Book, the Qur’an. It is through studying the Qur’an and following its teachings in our lives, that we can overcome our pride and arrogance, and enter the world of God.
The Baha’i teachings consider that God is unknowable in his essence and hidden from direct human understanding – and so, from time to time, He “manifests” Himself in the form of these pivotal figures who are at the origin of the world’s great religions. By following the lives and teachings of the Manifestations of God, we can transcend our lower nature and realize the divine potential inside us.
What we see here is the basic structure of the world’s major religious traditions. In this basic structure, first of all, there is the idea that humans have a dual nature – a good side and a bad side, a spiritual side and a material side, a lower nature and a higher nature. However, according to these religious teachings, our true essence as humans is our higher, spiritual nature -- but it may be hidden, forgotten, ignored or weakened. It can’t grow and develop without help. Its growth requires spiritual education, protection, nurturing and enlightenment. This education and nurturing comes from the teachings of these “Axial figures” – whether Buddha, Moses, Christ, Mohammad or so on. The teachings and guidance of those figures, they believe, will give life to our souls, nurture our spirituality, bring us closer to, and connect us with the ultimate reality -- with God, Dao or Dharma.
All of the practices that we see during our different field visits to different religious communities were designed to help make that connection between our spiritual reality and the ultimate reality of the universe. All of those practices have that aim, be they prayers, meditation, rituals, or following the moral teachings of the religion.
At the same time, sociologically, when we look at what goes on in different religious communities, we will see that not all religious people are at that higher, transcendental level of moral development. Many of the religious customs and practices that we see in society today actually represent a “low” level of moral development, according to Kohlberg’s framework. These customs are about being afraid of punishment, about gaining something from that god, or simply about following convention. But if we look at the foundation of the great religions, what did Jesus or Buddha really come to do in this world? They did not engage in utilitarian exchanges with people, or tell people to keep following their customs and conventions. On the contrary, their aim was to bring humans to a higher stage of spiritual and moral development.
In the next few weeks, we’re going to talk about the consequences of these teachings and the communities that formed around them. We will look at how these religions, when they appeared in India, Israel, Arabia, Persia and other parts of the world, challenged the existing conventional morality and culture, how they created something new, and how the new communities and movements started to change and interacted with society. We will also look at their relations with modern society. How do religions become mere social conventions? How, on the other hand, do they become forces for bringing a higher level of moral development to society? And when do they, on the contrary, actually lead individuals and groups to lower levels of moral development?
[1] Muller, “Mencius,” para. 2A:6. Chinese original: 孟子曰:「人皆有不忍人之心。先王有不忍人之心,斯有不忍人之政矣。以不忍人之心,行不忍人之政,治天下可運之掌上。所以謂人皆有不忍人之心者,今人乍見孺子將入於井,皆有怵惕惻隱之心。非所以內交於孺子之父母也,非所以要譽於鄉黨朋友也,非惡其聲而然也。由是觀之,無惻隱之心,非人也;無羞惡之心,非人也;無辭讓之心,非人也;無是非之心,非人也。惻隱之心,仁之端也;羞惡之心,義之端也;辭讓之心,禮之端也;是非之心,智之端也。人之有是四端也,猶其有四體也。有是四端而自謂不能者,自賊者也;謂其君不能者,賊其君者也。凡有四端於我者,知皆擴而充之矣,若火之始然,泉之始達。苟能充之,足以保四海;苟不充之,不足以事父母。」《 孟子。公孫丑上》
[2] Malcolm, Thomas Hobbes, sec. XIII.9.
[3] Source:
[4] Kohlberg, The Philosophy of Moral Development.
[5] Feifer, “Private School vs. Public School.”
[6] The name “Avatar” in Cameron’s film Avatar comes from the Hindu concept of Avatar in which the god enters the world of humans by presenting itself in a human body.
[2] Malcolm, Thomas Hobbes, sec. XIII.9.
[3] Source:
[4] Kohlberg, The Philosophy of Moral Development.
[5] Feifer, “Private School vs. Public School.”
[6] The name “Avatar” in Cameron’s film Avatar comes from the Hindu concept of Avatar in which the god enters the world of humans by presenting itself in a human body.
References
Feifer, Brendan. “Private School vs. Public School.” SiOWfa15: Science in Our World: Certainty and Controversy. Accessed September 18, 2017. http://sites.psu.edu/siowfa15/2015/10/14/private-school-vs-public-school/.
Kohlberg, Lawrence. The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice. Harper & Row, 1981.
Malcolm, Noel, ed. Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan. Clarendon Edition of the Works of Thomas Hobbes. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Muller, Charles, trans. “Mencius.” Accessed September 18, 2017. http://members.tripod.com/wckfc_library/mencius.htm.
Kohlberg, Lawrence. The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice. Harper & Row, 1981.
Malcolm, Noel, ed. Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan. Clarendon Edition of the Works of Thomas Hobbes. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Muller, Charles, trans. “Mencius.” Accessed September 18, 2017. http://members.tripod.com/wckfc_library/mencius.htm.