What Kind of Concept? What Sort of System?On the Construction and Evolution of Social Systems according to Different Views of Human Nature?

Liu Jingxi

Abstract: Human nature and various views of human nature are the starting points on which diversified social systems have been constructed and evolved.There has been considerable research worldwide on the views of human nature as to whether “human nature is good” or “human nature is evil,” and on the inner logic of its relationship with the construction and evolution of various social systems.In fact, however, human nature has never been simply a binary of good or evil but a complex, pluralistic structural entity.In this structural entity, the view of “human nature as inherently selfi sh” and thus “egocentric”tends to be closer to the truth or essence of human nature.Therefore, much remains be discussed and explored concerning the correlation between the selfi shness of human nature and the construction and evolution of social systems.

Keywords: human nature, human nature as inherently good, human nature as inherently evil, human nature as inherently selfi sh, construction and evolution, social systems

Human nature and thus the views of human nature have undoubtedly been originating infl uences on and played a regulative function in the evolution or design of human societies and their systems.Friedrich A.Hayek (1899—1992) noted in his social theory that inborn behavioral codes can show high consistency across both time and space.Thus in this sense human nature can be considered as homogeneous, and it even forms a self-evident prerequisite of research methods of social theories.However, the changeability of cultural rules manifests the pluralism of social order.1See Friedrich A.Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (1978).Translated by Deng Zhenglai 鄧正來 as [自由秩序原理](Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company, 1997), 36.The theory of “human nature as good”often brings with it proposals and system designs for meritocratic rule, and the theory of“human nature as evil” generally leads to theories and systems of limited government.There is certainly also a complex view of human nature different from the above two, and its mappings onto real social systems are undoubtedly variegated and complex.Beyond the views of “human nature as good” and “human nature as evil,” this paper aims to make space for a consideration of the rationality of “egocentrism,” a topic neglected by domestic academic circles, especially with respect to its internal logical correlation with the construction of macro social systems.

Human Nature and Its Good and Evil

[Refer to page 29 for Chinese.Similarly hereinafter]

What we call “human nature” implies generality or universality; that is, it implies a universal human nature.The concept of “human nature” has two frames of reference, namely “divinity”and “animality.” The former refers to the awakening of human subjectivity to a divine subjectivity, that is, the coming of humanity out from behind the shadow of the divine.The latter means that, on the one hand, human beings differ from and surpass the rest of the animal kingdom because of their rational consciousness and independent personality,but also that sometimes they are similar to animals because of the limitations of their rationality.For example, as Mencius said, “That whereby man differs from lower animals is but small.The mass of people cast benevolence away while the exemplary person (junzi君子) preserve it” (Mencius4B:19).The discussion of “human nature” involved in this paper mainly involves the latter sense.

What distinguishes humans from animals is that on the material level, humans can make and use tools; on the spiritual level, humans are rational animals, with no lack of thought outside emotion.Hayek claimed, “The boundless variety of human nature—the wide range of differences in individual capacities and potentialities—is one of the most distinctive facts about the human species.”2Friedrich A.Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 86.This certainly represents an empirical view or human nature, concerning as it does the substantial attributes of human nature.The opposite, a priori or transcendental view of human nature holds that although humans are animals, the fundamental difference between humans and other animals is that humans have spiritual attributes and seek a transcendental axiological significance to survival—human essence and existence “coexist.” This is due to human nature or instincts, and so it has transcendental universality.Compare Marx’s question: “Is there no universal human nature, as there is a universal nature of plants and stars? Philosophy...asks what is true for all mankind, not what is true for some people.Its metaphysical truths do not recognize the boundaries of political geography.”3“The Leading Article in No.179 of the K?lnische Zeitung,” libcom.org, accessed February 10, 2022, https://libcom.org/library/leading-article-no-179-k?lnische-zeitung.The human nature we refer to here is more focused on the latter category.4Another view is that the so-called “good human nature” and “evil human nature” are not concerned with human essence or human nature and that considering “good/evil” as human nature or thinking that human nature is essentially good or evil does not fi t the original intention of the ancients.See Fang Zhaohui 方朝暉, “More Understanding of the Relationship between Good/Evil Human Nature, Democracy, and Autocracy” [人性善惡與民主、專制關(guān)系的再認(rèn)識],Journal of Literature, History, and Philosophy [文史哲], no.1 (2016): 41—43.Generally speaking, human nature not only has its universal commonality, but also forms different and constantly changing views of life and views of human nature due to different people’s specific undergoing and experience.Therefore,human nature is the dialectical unity of change and invariance, and the organic unity of universality and particularity.

From a historical perspective, there are generally two traditional theories concerning human nature, namely that it is either good or evil.These two propositions themselves seem to identify universal human nature from a trans-empirical basis, which represents a high level of assumption and abstraction from different experiences of human life and social environments.

In the optimistic East Asian view of human nature, human nature is inherently good.Even if environment and experience produce a malignant deviation, this can still be improved through self-reflection and external “ideological and political work.” Here it is spiritual factors that play a decisive role in reshaping human nature, as reflected in Mencius’s idea of “human nature as good” with the “four sprouts” at the core.5Mencius 2A:6: “The feeling of commiseration is the principle of benevolence.The feeling of shame and dislike is the principle of righteousness.The feeling of modesty and complaisance is the principle of propriety.The feeling of approving and disapproving is the principle of knowledge.Men have these four sprouts just as they have their four limbs.”Furthermore,when a human being comes into political power and changes for the worse, for example abusing public power for personal gain, East Asian culture still fi rmly believes in the infi nite power of “ideological education” and pays little attention to the design and construction of external systems to prevent power abuse.Moreover, if we persist in the theory that human nature is good, follow its logic, and institutionally advocate such concepts as “great kindness and selfl essness” and “great impartiality and selfl essness,” we will fi nd that the public realm grows to crowd and squeeze out the private realm.The public domain will expand sharply and force its way into the private domain, which will have no sanctuary from it.The logical endpoint will be absolute equalitarianism with no “self” and no differences, accompanied by neglect of the construction of systems and rule of law to guard against the defects of human nature, which will lead to wanton abuse of public power by power holders.

Conversely, in Western pessimism, human nature is regarded as inherently evil, as in the Christian doctrine of original sin, wherefore there are no perfect people in the world,even if a person’s nature can be ameliorated, this would only be through the religious or quasi-religious influence.Once this human nature is given political power, the binding effect of religion on everyday human nature is thought to become weak in the face of the temptation to seek personal gain by public power.Thus institutional constructs for restricting power are given front stage in this kind of thinking.Therefore institutional factors play a fundamental role in shaping human nature in Western political culture.This doctrine of “human nature as evil” has played a decisive guiding role in the tendency of Westerners to pay attention to institutional design, as a sort of conceptual DNA.

The above division of good and evil in the view of human nature is only for convenience of analysis and discussion.Human nature and the real life it refl ects are far more complex and diverse.East Asian culture also has played home to propositions that human nature is evil, as for example in Xunzi, and there are also considerable arguments in the Western tradition for the goodness of human nature, as for example in Rousseau, which will be described in detail later.

As it is still difficult in the present social environment to escape the historical infl uence of cultural tradition, we might as well discuss the traditional theory of human nature as it relates to the prospects of the current institutional construction.For thousands of years,Chinese culture has taken it as a basic concept that the whole world is one community,wherein the public is good and the private is evil, and this is still the case today.The corollary concept of restraining privacy has led to the lack in Chinese cultural consciousness of a concept of individual rights and of a rigid or fully formed structure of private propertyrights.This has provided the basis maintaining the imperial autocratic social order in Chinese society from the pre-Qin dynasty to the late Qing dynasty.According to Jo-shui Chen 陳弱水, “‘Gong公 (impartiality or public)’ is a fundamental concept in Chinese collective consciousness which appeared in history with great power.” As early as the late Warring States period, the concept of universal and totalizing public sphere was discussed in some classics of Confucianism, Mohism, Legalism, and other schools.“‘The public’ broke away from the scope of the government and the imperial court and achieved transcendental meaning, meaning a value which was understood to be universal, totalizing, and other.”6Jo-shui Chen 陳弱水, “The Concept and Modern Metamorphosis of ‘the Public’ in Chinese History: A Typological and Holistic Investigation” [中國歷史上“公”的觀念及其現(xiàn)代變形——一個類型的與整體的考察], in Publicness and Citizenship [公共性與公民觀], ed.Xu Jilin 許紀(jì)霖 (Nanjing: Jiangsu People’s Publishing House,2006), 26, 29.

The traditional Chinese cultural ideas of impartiality being the principle of Heaven,preserving the public and eliminating the private, and advocating the public and restraining the private, make “private” a derogatory term in Chinese tradition and psychological structure.This concept of establishing the public and eliminating the private has led to the formation and recognition of the idea that “the state is supreme,” which has formed the cultural conception that “people in the world dare not be selfish and self-interested and must replace their private affairs with public.”7Huang Zongxi 黃宗羲, “The Principles of the Emperor” [原君], in The Wise Waiting to Be Accepted [明夷待訪錄],ed.He Zhaohui 何朝暉 (Nanjing: Phoenix Publishing House, 2017), 4.In this way, all the world became the private property of the emperor, and there evolved and continued a political autocratic monarchy for thousands of years, and there failed to form an economic system for universal private property rights, leading to a unique economic and social order with an underdeveloped market economy.8Wei Sen 韋森, “The Conceptual Systems and the Emergence, Evolution, and Change of Social Orders” [觀念體系與社會制序的生成、演化與變遷], Academics [學(xué)術(shù)界], no.5 (2019): 69—85.In 1935, Shen Congwen 沈從文 (1902—1988) wrote very insightfully:

The Confucian philosophy of life, which has dominated China for two thousand years,can be said to be completely based on “unselfishness,” an idea which it has expressed beautifully and elegantly.The main meaning has been focused on the people’s “respect for the emperor” and “belief in the mandate of Heaven,” and so this idea has always been the magic weapon for emperors ruling the world....However, this philosophy easily comes into confl ict with “human nature.” Though it seems noble in spirit, in practice it has problems.It attributes to people many “obligations” but makes little reference to their“rights.” All these obligations are made to seem necessary, but the rights entirely depend on the grace of emperors or gods and Buddhas.9Shen Congwen 沈從文, “The Disease of the Chinese” [中國人的病], in vol.14 of The Complete Works of Shen Congwen [沈從文全集] (Taiyuan: Beiyue Literature & Art Publishing House, 2002), 87.

Such a view of human nature is similar to the rationalism of Western constructivism.Constructivist rationalism believes in the infinity of human rationality, a good human nature, and the possibility of rational knowledge based on goodness.The social system based on it must be made perfect.Engels asserted that the basis of all political and religious history in the East is that there is no private ownership of land.10The Central Compilation and Translation Bureau of the Works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, eds., The Complete Works of Marx and Engels [馬克思恩格斯全集], vol.28 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1972), 256, 260.This characterization of social and economic relations gives sidelong evidence of the traditional Chinese social ethic of upholding the public and restraining the private based on “preserving the Heavenly principles and eliminating human desires.”11Wang Shouren 王守仁, “Instructions for Practical Living I” [傳習(xí)錄上], vol.1 of Complete Works of Wang Yangming[王陽明全集], eds.Wu Guang 吳光 et al.(Shanghai: Shanghai Classics Publishing House, 2012), 2.

The Selfi shness of Human Nature: Between Good and Evil [32]

Since human nature is complex rather than binary, it is necessary for us to pursue a discussion in search of some third concept of human nature and its axiological signifi cance.

Supposing human nature to be either good or evil does not accord with the reality of universal human nature in the real world.Gaozi said, “Human nature is like the torrent.When it is breached in the east, it fl ows in the east, and when it is breached in the west, it fl ows in the west.Human nature is not divided between good and evil, just as water is not divided between the east and west” (Mencius6A:2).Human nature is nothing like being either good or evil, being instead a complex human social entity.Similar views are not rare in Western philosophical circles.For example, Hume’s basic view of human nature includes the following: basic selfishness, limited generosity, protecting private rights, and guiding public welfare.In his classic of political economicsThe Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith also expressed the view that self-interest tempered with empathy can promote social welfare better than altruism.

Those who believe that human nature is good hold the view that people are born with morality, or with the potential to be good.One physiological basis for this view is that there is a region, named “F5,” in the premotor cortex of all primates.Its neurons are called “mirror neurons” and were originally found in the brains of rhesus monkeys.These cells are activated when monkeys observe the behavior of other animals and when the monkeys themselves perform those same behaviors.Mirror neurons make no distinction between self and other, and they also exist in other primates, probably including humans.12Paul Bloom, Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil, quoted in Liu Xiaogan 劉笑敢 and Liu Xuefei 劉雪飛,“Orientation, Approach, and Scientifi c Enlightenment: More Thought on the Studies of Mencius’s View of Human Nature” [取向、入徑與科學(xué)啟示：孟子人性論研究的再思考], Qilu Journal [齊魯學(xué)刊], no.5 (2020): 5—17.This neurophysiological discovery is taken as proof that mirror neurons provide an innate basis for human moral sense and that empathy and compassion are determined by innate genes.13The latest research in evolutionary psychology proves that, to a large degree, genes determine human personality, behavior modes, and habits, as can be seen from twins.It scientifi cally and forcefully refutes John Locke’s blank slate theory.However, in the author’s opinion, the congenital existence of compassion cannot overturn the argument that human nature is selfi sh.As this discovery reveals, the pain of others becomes one’s own pain and self-interest is refi gured as compassion.Perhaps it just shows that it is the selfi sh character of human empathy that gives rise to compassion.Thus this discovery does not prove so much that human nature is good as that human nature is selfi sh.Mencius’s claim that “as you care for your elders, you should also care for other elders; as you care for your children, you should also care for other children” (Mencius1A:7) only starts from self-interest, and then sympathetically expands to loving others.

The word “selfishness” obviously has a more derogatory, malign color in ancient China.14Infl uenced by Han Fei 韓非, Xu Shen 許慎, in his The Etymological Dictionary of Characters [說文解字], claims that gong 公 (impartiality or public) means “equally divided” and si 私 (selfi sh or private) “treacherous and evil.”In modern times, “selfishness” carries a more positive significance for promoting social development.For example, the human foundation on which the market mechanism is established is human selfishness.After hundreds of years of trials, the success and extraordinary efficiency of the interest balancing mechanism of “being subjectively for the self and objectively for others” also indirectly proves the universality of “human nature as selfi sh.” Therefore, this author believes that, recognizing the complexity of human nature, it is a more accurate and fair generalization to abstract or defi ne universal human nature using the neutral concept of “human nature as selfi sh” or “human nature as inherently selfi sh,” because selfi shness and self-interest in the form of self-centeredness are latent in people’s quasi-genes,and pursuing advantages and avoiding disadvantages is human nature.Moreover, defining human nature as “selfish” is appropriately vague, allowing it to encompass both “human nature as good,” with a divine meaning, and “human nature as evil,” with a sinister meaning.Such a defi nition may be more in line with the general law of human evolution.

In Christianity it is believed that original sin is the root of human sinfulness in thought and behavior.Therefore the doctrine of original sin drives believers to strive for atonement in this world, driving away evil and promoting good, so as to be saved by God and ascend to Heaven in the afterlife.Thus behind the original sin doctrines there still remains something of a private concept in “going to heaven and enjoying happiness forever.” This evinces a dialectical relationship of complementary opposition, in which private morality is the basis of human social morality and contributes to social morality and public welfare.The reason that the Austrian school of economics is often criticized for advocating self-interest is that they truly understand human nature: individualism, business logic, and laws to protect property rights that stand behind the notion of individual “interests” are precisely the inexhaustible sources of social development.In this same vein, some commentators also argue that the evolution of the modern market order and its corresponding civilizational rules is the result of the logical evolution of human nature as originally selfi sh: “The original driving force of human behavior is to pursue advantage and avoid disadvantage.”15Liu Yawei 劉亞偉 and Zhu Haijiu 朱海就, “Dialog: It Is the Market Order but Not the Cultural Difference; It Is the Universal Rule but Not Universal Value” [對話：是市場秩序，不是文化差異；是普世規(guī)則，不是普世價值],Yawei’s View [亞偉說] (WeChat Official Account), June 10, 2020.Kong Xianduo 孔憲鐸 concluded in his research result:

The animality of human nature (which is our original nature) is determined by genetic inheritance.And through genetic inheritance, with the development of human life, every person and generation inherits that animal nature....The cultural nature in humanity (our acquired habits) comes from learning.It increases with age, disappears with death, and will never be transmitted a bit through genetic channels.16Kong Xianduo 孔憲鐸, “Gene and Human Nature: An Analysis on Life Science and Sociological Theories” [基因與人性——生命科學(xué)與社會學(xué)理論的分析], Journal of Literature, History, and Philosophy, no.4 (2004): 6—14.

What needs to be clearly distinguished is that, for humans, “our genes may instruct us to be selfi sh, but we are not necessarily compelled to obey them all our lives,” and we can still “teach generosity and altruism.”17Richard Dawkins, The Selfi sh Gene (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), https://academics.lmu.edu/media/lmuacademics/cures/urbanecolab/module12/9.Richard Dawkins - The Selfish Gene (1976) - 30th Anniversary Edition (2006).pdf.In other words, genes cannot be modifi ed, but human nature can be changed.Even selfish human nature has different types.We can call them“negative selfishness” and “positive selfishness.” The former is sentimental, carefree, and idle; the latter acts for selfi sh ends, enterprisingly and within the limits of norms and laws,and obtains its just deserts through hard work and sagacity.Promoting the transformation of the former into the latter is the minimal responsibility of social education.Moreover,even if human nature cannot be fundamentally changed, it can always be guided according to circumstance by, for example, disciplining, guiding, and transforming people’s selfish nature through market mechanisms and legal norms.However, the “transformation” in question is not something that fundamentally violates, denies, or abrogates people’s selfi sh nature, nor does it attempt to remold human nature toward a supreme moral ideal, but instead respects human nature as its main premise, allows “selfi shness” its true and proper place in cultural cognition, and then appropriately regulates and guides it so as to achieve a “win-win” for self and the other, between the individual and the group.In the design of economic system, we should comply with people’s personal desires, take the legitimate recognition and protection of people’s basic rights as our premise, fully take into accountpeople’s different individual attributes, which are characterized by “division,” “uniqueness,”and “difference,” and achieve public welfare through the lawful exercise and reasonable guidance of people’s subjective private desires, that is to say, by seeking public interest in the private sphere and a win-win for both public and private.18The extreme pursuit of a utopian, impracticable, completely leveling egalitarianism that contradicts human nature always causes social tragedies and fails to reach its desired ends.In the design of social and political systems, we should recognize the naturalness of “selfishness,” fully consider the boundaries between public and private, and protect individual people’s personal dignity and property rights and the freedoms based upon them.

The Infl uence of Different Views of Human Nature on the Evolution of Social Systems [34]

A society’s established view of human nature determines the nature and trajectory of its social system.As Kant said, “Man and generally any rational being exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will, but in all his actions,whether they concern himself or other rational beings, must be always regarded at the same time as an end.”19Immanuel Kant, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, accessed February 9, 2022, https://barryfvaughan.org/text/101/textbook/ethics/fundamental.pdf.This principle of human nature brings along with it a corresponding code of practice: “So act as to treat humanity, whether in [your] own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end [itself], never as means only.”20Ibid.Here in Kant, human nature, as the basis of rights, is not equivalent to human needs and desires, personal gain, or happiness but to humanity itself or human dignity.Furthermore, the institutional structures meant to safeguard and protect human rights are naturally determined by human nature.Here the purpose of constructing a system is obviously to safeguard human nature and human dignity, which is to say, to restrict human animality.

Differences in our concepts of human nature lead to differences in the direction or model of our social systems and the contents of systems.The opposition between the theories of human nature as either good or evil logically leads to great differences between the systems and mechanisms built atop them.However, the institutional arrangements based on the two theories as the premise of universal human nature each suffer from characteristic defects or weaknesses.

The logical result of the Confucian theory of “human nature as inherently good”is virtue ethics, and logically inevitable political result is “virtue politics,” or rule by the virtuous.21Liu Jingxi 劉京希, “Meritocracy or Democracy?: A Critique of the Argument for ‘Virtue Politics’” [尚賢制抑或民主制？——“賢能政治”論爭述評], Journal of Literature, History, and Philosophy, no.3 (2018): 5—18.The main tone of traditional Chinese ethical culture, especially Confucian ethical culture, is optimism about human nature; as theThree-Character Classic[三字經(jīng)] teaches,“people are born into the world good in their nature.” Confucianism rose to its place as the officially sponsored political morality because of its nature of “entering into worldly affairs”and “conforming to ideology.” Thus the theory of good human nature was transformed from an ethics for daily life into a political ethics that formed the theoretical cornerstone for a benevolent government and virtue politics in which “everyone can be a Yao 堯 or Shun 舜”(Mencius6B:2).As Mencius stated:

All men have the mind which cannot bear [to see the suffering of] others.The ancient kings had this mind and therefore they had a government that could not bear to seethe suffering of the people.When a government that cannot bear to see the suffering of the people is conducted from a mind that cannot bear to see the suffering of others, the government of the empire will be as easy as making something go round in the palm.(2A:6)

This is to vouchsafe the benevolent use of power solely to the virtue of the ruler or the executive, that is, to his “mind which cannot bear to see the suffering of others.” In other words, power must be placed in the hands of saints with supreme virtue.What is needed for the exercise of power is “supervision by conscience” rather than “supervision by law.”Thus to take virtue as the beginning of political logic and concentrate political power in the hands of a talented few who are released from external supervision inevitably leads logically to autocratic centralization.And as a corollary, the space for individual rights of the citizens who are the constituent elements of the society is squeezed or even overrun entirely.

The problem here is that, even if humans arebornwith a good nature, this nature does not necessarily endure unchanged and uncorrupted.Influenced by their environment,their virtue may decrease or vary.Thus is required the self-discipline and self-reflection of Confucius, who resolved, “I will examine myself three times a day” (Analects1:4).In those who consciously pursue the personality of ajunzi, such as Confucius, Mencius, and their disciples, it seems that such a spirit of understanding and refl ection is not lacking; but for ordinary people who make up the majority of society, it is difficult to reach that level.Moreover, in the patriarchal society that integrates kinship and politics, core virtues such as loyalty, righteousness, benevolence, and reciprocity have a strong impact on private emotions.When these ethical emotions are extended into the political realm, in the face of the temptation of power and its illusory interests, virtue is bound to collapse in the absence of strict external constraints.

Correspondingly, the logical result of Western pessimism about human nature (which is different from the Chinese Legalist theory of human nature)22The Legalist theory of human nature as evil, such as Hanfeizi’s, is directed toward the ruled, not the ruler, which recommends absolute monarchy and ruling both bureaucrats and the common people through torture and a combination of mercy and terror.is that “absolute power produces absolute corruption,” and the political system that results from such a theory is republican democracy based on freedom and power restriction.Therefore as the inevitable logical extension of the theory of “human nature as evil,” rule of law moves to front stage and the goal of this system construction is the combination of political power and human nature in a certain kind of government.Even pessimists like Locke never advocate the promotion of individual morality, since everyone has their own moral outlook and any group advocacy for morality, especially a lofty morality, is tantamount to destroying everyone’s moral vitality and individual dignity.They only talk about bottom-line morality,which is to respect individual life.In daily social life, the most common threat to individual life or dignity comes from willful power.Therefore Locke, Montesquieu, and William Blackstone all advocate separation and balance among government powers, which provides theoretical support for the separation of powers in the United States.The origin of this thought is the Christian doctrine of original sin.Therefore conservatives advocate restricting government power, so as to avoid totalitarian tyranny.

Dissenting from the theoretical binary described above, modern theorists of a selfish human nature see a different logical connection between human selfi shness and social order.

Hume views human nature as selfish, and his representative work,The Treatise of Human Nature, argues from a view of moral sentiments for a utilitarian ethic that takes selfi shness as the universal basis of human nature on which morality depends.As a close friend and confi dant of Hume, Adam Smith naturally deduced his famous principle of the“invisible hand” from his theory of the division of labor based on his notion of making full use of people’s self-interest in market transactions:

And by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it.By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.23Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, accessed February 12, 2022, https://www.ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_WealthNations_p.pdf.

Its theoretical basis, in the final analysis, is the selfishness of human nature and the institutional recognition and guidance of our that selfish and our self-interested behavior.Free-market mechanisms are based on the concepts of selfi sh human nature and property rights protection.With the regulation of the “invisible hand,” these conform to and serve people’s pursuit of their own interests and employ people’s selfi sh nature, transforming it to realize a win-win for both private interests and “public good,” so as to make the society as orderly as possible.And conversely, in the histories of China and all other lands, institutional attempts to resist human beings’ selfi sh nature all backfi re.Such are all of history’s leveling movements aimed at “equalizing rich and poor” that have inspired peasant uprisings, as well as utopian socialist proposals to eliminate private property, capital, and class differences.This was also the case with the Soviet socialist model after decades of social practice.

From the theory of human nature as selfish and the civilizational experience based upon it, we may conclude that selfi shness and self-interest are the inexhaustible sources of human civilization.In other words, justice and even regulatory systems originate precisely from the selfi shness of human nature.The obvious fact is that the modern market economy and the system of property rights, contract, human rights law, and public and private spheres are derived from the selfi shness of human nature.Proceeding from the premise that human nature is selfi sh, private and public, self and other form an organic ecological whole with the unity of opposites.For without the existence of a private self, how would the idea of the “public” be possible? Participants in the market economy carry out market behaviors according to the standards of fair trade out of a subjective motivation to maximize selfinterest, and then objectively they achieve a win-win for both their own interests and the public interest.Therefore if people lose their rights to pursue their self-interest, where then would the pursuit of public interest come from? In other words, if we are unable or unwilling to make institutional efforts to recognize and safeguard private rights and interests, how will society’s public interests get pursued?24Liu Jingxi, “A Call for Organic Politics and Organic Community from the Perspective of Political Ecology” [政治生態(tài)學(xué)呼喚有機政治與有機共同體], Journal of Jinan University (Social Sciences Edition) [濟(jì)南大學(xué)學(xué)報（社會科學(xué)版）],no.3 (2018): 36—44.

In other words, the selfishness of human nature is significant as the original value sustaining institutional evolution and axiological justice.The selfi shness of human nature,which seems to be a social “negative asset” and has been criticized since ancient times, is actually the source and driving force behind the birth and evolution of a series of systems of social justice, as well as a “positive asset” in the evolution of modern human civilization.Further, it is the survival and development of the modern market economic order that restricts the expansion of political power and expands the free space for individuals to seek self-reliance.This point of view affirms the more essential reasons for the view that human nature is selfi sh, as is supported in by “spiritual vindication” of the concept by Adam Smith,Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich A.Hayek.

Conclusion [37]

The driving force behind social development is the universal and existential self-interested nature of humans.It outputs inexhaustible source power for the progress of economy,society, politics, and culture.Market economic mechanisms, which adapt to and follow selfinterest and evolve spontaneously from the fundamental nature of humans, subjectively meet human beings’ profit-seeking nature and objectively promote the development and progress of all fi elds of society.Beyond economic reform, any other system of reform will hinder the normal development of the social community if it ignores or violates the selfinterestedness of human nature and the corresponding internal essence of fairness and justice of the spontaneously evolving market economy.For example, the legitimacy of a benign legal system is based on the selfi shness of universal human nature.The compulsive suppression of evil human nature is also the guidance of human nature to being good in an objective sense.When we look back and compare the evolutionary history of different social systems thus far, the systems that can really regulate human morality are always those that are close to and conform to human nature and then give benign guidance.Any institutional arrangement that breaks away from human nature, or even disintegrates humanity’s inherent virtues and degenerates the human moral environment would be one of those ungrounded and surrealistic idealized systems.Thus it is the saying that “perfect rationality”cannot change human nature.Moreover, there exists no so-called “perfect rationality” in the world.As a physical existence at the intersection of sensibility and rationality, who dares to ensure that one’s spiritual world is always occupied by “perfect rationality”?

Bibliography of the Cited Translation

Chan, Wing-tsit, trans.and ed.A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy.Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press, 1963.

Legge, James, trans.The Works of Mencius.Vol.2, The Chinese Classics.Taipei: SMC Publishing Inc., 1991.