道德的生成： 從跨學科的視角解讀荀子對人類行為的思索

Abstract

為什麼人類會採取道德行為？許多人將道德視為人類文明的精髓，因此認為人類有別於其他生物。然而，道德究竟如何產生？它是社會性的積累，還是生物性的產物？抑或兩者兼而有之？ 荀子對此問題進行了深入的研究，而歷代先哲透過傳統文獻學、文學、哲學等途徑試圖理解其理論。然而舊的疑問尚未解答，新的困境又已浮現，學者們該如何突破當前的瓶頸？ 為了突破困境，我們需要回到原點，意識到我們仍是地球生物圈的一部份，而非獨特的存在。當前，現代科學對人類行為的研究異常活躍，為我們提供了全新的視角。我們應借助這股東風，從生物學、社會學和人類學的角度重新審視這一問題，看看能否對荀子的人類道德行為研究有新的理解和詮釋。 本文以《荀子》對人類行為的研究為主軸，分為「天」論、「性」論」與「群」論三個部分，結合現代科學與人文研究，深入探討人性、道德與社會秩序之間的關係。 「天」論是荀子在那個動蕩時代試圖回答「我們是什麼？」和「我們應該做什麼？」等問題的篇章。當時，天下分崩離析，舊有的天命與政治理論早已失去說服力。荀子試圖證明天象變化與政治興衰並無直接關聯，從而推翻傳統的「天人關係」論述。藉此，將人類從某種束縛中解放，重新確立人類的存在意義與目的，強調人類應自主追求屬於自己的政治道德秩序。 「性」論是《荀子》人類行為研究的重要成果。他在充滿戰爭的混亂世間，看穿了人類在和平表象下的偽裝。洞察人性，直言人之性惡，認為人生來便是失序的，並在社會秩序的脈絡下重新定義善與惡。道德的根源本質上是生物性的。在自然選擇的演化過程中，群體中的個體為了生存，彼此競爭，難免自私利己。然而，人類迫於生態壓力，為了生存，也會群聚在一起，強化個體間的合作，並出現階級性的分工。總體而言，天擇演化對人類個體的篩選，進一步改變了物種的生活史和社會結構，從而產生複雜的人類及社會。而人類科技的進步與社會的變遷，也會反過來影響人類的文化演化。我們生活在群體之中，自然就會產生對秩序的追求。人類除了天生的野性生存欲望外，還有獨立並超越其限制，展開「間隙」的能力。在這個間隙中，積思慮、習偽故，生禮義、起法度。秩序因此而生，善也由此而來。然而，為了維持這種穩定的關係，統治階層的權力也將滲透到社會的各個角落，諸如學習與教化、禮義與法度、從屬與支配等等……。 至於「群」論，則是《荀子》的核心總結。透過生物學與人類學的研究，從蠻荒至部落，從城市至國家，解析人類合作的起源與目的，試圖在戰國中後期局勢中，回答並呼籲「人何以群」及「人如何能群？」的兩大問題。 最後，本文期望透過跨學科的新視角對《荀子》道德進行剖析，使讀者能對《荀子》中的人性、道德及社會秩序有著不同的理解與想像，並藉此促進人文學科與現代科學的對話。

Why do humans engage in moral behavior? Many regard morality as the quintessence of human civilization, thereby asserting that humans are distinct from other creatures. Yet, how exactly does morality arise? Is it the cumulative result of social processes, a product of biological evolution, or perhaps a combination of both? Xunzi conducted an in-depth study of this issue, and throughout history, sages and philosophers have endeavored to understand these theories through traditional philology, literature, and philosophy. Nevertheless, while the age-old questions remain unresolved, new dilemmas have emerged—how can scholars overcome the current impasse? To break through these challenges, we must return to the basics by recognizing that we remain an integral part of the Earth’s biosphere rather than unique entities. Contemporary scientific research on human behavior is exceptionally active, providing us with entirely new perspectives. We should harness this momentum to reexamine the issue from biological, sociological, and anthropological viewpoints to determine whether new insights and interpretations of Xunzi’s study of human moral behavior might be attained. This paper centers on Xunzi’s investigation into human behavior, dividing the discussion into three sections—namely, the theory of “Heaven,” the theory of “Human Nature,” and the theory of “Collectivity.” By integrating modern scientific inquiry with humanistic scholarship, it delves into the interrelations among human nature, morality, and social order. The “Heaven” theory comprises Xunzi’s attempt, during a turbulent era, to answer questions such as “What are we?” and “What ought we to do?” At that time, the world was in disarray, and traditional doctrines of heavenly mandate and political theory had lost their persuasive power. Xunzi aimed to demonstrate that the fluctuations of celestial phenomena were not directly correlated with the rise and fall of political regimes, thereby challenging the conventional discourse on the relationship between Heaven and Man. In so doing, he sought to liberate humanity from certain constraints, reestablishing the meaning and purpose of human existence and emphasizing that people should autonomously pursue their own political and moral order. The “Human Nature” theory represents one of the seminal outcomes of Xunzi’s inquiry into human behavior. Amid a chaotic, war-torn world, he penetrated the façade of human pretense under the guise of peace. With keen insight into human nature, he bluntly asserted that humans are innately predisposed to disorder, contending that individuals are born in a state of disarray and subsequently redefining notions of good and evil within the framework of social order. Essentially, the roots of morality are biological. In the evolutionary process of natural selection, individuals within a group, driven by the imperative of survival, inevitably engage in competitive and self-interested behaviors. Yet, under ecological pressures, humans have also been compelled to congregate, thereby reinforcing cooperation among individuals and giving rise to stratified divisions of labor. Overall, natural selection has further transformed the life histories and social structures of the species, culminating in the emergence of complex human societies. Moreover, advancements in technology and societal change, in turn, influence the evolution of human culture. Living in groups naturally engenders a pursuit of order; beyond the innate, primal drive for survival, humans possess the capacity to transcend these limitations by creating a “gap” in which reflection, the cultivation of ritual propriety, and the establishment of institutional norms take shape. Thus, order is established and goodness emerges. However, to maintain this stable equilibrium, the power of the ruling class permeates all facets of society, including education and moral instruction, ritual propriety and legal norms, as well as dynamics of subordination and domination. The “Collectivity” theory constitutes the core synthesis of Xunzi’s work. Drawing upon research in biology and anthropology—and tracing developments from primitive bands to tribes, and from cities to nation-states—it analyzes the origins and purposes of human cooperation. In the context of the mid-to-late Warring States period, Xunzi sought to address and provoke inquiry into the two fundamental questions: “Why do humans form collectives?” and “How are humans capable of forming collectives?” In conclusion, this paper intends to analyze Xunzi’s moral philosophy through a novel interdisciplinary perspective, thereby enabling readers to develop alternative understandings and conceptualizations of human nature, morality, and social order as depicted in his work, and ultimately to foster a dialogue between the humanities and contemporary science.