「性惡」即「本惡」──從「性」的定義探究荀子性惡論的意涵

Abstract

荀子的性惡論歷來頗具爭議，尤其宋明以來多秉持著二程「只一句性惡，大\r\n本已失」以及朱熹「不須理會荀卿，且理會孟子性善」的觀點。近年來荀子的地\r\n位與價值逐漸提升，學者多不再以性惡論非難之，且多認為荀子所謂的性惡論，\r\n並非「人性本惡」，「性惡」在荀子的論證中只是個綜合命題而非分析命題，人應\r\n該是具有內在價值根源的。然而，如傅斯年所言，性字在先秦時期都是以生字為\r\n本訓，也就是「生之謂性」是約定俗成的定義。對於性作為「人生而本有」的意\r\n義上，孟荀之間是沒有差別的，兩者的不同的關鍵在於：人生而本有的是什麼？\r\n前者為四端之心，而後者為自然欲望。那麼「性」字本身應該即具「本有」之義，\r\n那麼將「性惡」與「本惡」分為二橛似乎沒有必要。且如果說孟子的性善論可以\r\n稱之為人性本善，但麼沒有理由荀子的性惡論不能理解為人性本惡。歷來學者多\r\n以荀子所謂的自然欲望情性本身不為惡，「順是」才會形成惡，故不得稱之為「本\r\n惡」。然而，孟子的四端本身不也不是善嗎？那也只是善的根源。況且相對於儒\r\n家的禮義規範為「善」，那自然的欲望就是一種「惡」。但在荀子的脈絡中，善與\r\n惡並非如基督宗教有如此強烈的正邪意涵，那只是一種在禮義脈絡中，以「正理\r\n平治」與否為判準的一個論述，是相對於孟子性善論，並極欲凸出禮義師法重要\r\n性的一個論述策論。故言荀子道人性本惡而無礙於其作為儒家的理想與價值。

The doctrine of sinful nature of Xunzi have been getting critical from Sung\r\ndynasty to contemporary. It is to be observed that more and more scholar to approve\r\nthe value and position of Xunzi in the history of Chinese thought these day. Although\r\nthe doctrine of Xunzi is be promoted in contemporary academic circle, scholar almost\r\ndeny the doctrine of sinful nature of Xunzi and say“ human nature is evil”not\r\nmeans“ human nature is originally evil, ”even say the doctrine of xunzi means\r\nthe human nature is good. I think the doctrine of sinful nature has important position\r\nin Xunzi, we can not deny it easily. What the doctrine of human nature of Xunzi mean,\r\nwe should discuss it via the meaning of“ nature, ”but not have interpretation\r\nwithout any evidence. The meaning of “ nature”in the Pre-Qin dynasty is\r\n“ inherent, ”so the meaning of “ nature”almost equal to the “ originally\r\nhave. ”That is to say we do not need to differentiate between“human nature is\r\nevil ”and“human nature is originally evil. ”At any rate, we can not deny to the\r\ndoctrine of sinful nature of Xunzi is mean“ human nature is originally evil, ”\r\notherwise the doctrine of politics and self-cultivation of Xunzi will not in coincidence\r\nin his though system.