QuestionsAre humans good by nature?Close by nature, far apart by practice
Are humans good by nature?Neither good nor bad

Close by nature, far apart by practice

Confucius c. 551 BC · c. 479 BCBecoming human through learning, ritual and benevolence.
See profile
What it claims

What we become depends mainly on learning and practice, and teaching must be open to all, without distinction.

Why

Differences at birth are small while those made by practice are large, so what we become comes mostly from study.

In short

"Close by nature, far apart by practice" is an argument by Confucius (Analects 17.2, 7.19, 15.38) on the question "Are humans good by nature?" (answer: neither good nor bad). Its claim: What we become depends mainly on learning and practice, and teaching must be open to all, without distinction. According to AskPhilosophy's logic check (Z3 solver), the argument is valid only if one grants a premise the author leaves unstated (P3). AskPhilosophy presents 4 objections, 0 of them with a documented reply, and the original text behind each premise, checked word for word.

Analects 17.2, 7.19, 15.38
Valid with an implicit premise

What makes us who we are: what we received at birth, or what we have learned? Confucius answers in one sentence: "by nature, people are close; by practice, they grow far apart". He draws a practical consequence that was revolutionary in his time: teach everyone, regardless of birth. The P1..P4 → C form is our reconstruction; the sentence comes from book 17, a later layer of the Analects.

P1By nature, people are close to one another.
P2By practice (learning, habits), they grow far apart from one another.
P3 · implicit premiseIf the differences at birth are small and those created by practice are large, then what we become depends mainly on practice.
P4If what we become depends mainly on practice, then learning is decisive. Confucius says it of himself: he was not born knowing, he learned.
Therefore what we become depends mainly on learning and practice, and teaching must be open to all, without distinction.

click a premise to reject it

If you accept every premise, logic forces you to accept the conclusion. So the debate is about the premises.
Checked by a logic solver: the premises cannot all be true while the conclusion is false.
Without the implicit premise: Without P3, the computer finds a case where people are born close and practice sets them apart, yet what we become still depends mainly on something else, for instance small innate differences that outweigh everything: learning would then no longer be decisive.
The argument is valid and its four premises are essential. The weak point is P3: that people are born close does not yet say whether this small shared core leans towards good or bad, nor whether it weighs little. Confucius says no more, and his disciple Zigong states that one could not hear him speak about human nature. His two great heirs filled this silence in opposite ways: Mencius (nature is good, it must be developed) and Xunzi (nature is bad, it must be straightened). Yet both keep the conclusion: learning is decisive.
Analogy. Two seeds of the same plant, one watered and pruned, the other left alone: almost identical at first, they grow into two unrecognisable trees.

Objections

4

Each objection is a conversation: click to see who replies and where the debate stands.

A
A tension within the Analects attacks premise 1

The Analects also say that those born with knowledge form the highest class, and that only the wisest and the most foolish never change. So people would not be so close by nature after all.

no reply
We have not yet found a direct reply by Confucius in the texts.
The debate goes on (our summary) The Analects do not resolve this tension. When Confucius says he himself was not born knowing (7.19), he does not deny that others are. The passages on those "born knowing" (16.9) and the "unchangeable" (17.3) come from late layers; commentators, Zhu Xi among them, read them as rare exceptions that leave the rule intact: almost everyone changes through practice.
Mencius 320 BC · attacks premise 3

The difference does not come from practice alone: goodness is already in our nature. Think of someone who suddenly sees a child about to fall into a well: everyone feels alarm and compassion, without calculation. These "sprouts" of goodness are in us like our four limbs; learning only develops them.

no reply
No reply possible: objection raised in -320, after the author's death (-479).
Xunzi 250 BC · attacks premise 1

People are indeed close by nature, but close in badness: all are born with love of gain, envy and the desires of the senses. Goodness is an artifice. As crooked wood needs straightening, people need teachers, rites and laws imposed on them to become good.

no reply
No reply possible: objection raised in -250, after the author's death (-479).
The debate goes on (our summary) Xunzi and Mencius both claim Confucius' authority. His silence on human nature leaves both readings open: that is why this debate runs through the whole history of Confucianism.
B
Behavioural genetics (popularised by Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate) 2002 · attacks premise 1

Studies of twins and adopted children show that a large share of the differences in personality and intelligence between individuals is heritable. We are not born so close: upbringing is not everything.

no reply
summary: their text is not yet in our corpus
No reply possible: objection raised in 2002, after the author's death (-479).
The debate goes on (our summary) A Confucian would reply that Confucius' sentence is about what matters most, becoming a person of worth, not about talents: on that point, learning and habits remain decisive.