Desire is the root cause of international conflict—Ritual propriety solves

He says: ‘Now, the nature of man is such that he is born with a love of profit. Following this nature will cause its aggressiveness and greedy tendencies to grow and courtesy and deference to disappear. ... This being the case, when each person follows his inborn nature and indulges his natural inclinations, aggressiveness and greed are certain to develop. This is accomplished by violation of social class distinctions and throws the natural order into anarchy, resulting in a cruel tyranny.’40 It is interesting to note that the first of Hans Morgenthau’s six principles of political realism is also that of human nature: ‘Political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature ... Human nature, in which the laws of politics have their roots, has not changed since the classical philosophies of China, India and Greece endeavoured to discover these laws.’41 Xun Zi makes a specific analysis of human nature: ‘Mencius contended that ‘‘since man can learn, his nature is good.’’ I say that this is not so. It shows that Mencius did not reach any real understanding of what man’s inborn nature is and that he did not investigate the division between those things that are inborn in man and those that are acquired. As a general rule, ‘‘inborn nature’’ embraces what is spontaneous from Nature, what cannot be learned, and what required no application to master. Ritual principles and moral duty are creations of the sage. They are things that people must study to be able to follow them and to which they must apply themselves before they can fulfil their precepts. What cannot be gained by learning and cannot be mastered by application yet is found in man is properly termed ‘‘inborn nature’’. What must be learned before a man can do it and what he must apply himself to before he can master it yet is found in man is properly called ‘‘acquired nature’’. This is precisely the distinction between ‘‘inborn’’ and ‘‘acquired’’ natures.’42 Xun Zi also believed that man’s evil nature is the root cause of international conflict. Since man’s desires have no limits and it is impossible to satisfy unlimited desires by material means, he says: ‘Men are born with desires which, if not satisfied, cannot be lead men to seek to satisfy them. If in seeking to satisfy their desires men observe no measure and apportion things without limits, then it would be impossible for them not to contend over the means to satisfy their desire. Such contention leads to disorder. Disorder leads to poverty.’43 Xun Zi did not believe that increasing social wealth resolves the conflicts arising from human competitiveness. He defines human beings’ desires as a natural emotive reaction: ‘Inborn nature is the consequence of Heaven. Emotions are the substance of that nature. Desires are the resources of nature. Seeking what is desired is the responses of the emotions.’44 Xun Zi, based on this reasoning, believed that strengthening the ability to reason constrains desire and therefore avoids social disorder. He says: ‘What men desire most is life, and what they hate most is death. Be that it may, men sometimes [pursue life and end up with death? polisher] [give up?] the pursuit of life and end up with death. It is not that they do not really desire life and rather desire death; it is that it proved impossible to continue living and it was possible to die. Thus, when desires run to excess, actions do not reach that point because the mind stops them. If what the mind permits coincides with reason, then although the desires are not strong enough the mind has ordered them to do so. If what the mind permits conflicts with what is reasonable, then although the desire[s] be few, how could it stop at disorder! Thus, order and disorder lie in what the mind permits and not with the desires that belong to our essential natures. Although you claim to have succeeded in finding the cause of order and disorder, if you do not seek it where it lies but instead seek it where it does not lie, then you will miss the truth.’45 Xun Zi is thus convinced that strengthening mental reasoning is a way of establishing social norms, in particular, ritual principles. He makes a point of discussing the content of ritual: ‘Ritual principles are the guiding ropes that pull the government. Where the exercise of government does not make use of ritual principles, the government will not succeed ... The relationship of ritual principles to the correct governance of the nation is like that of suspended balance and steelyard to the determination of weight or that of the darkened marking line to straightness. Thus, a man without ritual will not live, an undertaking without ritual will not succeed, and a nation without ritual will not be tranquil.’46 He also says: ‘Now, since human nature is evil, it must await the instructions of a teacher and the model before it can be put aright, and it must obtain ritual principles and a sense of moral right before it can become orderly. Nowadays, since men lack both teacher and model, they are prejudiced, wicked, and not upright. Since they lack ritual principles and precepts of moral duty, they are perverse, rebellious, and disorderly.’47 Xun Zi explains, from a supply–demand balance perspective, how social norms constrain a state’s behaviour, avoid violent conflicts and maintain international order. He believed that norms make human desires reasonable and so help to achieve satisfaction. In other words, that they achieve the balance between decreased human desires and increased satisfaction. Xun Zi says: ‘The Ancient Kings abhorred such disorder; so they established the regulations contained within ritual and moral principles in order to apportion things, to nurture the desire of men, and to supply the means for their satisfaction .... In this way the two of them, desires and goods, sustained each other over the course of time. This is the origin of ritual principles.’48 Xun Zi’s ideas regarding norms as a means of preventing violent conflict between states shares certain common assumptions with modern institutionalism; both hold that certain norms exist in the human mind that in some way control and constrain the temptation to pursue individual selfinterest. Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye say: ‘All these regimes were designed to resolve common problems in which the uncontrolled pursuit of individual self-interest by some governments could adversely affect the national interest of all the rest.’49 ‘Over time, governments develop reputations for compliance, not just to the letter of law but to the spirit as well. These reputations constitute one of their most important assets.