Here’s a question that I have run up against in my writing.  I am thinking about the Taoist rejection of general, deliberate, and conscious moral codes, as suggested, for example, in this passage in Chuang Tzu:

“Can
a person really have no nature?” asked Hui Tzu of Chuang Tzu.
“Yes,”
replied Chuang Tzu.“But
if you have no nature, how can you be called human?”
Tao
gives you shape and heaven gives you form, so why can’t you be called human?”
“But
if you’re called human, how can you have no nature?”
“’Yes
this’ and ‘No that’ – that’s what I call human nature,” replied Chuang Tzu.
“Not mangling yourself with ‘good’ and ‘bad’ – that’s what I call no
nature. Instead of struggling to improve
on life, you simply abide in occurrence appearing of itself.” (p. 77)

    This is obviously a rejection of the Mencian notion of a universal and innately good human nature.  But it is also a rejection of moral learning, which is represented as "mangling ourselves with ‘good’ and ‘bad’".  Moral learning is problematic for Chuang Tzu because he worries that a general code of principles applicable to all will not suit or fit the circumstances of all individuals, thus obstructing them from their Integrity (te) in Way (tao).  This does not mean that Chuang Tzu is amoral or immoral but, rather, that morality operates on a micro level, a radically individual level and cannot be expanded to larger classes or categories of individuals.

     The danger here is obvious: without general moral principles, bad behavior cannot be limited and good behavior cannot be encouraged.  Social oder will breakdown and raw power will dominate right. 

     But I think Taoists do not worry about this sort of Confucian nightmare (Lord of the Flies run amok).  And they don’t because they are, basically, optimistic about how humans will behave under conditions of maximum freedom.  Taoism rejects killing and encourages a certain tolerance.  If repressive political institutions and social practices were removed, and if people came to apprehend Way, there would naturally follow a peaceful, non-violent and non-exploitative state of affairs.  Think about passage 80 of the Tao Te Ching:

Let nations grow smaller and smaller and people fewer and fewer,

let weapons become rare and superfluous,
let people feel death’s gravity again
and never wander far from home.
Then boat and carriage will sit unused and shield and sword lie unnoticed.

Let people knot ropes for notation again

and never need anything more,

let them find pleasure in their food and beauty in their clothes, peace in their homes and joy in their ancestral ways.

Then people in neighboring nations will look across to each other, their chickens and dogs calling back and forth,

and yet they’ll grow old and die without bothering to exchange visits.

      Although this needs to be further explicated, I will assert that this is, essentially, an optimistic view of a peaceful and sufficient social existence under conditions of minimal government.  Not quite utopian, perhaps but certainly not bad.

      And that raises the question.  It seems to make sense to me, but I am not sure that others would agree.  So, I put it to you, dear readers: are Taoists optimistic?