Although Wang Chong has often been categorized as a kind of fatalist, many scholars maintain that his fatalism does not include one's moral autonomy, as he argues that one's inborn moral tendencies can be changed through education. He even acknowledges that a person can live a different life from what one's ming must have dictated. But in this article, I show that even when Wang seems to claim that personal effort is important in life, he soon claims that even the abilities to make efforts or to strive to be a better person are more or less decided at birth. And even when he claims that people born with evil nature can be guided to goodness, nowhere does he suggest that to be good or evil is a matter of our choice. And if there is an occasion where one does not live up to what one's ming has predetermined, it is only because there was another ming, one that is more powerful than that of an individual, that interfered with the realization of one's original ming, not because that one's original ming has changed. In the end, I argue that even though Wang Chong may not be a fatalist in its fullest sense, since fatalism means that every event is necessitated, he comes very close to being one, as he sees that in so many instances of our lives, we are not free to act in any other way than in the way that ming has prearranged.

中文翻译：

---

王冲的宿命论

尽管王冲经常被归类为宿命论者，但许多学者认为他的宿命论并不包括一个人的道德自主，因为他认为一个人与生俱来的道德倾向可以通过教育来改变。他甚至承认，一个人可以过着与现在不同的生活明一定是口授的。但在这篇文章中，我表明，即使王似乎声称个人努力在生活中很重要，但他很快就声称，即使是努力或努力成为更好的人的能力或多或少都是与生俱来的。甚至当他声称生来就具有邪恶本性的人可以被引导向善时，他也没有在任何地方暗示善恶是我们选择的问题。如果有一个场合，一个人不辜负自己的明已经预定了，只是因为有另一个明，一种比个人更强大的，它干扰了一个人的原始实现明，不是因为那个是原创的明已经改变。最后，我认为，尽管王冲可能不是一个完全意义上的宿命论者，因为宿命论意味着每一个事件是必要的，他非常接近成为一个人，因为他看到在我们生活的许多情况下，我们不能自由地以任何其他方式行动，只能以明已预先安排。