[FN#161] Mencius (372-282 B.C.) is regarded as the beat expounder of the doctrine of Confucius.  There exists a well-known work of his, entitled after his own name.  See ‘A History of Chinese Philosophy,’ by R. Endo, and also ‘A History of Chinese Philosophy’ (pp. 38-50), by G. Nakauchi.

2.  Man is Bad-natured according to Siun Tsz[FN#162] (Jun-shi).

The weaknesses of Mencius’s theory are fully exposed by another diametrically opposed theory propounded by Siun Tsz (Jun-shi) and his followers.  ‘Man is bad-natured,’ says Siun Tsz, ’since he has inborn lust, appetite, and desire for wealth.  As he has inborn lust and appetite, he is naturally given to intemperance and wantonness.  As he has inborn desire for wealth, he is naturally inclined to quarrel and fight with others for the sake of gain.’  Leave him without discipline or culture, he would not be a whit better than the beast.  His virtuous acts, such as charity, honesty, propriety, chastity, truthfulness, are conduct forced by the teachings of ancient sages against his natural inclination.  Therefore vices are congenial and true to his nature, while virtues alien and untrue to his fundamental nature.

[FN#162] Siun Tsz’s date is later by some fifty years than Mencius.  Siun Tsz gives the reason why man seeks after morality, saying that man seeks what he has not, and that he seeks after morality simply because he has not morality, just as the poor seek riches.  See ’A History of Chinese Philosophy’ (pp. 51-60), by G. Nakauchi, and ’A History of Development of Chinese Thought,’ by R. Endo.

These two theories are not only far from throwing light on the moral state of man, but wrap it in deeper gloom.  Let us raise a few questions by way of refutation.  If man’s fundamental nature be good, as Mencius maintains, why is it easy for him to be vicious without instruction, while he finds it hard to be virtuous even with instruction.  If you contend that good is man’s primary nature and evil the secondary one, why is be so often overpowered by the secondary nature?  If you answer saying that man is good-natured originally, but he acquires the secondary nature through the struggle for existence, and it gradually gains power over the primary nature by means of the same cause, then the primitive tribes should be more virtuous than the highly civilized nations, and children than grownup people.  Is this not contrary to fact?

If, again, man’s nature is essentially bad, as Siun Tsz holds, how can he cultivate virtue?  If you contend that ancient sages invented so-called cardinal virtues and inculcated them against his natural inclination, why does he not give them up?  If vices be congenial and true to man’s nature, but virtues be alien and untrue to him, why are virtues honoured by him?  If vices be genuine and virtue a deception, as you think, why do you call the inventors of that deceiving art sages?  How was it possible for man to do good before these sages’ appearance on earth?