# data[].attributes.body
Isela discussed Mengzi’s view that if the king ruled with policies “according with humanity”, the “young would have leisure to cultivate the virtues of filiality, deference towards elders, loyalty, and faithfulness” (Mengzi, pg 21). To me, it seems as though Mengzi is pointing out that policy choices tangibly and materially affect the culture and lives of people in society. This seems like an important insight by Mengzi, because being cognizant of this should allow a King/ruler to transform the society for the benefit of all people. For example, if kings didn’t take away people from their fieldwork (for the purpose of war or other labor), there would be more food and families would have more well-being. Kings that take able-bodies people away from the labor/work that produces the sustenance for families, and don’t help the families, “entrap their people till they sink and drown” (Mengzi, pg 21). Then, when there is not enough food to go around, and the young see themselves forced to work, and older people work more as well, the culture of the society revolves less around social relationships, and more about economic relations. People work their life away, and this keeps people from fully developing a sense of community or loyalty. Being aware of how such a policy harms people and makes a less humane culture, gives the king the opportunity to transform this particular aspect of society for the better. In other words, Mengzi is really interested in how action can improve the well-being of others. This is somewhat in contrast to Henry’s post about Mengzi believing a laissez faire outlook on government would be the most successful. However in some passages Mengzi does appear to say that the ruler should take a more hands-off/laissez faire approach, such as when he suggests the king should not interfere with the work of the people. So he also thinks that action can and does harm sometimes. - Ezequiel Contreras

# data[].attributes.body
I think Noah mentions an important point about Xunzi's arguments. Xunzi prioritizes customs and rituals, which are created by wise people who has more deliberate efforts to find a harmonious lifestyle than rest of the society. And, today we realized that some of our customs traditional assumptions about gender are false. Therefore, we can say that today we have better customs and a better morality. And, I think it's possible to interpret Xunzi's arguments from today's perspective because when he says that rituals are important for an harmonious lifestyle, he doesn't specify this ritual or custom. -Oguz Suner

# data[].attributes.body
Aditi agrees with Mengzi’s argument that “altruism is innate and egoism is learned” and wonders what kind of actions or behavior are taught and which ones are innate of the person. I also agree with Mengzi’s overall argument about human nature and disagree with Xunzi’s position. I think Aditi’s second thought is something Xunzi overlooked when formulating his main claim that “human nature is bad and their goodness is a matter of deliberate effort” (Xunzi, 284). What I mean is that how can Xunzi assure that everything bad (morally speaking) a person does is innate in his character and everything good a person does was taught by someone else? How come in can’t be the other way around? I think is logical to think that while there are cases where people are intrinsically wicked (for instance, sociopaths and psychopaths who may be born with mental illnesses or traumas that lead them to act that way) there are also cases where individuals learn bad things from others (for instance, if a kid is taught to steal from a parent, relative or friend). And I think the same could be said in cases of good behavior. For this reason, I think this flaw weakens Xunzi’s main argument and makes me agree more with Mengzi. In response to Anna’s post, I also agree with her when she refutes Xunzi’s argument that for a person to be good has to learn from teachers, government, and similar figures of ruling power (p. 284), since these ruling figures can also be ill-intentioned given that they are also humans of “bad nature”. Using Xunzi’s own logic to define human nature is what makes his argument not so plausible. In fact, if we were to search for specific examples, with could find many different countries where their government is very corrupt, and not caring of their citizens’ sake. Hence, making the assumption that government figures, teachers and others who are supposed to teach the standards of morality can’t be ill-intentioned, is not of strong foundation if we consider real life scenarios.
-Bryan Archuleta

# data[].attributes.body
Responding to Abraham and Noah who both discuss Xunzi’s argument that “people’s nature is bad” and that “their goodness is a matter of deliberate effort” (p.284). I find Xunzi's following sentence especially interesting-- “Now people’s nature is such that they are born with a fondness for profit” (p.284). While I do agree that all humans are likely born with a desire for profit, I’m not sure how I feel about his claim that there would be nothing stopping us from acting egotistically for profit had we not been taught otherwise. Abraham mentions Xunzi’s wilderness argument, in which he asserts that if humans were to be raised in captivity in the wild, “we [would] be a wild product of nature and not acquire all the basic goodness that society shapes us into” (Hernandez). There are two parts to this argument that I consider to be flawed. First, I think all humans are born with at the very least a natural need to protect themselves, and can therefore feel empathy for other beings who are trying to do the same. If we think back to the prehistoric era, we must consider that humans needed other humans to literally survive, and this would therefore result in communal and protective behaviors that we would now consider “basic goodness”. Second, how are we to decide what is considered “basic goodness”? As Noah discusses, Xunzi outlines  characteristics that he categorizes as good (“correct, ordered, peaceful, and controlled”) or bad (“deviant, dangerous, unruly, and chaotic”) behavior (Choufa). I too find these definitions very problematic, and I believe there are plenty of examples where these definitions would immediately fail, especially when we bring sociocultural differences into play, which we can’t ignore. Country to country, state to state, etc., there are huge differences in what is considered acceptable. Or is Xunzi arguing that people are born as what is considered bad in their respective environment, and then are taught to be what is considered as good in their own environment? I think this is far too broad a claim with too many inconsistencies.
- Aditi Shrivastava

# data[].attributes.body
In response to Ezequiel's post: In the text of Mengzi, he claims that King Xuan of Qi is able to rule as a "protector of the people". Mengzi made such a claim when the King spared an ox that will be killed and replaced it with a sheep. Mengzi believes that King Xuan of Qi is able to become a "protector of the people" because he has humanity. Even though there is no difference as living creatures between an ox and a sheep, the King's behavior shows his humanity through the ox he is seeing. The King could feel the suffering the ox is going to have when he sees it and hear its sound. Thus, a small behavior such as replacing the ox with the sheep can also reveal one person's heart.

In response to Abraham's post: I also think Xunzi's claim that human nature is initially bad is interesting. Xunzi points out that people are born bad, but people will get better with the polish from environment and teachers. The question about what would people become if we lose all contact of outside world is intriguing. I think our inborn bad will be useless and unimportant when we have no contact with any other people. Even though we might not have the chance to have teachers and thus improve ourselves, we will not grow the badness inside us either. However, it is almost impossible for us to isolate from society nowadays. Therefore, learning from teachers and society is especially important for us.
-Boyan Wang

# data[].attributes.body
First, I would like to respond to Abraham’s post: I am also intrigued by Xunzi’s argument that human nature is bad and his logical thinking in proving his point. I like the example of us growing up in the wilderness you provided. If left in the wilderness to grow up, I don’t think we would not be able to develop all the virtues we have gained in reality since there is no teaching and no model to follow. Xunzi compares the social standards concerning virtues to vessels made by potters. In our case, the potters are teachers and positive examples who set up all those standards which we are taught to meet. In my experience, I think the guidance provided by teachers and role models is very crucial in shaping our characters. And without guidance and standards, a lot of people are likely to tread on the wrong path. I would also like to respond to Nabil’s post. Nabil wrote that she/he found the example Mengzi gives about arrow makers and shield makers perplexing. I would like to offer my interpretation. Arrow makes want their arrows to be sharp enough to ensure efficacy while shield makers want their shields to be solid enough to protect people, which makes shield makers more humane compared to those who make arrows because shield makers are concerned about people’s safety. And Confucius’s main point here is to emphasize humanity and encourage people to act with humanity.
- Yingliang Shi

# data[].attributes.body
Ezequiel mentioned King Xuan’s sparing the ox and his ability to show the same kindness to his people in his/her post, and I would like to respond to it. I have to admit that I was a little confused by why King Xuan asked people to spare the ox and replace it with a sheep since they are all innocent animals. But Mengzi’s answer helped me understand it. As Mengzi suggests, the king wanted to release the ox because he laid eyes on it and he didn’t want it to suffer. And since he didn’t see the sheep that was going to be sacrificed, he didn’t feel the same sympathy. The main point here is that the king is capable of sympathizing with things or people that are suffering, which means that he is equally capable of being altruistic to the people he is supposed to protect. It is just a matter of whether he wants to protect the people or not. I also want to respond to Isela’s post which says that Mengzi’s argument that young people, if ruled with humanity, would cultivate virtues such as filiallity and loyalty is quite confusing. I think the point Mengzi tries to make here is that if the king governs people using humanistic approaches such as light punishment, reduced tax and freedom to tend their farm, people, especially the young ones who would not be worried about being suddenly recruited or punished in one way or another, would live a happier, stabler life, which would lead them to do good deeds and appreciate the way the king governs the country. And once they trust the king, they would be loyal to him and fight for him. -Hao Li

# data[].attributes.body
I am interested in the reasoning behind why Mengzi believes a laissez faire outlook on government would be the most successful. If past civilizations, including civilizations from Mengzi's time, showed patterns like  the human nature of capitalistic greed and authoritarian power mongering, why would these effects of greed and authoritarian rule diminish just because the society is morally righteous? Even if light, freedom-rich policies were in place I don't see why that would prevent members of the society from potentially abusing that power.

-Henry Koepcke

# data[].attributes.headline
Why the king can potentially rule as "protector of the people"

# data[].attributes.subject
Why the king can potentially rule as "protector of the people"

# data[].attributes.body
One argument I found interesting was Mengzi’s argument that King Xuan of Qi is able to rule as a “protector of the people.” Mengzi points out that the king is capable of being altruistic to an ox. He then explains that the king is also capable of being of being altruistic to his people, and is thus able at least potentially to rule as a protector of the people. (Mengzi, pg 22). - Ezequiel Contreras

# data[].attributes.body
Mengzi argues that if individuals were ruled with policies that preserved humanity, such as light punishments, light taxes, and less strenuous labor, the younger generation would be inclined to “cultivate the virtues of filiality,” submit to elders, and become loyal to their government and those who implemented the policies (pg. 21). The younger generation would then be motivated to serve those around them more readily if they were nurtured in an environment that preserved their humanity, and they were not forced into submission by their elders or those who govern.  -Isela Zarate

# data[].attributes.body
Xunzi's argument of human nature and how being bad is inborn is interesting take on how we are a product of society and our household. If put into the wilderness with no contact to the outside world would we be a wild product of nature and not acquire all the basic goodness that society shapes us into. He also argues that it is especially our teachers that weed out the bad and plant in the good and its only then that we are good (p.284-285, Xunzi). -Abraham Hernandez

# data[].attributes.body
In Xunzi's paper he talks about how Mengzi discusses what people generally believe is good which is being correct, ordered, peaceful, and controlled. He also mentions what people find are bad which is being deviant, dangerous, unruly, and chaotic. I find this ancient way of thinking  to be highly problematic (apart from the severe ambiguity of these character descriptions), for instance individuals who are LGBTQIA+ and those who have mental health issues would then immediately be placed in the bad category from simply deviating from this 'norm'; when in reality these people are normal and live healthy and happy lives that are in no such way 'bad'. Of course, we have progressed past such horrible ways of thinking, but it grants potential insight on how those with no empathy or self awareness thought now and in the past. (Xunzi, 288) - Noah Choufa

# data[].attributes.body
I am intrigued by how much Mengzi builds his moral standards, especially for princes, upon bringing happiness to the people. In fact, from reading his passages it is not difficult to see how he fundamentally believe that people are the most important components of a state. In 1A.2, he tells King Hui of Liang that “the men of old shared their delight with the people - that is why they knew delight.” (18-19). Mengzi essentially thinks antithetical to the ideologies of Machiavellian politics where princes were told to be egoistic in order to stabilize their rule; in Mengzi they were educated to be ruling with an altruist mind that put the wellness of the people before their own egoistic desires. Leo Gao

# data[].attributes.body
In the Zunzi article I found most of his claims to be quite confusing to say the least. He claims that being bad is technically in bedded within us and that we need teachers, counselors and what not in order to “properly” learn how to behave (pg.285). He begins to go on and say that throughout history we see this trend and is in complete disagreement with the Mengzi article.
Courtney Whitehead

# data[].attributes.body
In the Mengzi reading, he talks about arrow makers and shield makers. An arrow is used to wound men while a shield is used to protect men from harm. Confucius then expands on this and says that humanity is the best thing one can have. He compares having a lack of humanity as being a slave and pushes this agenda of comparing humanity to archery (p.44).
-Nabil Miftah

# data[].attributes.body
The argument I found the most interesting in Xunzi's writing is the fact that he looks at the human kind as someone inherently bad. As he thinks that he argues that people need guidance to be better aka government and  teachers. In my opinion people are the product of their surrounding, mostly at least. Sure, there are cases where the circle is broken but mostly children   are adopting the behavior of their pedants, therefor I believe we are shaped by our society not by just being born bad or good. Also, I can not agree with the idea that teachers and government are always right, they are humans too, therefore if we are arguing all humans are bad they are potentially bad, therefor they can not guide the society. -Anna Miskarova

# data[].attributes.body
An argument I found interesting was that of Mengzi, who essentially takes the position that people are born with an innate tendency to be altruistic, but not everyone is/will be altruistic (due to circumstance, upbringing, etc.). He takes the example of King Xuan of Qi, who chooses to halt the sacrifice of an ox upon hearing “its whimpering like an innocent man being taken for execution” without any self-regarding motive (p. 22). I think it’s an interesting example, and definitely leads me to agree with Mengzi’s claim that altruism is innate and egoism is learned. Broadly speaking, everything in life is learned. So it makes me wonder who’s to say what is considered selflessness and what is considered selfishness. (Human sacrifice is a random example-- in some countries, the victim is seen as selfish if she refuses to be sacrificed. But in other countries, the community is seen as selfish if they even consider sacrificing someone’s life for their own prosperity. It's difficult to say which behavior is taught and which is innate.)
- Aditi Shrivastava

# data[].attributes.body
Xunzi argues that it cannot be in one’s nature to be good, you are born with an inclination too do things that only benefit yourself and although you can learn to do good, it does not become part of one’s nature. Instead, Xunzi claims that this is a “deliberate effort”. (284-285)
Sarah Langmaid

# data[].attributes.body
Xunzi is of the belief that human nature is inherently bad. In other words, humans are born naturally evil. This means that individuals must act against their natural tendencies in order to ensure a successful and cohesive collective (p.284-285) - Moneer Mujaddidi

# data[].attributes.body
Xunzi claims that “people’s nature is bad” (p.284). He believes that people are born with the tendency to obtain profit and thus people’s good behavior is a matter of deliberate effort. The most interesting part in the Xunzi text is the difference between people’s nature and deliberate effort. People’s nature cannot be obtained through learning while deliberate effort is able to be obtained through learning and hard work.
-Boyan Wang

# data[].attributes.body
The author’s claim was that people are naturally born bad and that when we give into our “inborn dispositions” we become “unruly, chaotic, and not well ordered”. The argument that I found most interesting in the Xunzi text was that there is a fine line between

Good versus bad,gentlemen vs petty men, common people vs sage kings. The only difference between them is the ritual and standards of righteousness that they practice. It is in the person’s own will to become a gentleman or a petty man. (p. 285)
Yao Lei

# data[].attributes.body
In Xunzi, he used the fact that existence of the government and teacher to infer that people needed to be regulated and taught to be good, and human nature is bad because they needed to be regulated to be good. (Xunzi, 288) I agree that people needed to be regulated by law; otherwise, more people may become criminals. However, it only proved that people's actions are influenced by experience and environment, but not that people's nature is bad.
Lingbin Wu

# data[].attributes.body
Xunzi argues that humans are inherently bad which is why there are teachers and role models to guide us through rituals and standards of righteousness to help make people become good (p. 284). Xunzi refutes Mengzi’s argument that people are inherently good by emphasizing that qualities which are part of our nature shouldn’t have to be taught or learned (p. 285). Since people have a desire to become good, and you only desire things that you don’t possess, it shows that people are naturally bad (p.287). Kaitlyn Wu

# data[].attributes.body
Xunzi maintains that people are bad and egoistic in nature, and it takes deliberate efforts for them to cultivate virtues. He argues that if people just go along with their nature and do nothing to refine it, they would wind up struggling and resorting to violence (p.284). And that is why teachers and models are needed to guide people to the right path. When explaining why “ritual and standards of righteousness” are produced through deliberate effort, he compares the process to that of potters making vessels and craftsmen making utensils (p.289). Just like it takes hard work to generate these products, the establishment of rituals and standards of righteousness also entails effort.
- Yingliang Shi

# data[].attributes.body
I found Mengzi’s argument that people are born with a moral sense which makes it difficult for them to see others suffer and the analogy he gives interesting. Mengzi takes the example of a child about to fall into a fall to explain the inherent morality people possess. He suggests that the sense of terror and dismay we feel when seeing that child is not triggered by our intention to be in his parent’s grace or be applauded by friends (p.43). It is simply because we are born with the ability to commiserate with others who are suffering. -Hao Li

# data[].attributes.body
I have a little trouble with Xunzi's argument that people's nature is bad and that to shape themselves better they have to learn about rituals and standards of righteousness (p. 285). While it may be true that one may not be aware about being wrong (morally speaking) for doing something, I don't necessarily agree with the idea that you can't act with well intended reasons for someone till you learn is it right to do so. For me, it makes more sense Mengzi's position that there is some moral goodness embraced within us, that we can then expand upon if we please to learn in doing so.
-Bryan Archuleta

# data[].attributes.body
Xunzi writes about how human nature is bad and their goodness is a matter of deliberate effort. He states in a passage that people must force themselves to engage in learning and seek to possess rituals as well as standards of righteousness (pg 287). I find this argument puzzling because the fact that humans beings are seeking out teachers and moral authorities that will teach them how to be good and attain righteousness shows to me that human nature is inherently good. Xunzi distinguished nature and effort earlier, and it seems to me that it is human nature to seek processes that will make them better and this leads me to believe that human nature is not bad. - Annsana Biju

# data[].attributes.body
I found Xunzi's argument that people's nature is bad to be interesting. He states that we're born with "desires of the eyes and ears" which I find to be true as what we see and hear decide whether we desire something (Xunzi, p.284). However, for a person's nature to be good is going to be dependent upon the amount of effort they put in. I find this argument quite convincing as Xunzi makes a great point by saying that the "power of rulers and superiors" were created to control the bad nature of people (Xunzi, p.288). - Areen Kazarian

# data[].attributes.body
Mengzi affirms the potential for one to cultivate altruistic motivations by drawing upon King Xuan’s altruistic desires in sparing an ox. Where King Xuan’s actions can be prima facie interpreted as self-interested stinginess, Mengzi argues instead that such actions were done from sincere distress (p.22). Granted, the king himself later acknowledges his desire to spare the ox stems from genuine empathy, such that he did not consider the “expense when [he] said to substitute a sheep,” such response is nonetheless precluded by Mengzi’s own paraphrase of events (p.22). It is not yet compelling that Menzi’s argument is sound rather than political rhetoric or flattery to appease the king.
- Josephine Wang

# data[].attributes.body
Xunzi's argument from ritual and moral standards concludes that all humans, if left to their nature, will be egoistic and bad. Xunzi reaches this conclusion by stating that rituals and moral standards "are produced by the deliberate effort of the sage" (3) and not from the nature of people or the nature of the sage. It is because rituals and moral standards are unnatural yet necessary to prevent people from being "unruly, chaotic, and not well ordered" (2). Therefore, humans are by nature egoistic and bad, and education in ritual and moral standards is necessary to draw people away from bad behavior. -Alex Hukill