In this essay I argue against Mencius's claim that "a man is capable of becoming good" because of the inherent goodness in his nature. I am against Mencius' statement because it assumes that human nature is inclined towards good morals. I believe that human nature is neutral and that humans can become good or bad depending on external influences. My essay consists of four sections: In the first section I will explain Mencius' statement. In the second section I will lay out why I disagree that human nature is good. In the third section I will provide an objection on behalf of Mencius. In the fourth section I will conclude that this rejoinder is unsuccessful. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay According to Mencius, there are 4 main manifestations of the heart/mind, which can also be called the 4 sprouts of ideals: the heart of compassion (sprout of benevolence), heart of shame (sprout of fairness), heart of courtesy and modesty (sprout of ritual) and heart of right and wrong (sprout of wisdom). These hearts are "possessed by all men alike" and are a part of all men from birth. So, under normal circumstances and with good care, a man will become one who has properly developed all 4 hearts and has good morals. If a man goes astray on the wrong path, one should not blame his nature, but rather the external factors that led him to become bad. It is the same that, with good nourishment, the shoots will become beautiful plants; and if neglected, they can wither and die. Another scenario presented by Mencius is the story of how when you see a child about to fall into a well, you will definitely move to save him. This is not due to potential rewards or even to stop the baby from crying, but because of one's own good nature that does not want another human being to suffer. This scenario supports Mencius' claim that human nature is inclined towards goodness as one decides to do the right thing even without external influences. As can be seen in Section I, Mencius admits that bad people exist, even if this is not the case. fault of their nature. This indicates that education plays an important role in a person's future moral inclination. As mentioned in Section I, when you grow up in a positive environment, you become good as you cultivate your intrinsic goodness. However, if a person were to grow up in a negative environment, such as being neglected by their parents, they would often develop low self-esteem, jealousy, and anger towards peers with a loving family, which would then corrupt their heart/mind. This causes its innate nature to lose the ability to develop properly. He will then become a man of bad morals. If this were the case, could we argue that human nature might also be intrinsically evil? That some grow up to be morally righteous because they were raised to be so; because they were cared for by loving parents and experienced morally beneficial external influences that helped them develop into good people? For example, they could have been rewarded by parental figures or authority figures for performing useful acts, leading them to associate these acts with “good rewards” and thus become a morally good person. As for those who remained morally bad, they are only those who grew up in “normal circumstances” and were left to their own devices. However, I am not arguing that human nature is bad. I'm arguing that it's neutral, a colorful white sheet give it?.