My reply was: Mencius' position on human nature is evidenced when he says that "mans nature is naturally good just as water naturally flows downward. There is no man without this good nature; neither is there water that does not flow downward" (p.210). He believes that while mans nature is naturally good, man can also be made to do evil - which is against his nature. He compares this to water being forced uphill - that it is the forced circumstances that make it flow - just as forced circumstances would make a man do evil things. The Confuncian's counter Mencius' argument by saying that humanity is external and not internal. Kao Tzu also asks Mencius if the nature of an ox is the same as that of a man in the paragraph right after Mencius argues that man can be forced to do evil and uses the comparison of water being forced to run uphill. I thought that by doing this, he was saying that you cannot compare the nature of man being forced to do evil because of forced circumstances with that of the water being forced to run in an unnatural course - uphill.  Both arguments were good and they both had good points. I liked how Mencius created his arguments just as much as I liked how they were countered back by the Confuncians. I would like to think that Mencius was correct but when I look at some of the atrocious acts that have been committed by people in this world, I do not really see how everyone can be forced to do evil based upon forced circumstances alone. I would therefore have to side with the Confuncians on their argument as it would seem to be more credible. Hsun Tzu raises an objection to Mencius' position by saying that mans nature is evil and "goodness is the result of conscious activity" (p.214). This is in contrast to Mencius who believes that mans nature is good and does evil only because he or she is forced to do so because of circumstances.