The difference between Xun Meng and Xun Meng does not lie in the difference in Confucian "benevolence" thought, nor in the difference in Confucian logical argument methods, but because the two have different emphasis on Confucian ideals and practices. On the surface, good and evil natures appear to be opposites, but in fact they reflect the very consistent Confucian nature of Xun Meng and Xun Meng.

Both Mencius and Xunzi believed that nature is not unchangeable and does not determine everything. Therefore, the so-called good nature and evil nature are innate and acquired. There is no such thing as good or evil. Good nature and evil nature are just different logical arguments between the two men. Just a premise. Mencius' "righteousness" comes from the mind, but "someone who is twice as good as others but has no calculation will not be able to use his talents to the best of his ability." "If it is nourished, nothing will grow; if it is deprived of its nourishment, nothing will disappear." A benevolent and righteous person, "If you ask, you will get it; if you give it up, you will lose it." Even if you have it innately, you may lose it the day after tomorrow. Although Xunzi's benevolence and righteousness lie beyond his natural disposition, a gentleman "turns his nature into falsehood" and "strengthens learning and strives to achieve it." What you don’t have in nature can be acquired the day after tomorrow. So it doesn’t matter whether you have it innately or not. The key is whether you can have it later in life. Therefore, the theory of good nature and the theory of evil nature are both boiled down to the Confucian ideal of "benevolent government" and the practical principles of "seeking" and "learning". In this regard, there is no essential difference between the two.

Since Mencius and Xunzi are consistent, why does one advocate good nature and the other advocate evil nature? The reason is that the historical environments in which the two are located are different. Sima Qian had already pointed out this. The "Historical Records" jointly biographies Mencius and Xunzi for its full consideration. ?

"Historical Records·Biography of Mencius and Xunqing" Sima Qian commented on Mencius: "At that time, Qin used Shang Jun to enrich the country and strengthen its army, Chu and Wei used Wu Qi to defeat weak enemies, and Qi Wei Wang Xuan used The disciples of the grandson Tian Ji, while the princes faced Qi in the east, and the people in the world were united and followed Lian Heng, and they were wise in attacking. Meng Ke described the virtues of the three dynasties of Tang and Yu, so they were not in harmony. "Also said Mencius." When King Xuan of Qi was visited, King Xuan could not use it. If King Hui of Liang did not follow his advice, he would think that he was too far away and too far away from the matter." The so-called "what is said is inconsistent" and "far away but broader than the matter" mean that Mencius's theoretical propositions were too far from the social reality at that time, and Mencius was considered to be too idealistic.

"Historical Records·Biography of Mencius and Xunqing" Sima Qian commented on Xunzi and said: "Xunqing was from Zhao. He came to study in Qi when he was fifty years old. All Tian Pian's relatives were dead by the time of King Xiang of Qi, and Xunqing Qing is the most important teacher. There is a shortage of officials in Qi Dynasty, and Xun Qing is the third minister. Because his family was in Lanling, Xunqing was jealous of the troubled times, ruined the country and ruined the monarchy. He failed to follow the path and camped in Wuzhu. "The success or failure of moral behavior is determined by tens of thousands of words." The so-called "jealousy of the political affairs of the world, the destruction of the country and the chaos of the king" shows that the social reality was getting worse by Xunzi's time, and it was not allowed to raise too high ideals.