What Is the “Similarity” of Humankind? A Difference between Confucian and Mohist Religious Ethics

I greatly appreciate the substantial comments and suggestions provided by the reviewer. They have proven quite stimulating and have pushed me to improve my article in several ways.

Below, I would like to respond to the five main points the reviewer listed and explain the changes I have made to the article:

Main Suggestions:

Comment 1:

The issues of “heart-mind” of Mencius and “self-interest” of Mozi in this paper are not particularly but generally well-known in academic circles. If the author intends to show the originality of this paper, how these issues are logically and different with previous studies should be addressed by the author. These differences, however, are not sufficiently highlighted in the title, abstract, or content, resulting in a lack of originality of the paper.

Response 1:  

Thank you for pointing this out. I partially agree with this comment. Indeed, as you said, "The issues of 'heart-mind' of Mencius and 'self-interest' of Mozi in this paper are not particularly but generally well-known in academic circles." However, I want to provide a new perspective to understand this issue. That is, instead of using "human nature theory" to summarize the supposed differences between "heart-mind" of Mencius and "self-interest" of Mozi, I choose to replace it with the perspective of "what makes humans human" or "the fundamental similarity between humans," or "what distinguishes humans as a category from other categories, their categorical essence." (And the discussion from this perspective has not yet emerged in the academic community). This is because the so-called "human nature theory" does not cover the views of all pre-Qin philosophers. For example, Mozi does not discuss "human nature", but he is concerned with the question of "what constitutes the fundamental similarity among humans". Moreover, the concept of "nature" cannot encompass all understandings of "innate tendencies of humans" or "essential attributes of humans" (for example, Huang-Lao Daoism uses the concept of "emotions" instead of "nature"). I believe that using the question and perspective of "what makes humans human" to discuss related issues is more inclusive, broader, and novel than using the perspective of "human nature theory." This is the innovative aspect of my problem perspective.

However, taking your concern into account, I have added an endnote to explain how my research differs from previous studies and where my innovative points lie (see endnote 4).

Secondly, although contrasting "self-interest" and "heart-mind" in "Mozi and Mencius" may not be novel, the way that I frame it and lay out the argument provides helpful clarity and perspective. Especially, I try to provide some thoughtful overviews of existing scholarship (e.g., the one root - two roots debate) and develop my main arguments on the different foundations of human nature as sources of commonality and unity among people in Mozi and Mencius. I believe these efforts contribute to the novelty and inspiration of the article.

Comment 2:

The primary focus of this paper seems to be on Mozi and Mencius, rather than Mohism and Confucianism. If the author intends to focus on Mohism and Confucianism, as the title indicates, more discussions of Mohism and Confucianism from these issues are required. Since the discussions regarding Mohism and Confucianism are but short and not very unique, there is a concern about the potential fallacy of hasty generalization.

Response 2:

I fully agree with your comment. As you pointed out, "The primary focus of this paper seems to be on Mozi and Mencius, rather than Mohism and Confucianism.” But Mozi and Mencius cannot encompass all the thoughts of pre-Qin Mohism and Confucianism. To avoid this misunderstanding, I have added the following clarification at the beginning of the article (P1-P2，lines 45-54):

"When discussing the differences between Confucian and Mohist ethics, it is important not to neglect the fact that both Confucianism and Mohism internally exhibit complex changes and variations. For instance, there are distinctions between the views of Mozi and those presented in 'Mojing'，and the perspectives of Xunzi and Mencius diverge even more significantly. However, due to limitations in length, this article cannot provide a comprehensive exploration of pre-Qin Confucianism and Mohism. Instead, it merely selects Mencius and Mozi as representatives (both being the most important representatives of Warring States Mohism and Confucianism). Naturally, they cannot encompass all the differences within early Confucianism and Mohism, but an examination of these two cases may offer one aspect and dimension for understanding the dispute between Confucianism and Mohism."

In fact, the original structure of my article was quite extensive, and I also attempted to further explore the differences between Xunzi and the Mohists. However, due to limitations in length and energy, I can only focus on the comparison between Mencius and Mozi for now. I will further explore the comparison between Xunzi and the Mohists in future articles.

Moreover, to avoid the potential fallacy of hasty generalization, I have made an effort to use specific terms such as "Mencius and Mozi" in the conclusion section of the article, rather than using general terms like "Confucianism and Mohism".

Comments 3:

This paper has relatively many issues with the English expressions and editing: many un-native expressions are found, the use of Chinese pinyin is inconsistent, and both traditional and simplified Chinese characters are mixed. The use of punctuation also varies. These seem to be minor issues, but affects to the readability of the paper.

Response 3:

Thank you very much for your careful reading. I have carefully revised the language and punctuation of the entire text based on your suggestions. This includes: 1. Trying to use native expressions; 2. Unifying the use of Pinyin; 3. Unifying the use of simplified and traditional Chinese characters; 4. Maintaining consistency in the use of punctuation marks as much as possible. Thank you for your guidance!

Comments 4:

There is a relatively high number of references to Chinese sources. The readers also want to see Western scholars’ view on these issues.

Response 4：

I fully agree with your suggestions. Therefore, I have added some research findings from Western scholars. Please see the details in endnote 17 and endnote 20.

Other Suggestions:

Response：

Thank you very much for your careful and detailed guidance on my article! I have made corrections according to your advice point by point.

Finally, I want to thank the reviewer again for taking the time to meticulously read and review my article. My revisions might not fully satisfy all of your concerns, but all of your suggestions have nonetheless been greatly beneficial. Thanks again for your nice guidance!

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your substantial comments and suggestions have proven quite stimulating and have pushed me to improve my article in several ways.

       Below, I would like to respond to the five main points the reviewer listed and explain the changes I have made to the article:

Comment 1:

Mozi's approach to morality involves a form of "state consequentialism" (whereby the ruler should enact policies that increase the wealth, population and order of the state) that is not addressed in depth in the article. 

Response 1:

I fully agree with your comment. Thank you very much for pointing this out. Indeed, as you said, Mozi's morality can be described as a form of "state consequentialism" in a certain sense. To explain this point, I have added a section to the article to further illustrate how Mozi implemented and achieved this "state consequentialism ". Please see the details of my addition in line 477-557.

Comment 2:

The author's claim that all forms of religious ethics are grounded in conceptions of human nature (line 185) is problematic.  There are forms of divine command theory and forms of deontological ethics, for instance, that do not seem to follow this approach. 

Response 2:

I agree with your view and appreciate you pointing out this issue. To avoid misunderstanding, I have revised the original statement. I changed it to "Most ethical theories of the history of religions, be it ancient or modern, have always been based on a conception of human nature, " instead of "All ethical theories". Please see the details of the revised statement in line 193-197 and line 31-33.

Comment 3:

When discussing Mozi, the author makes a leap from the claim that people seek advantages to the claim that human nature is essentially self-interested.  He needs to flesh this out and defend it further.

Response 3:

I would like to explain my view. I believe that for Mozi, there is no obvious leap between "seeking advantages" and "self-interest". In fact, a more accurate description of Mozi's "seeking advantages" is "seeking self-advantages", And this "self-interest" or “seeking self-advantage” is a natural attribute of human beings or can be seen as the natural state without external interference, which is quite clear in Mozi's texts. For example, when discussing this issue, I quoted a passage from Mozi (lines 211-229) which explicitly states: "Because different groups of people cared about their own interests and society lacked an effective rule to mediate their conflicts, it naturally led to a situation of 'competing with one another for profit': everyone infringed on the interests of others out of self-interest, so that even if society had surplus goods, people were unable to share them, and even if it had strength to spare, people were unable to help each other in their work, thus good doctrines were hidden and obscured and not used for mutual teaching, and 'so the world was in a state of disorder comparable to that amongst birds and beasts'" (Mozi, 11.1).

Of course, Mozi did not wish to ultimately lead to a situation of "competing for profit". He hoped to control and regulate everyone's innate nature of "self-interest" to achieve consistency and maximization of the interests of the entire society. However, "seeking collective advantages" is only an ideal result. In terms of each person's innate tendency, they are all "self-interested".

Therefore, I believe that "self-interest" and "seeking advantages" are similar expressions and there is not much leap between them. Of course, the word "selfish" is not appropriate, so I have deleted the concept of "selfishness".

Comment 4:

The discussion of Tian is somewhat problematic.  Where does Mengzi talk about "gaining Tian’s favor".  Tian is the source of xin, What evidence is there that Mencius sees Tian as a “personal God”?  The author shows that Mencius believes that Heaven is characterized by morality, and that it might be seen as something like Providence (moving the arc of society in the direction of morality), but that does not equal a “personal God.”  In line 13, the author's phrase “To reach Heaven’s ears” is an odd statement for Mencius.  We connect with the heavenly part within us when we follow the guidance of the heart-mind. and we honor Tian when we cultivate and follow the guidance of our xin. 

Response 4:

I agree with your view. Therefore, I have deleted the mention of "personal God" in the article. Additionally, as you pointed out, the phrase "To reach Heaven’s ears" is indeed not very good, so I have revised it to this expression (Please see line 12-13, line1032-1034 and line 1076-1078):

"Mencius views the 'heart-mind' as the essential attribute of humans, advocating that we connect with the heavenly part within us when we follow the guidance of the heart-mind."

Comment 5:

The author’s point about Mencius at the end of the article can be found in Confucius, who frequently emphasized that one’s external achievements are largely out of one’s control, so that what matters is the cultivation of character and the focus on morality independent of external conditions like wealth and status.  That might be worth noting.

Response 5:

Thank you very much for adding this point. It has been very inspiring to me. Therefore, following your guidance, I have added a commentary on Confucius in the endnote of the last paragraph. Here's what I said (Please see endnote 21):

“It is worth noting that Mencius' view actually had its initial signs in the thought of Confucius, who frequently emphasized that one’s external achievements are largely out of one’s control, so that what matters is the cultivation of character and the focus on morality independent of external conditions like wealth and status. For example, in the "Qiong Da Yi Shi"《窮達以時》section of the Guodian Chu bamboo slips, there is a passage recorded from Confucius, who said: "Action is not for the sake of success, so one remains uncomplaining in adversity. Concealment is not for the sake of fame, so one does not grudge when unrecognized... Success or failure depends on time, but virtue remains constant. Whether praised or criticized by others, listen to it and reflect deeply... Therefore, a virtuous person diligently examines himself." That might be worth noting.

In addition, regarding the small issues you pointed out in the English language, I have made revisions to address each and every one of them.

Thanks again for taking the time to meticulously read and review my article. My revisions might not fully satisfy all of your concerns, but all of your suggestions have nonetheless been greatly beneficial. Thank you very much!

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your substantial comments and suggestions have proven quite stimulating and have pushed me to improve my article in several ways.

       Below, I would like to respond to the ten main points the reviewer listed and explain the changes I have made to the article:

Comment 1:

 Perhaps instead of "the 'similarity' of human kind" in the title and text a more familiar manner might be to speak of 'human nature' or the 'essence of being human'

Response 1:

Thank you for your suggestion. I would like to explain the reasons why I choose to use the expression "similarity of humankind" instead of the traditional expression of "theory of human nature". There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, I believe that the question "what is the fundamental similarity of humankind" is a more novel and inclusive question than "what is human nature".

As you know, the issues of contrast the “human nature” between Mencius and Mohism are not particularly but generally well-known in academic circles. However, I want to provide a new perspective to understand this issue. That is, instead of using "human nature theory" to summarize the supposed differences between "heart-mind" of Mencius and "self-interest" of Mozi, I choose to replace it with the perspective of "what makes humans human" or "the fundamental similarity between humans," or "what distinguishes humans as a category from other categories, their categorical essence." This is because the so-called "human nature theory" does not cover the views of all pre-Qin philosophers. For example, Mozi does not discuss "human nature", but he is concerned with the question of "what constitutes the fundamental similarity among humans". Moreover, the concept of "nature" cannot encompass all understandings of "innate tendencies of humans" or "essential attributes of humans" (for example, Huang-Lao Daoism uses the concept of "emotions" instead of "nature"). I believe that using the question and perspective of "what makes humans human" to discuss related issues is more inclusive, broader, and novel than using the perspective of "human nature theory." And the discussion from this perspective has not yet emerged in the academic community. So this is the innovative aspect of my problem perspective.

Secondly, I believe that using the expression "the similarity of humankind" also aligns more closely with the contemporary issue that I want to focus on and discuss. We know that during the fragmented era after the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period, with "different policies among the feudal lords"(zhuhou yizheng諸侯異政) and "different theories among the hundred schools of thought"(baijia yishuo 百家異說), facing the chaos and breakdown of the original unified social form and value beliefs, both Mencius and Mohism intended to reconstruct a universal ethical consensus or norm. However, the establishment of such a consensus must be based on some "similarities" among humankind. It is precisely because they disagree on what makes humans “similar” that Mencius and Mohists have different understandings of how ethical consensus is possible.

However, taking your concern into account, I have added an endnote to explain the reasons why I choose to use the expression "similarity of humankind" instead of the traditional expression of "theory of human nature". (Please see endnote 4.)

Comment 2:

lines 32-34 may not be entirely correct...surely there is a naturalistic (nonreligious) explanation for Mengzi's four seeds...especially with the ongoing development of moral ethology by scholars of ethics and anthropology.

Response 2:

To avoid misunderstanding, I have changed the original expression "We know that any kind of religious theory" to "We know that most kinds of religious theories". I hope this modification will make the statement more accurate and conciliatory. Please see lines 32-34.

Comment 3:

lines 46-51 again...might overstate the difference between Mozi and Mengzi.  "jian ai' may be quite clearly and easily related to Mengzi's internal seed of benevolence suggesting that what the author calls 'fundamental difference' may not be so drastic at all.

Response 3:

Thank you very much for your suggestion! However, on this point, I may not fully agree with your perspective. I believe that although Mozi's "universal love" and Mencius's "benevolence" seem to have similarities, the differences between them are quite significant, based on two completely different theoretical presuppositions. Simply put: for Mozi the fundamental similarity of human kind resides in the field of “self-interest” and aspires to achieve the maximization of “profit”, which needs to be realized through the universal “exaltation of unity” of the members of society; therefore, Mohism advocates a universalist principle of “impartial love” and emphasizes that the unity of interests and of the sense of right and wrong should be achieved by “erasing differences”; while, on the other hand, for Mencius, the root of moral consensus must be established on the basis of “what our minds have in common”, and to establish a moral consensus with the “heart-mind” as a basis, we have to consider the differences that exist within the heart-mind; therefore, unlike Mohism, which advocates achieving consensus by erasing differences, Mencius emphasizes seeking moral consensus and unity on the basis of acknowledging differences and what is unequal between us. For Mencius, in order to reach a universalist moral standard or consensus, not only any differences and particularities should not be excluded, but it is precisely only in diversity and difference that universalism can be better realized. So it is precisely because of their different answers to the original question of what is the fundamental “similarity” of human kind that Mencius and Mohists render two completely different ethical theories which named “jianai” and “renai”.

Comment 4:

   lines 155-158 seems on one level to be clearly wrong.  In fact, self-interest is a reason why Tian (through the village head Mozi 11.3 or the Son of Heaven) must intervene and command the moral right (see Mozi's discussion in Mozi 11.1).

Response 4:

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your view, but I don't think it conflicts with what I said. Human self-interest is indeed the reason why "Heaven" needs to intervene and command moral right. But doesn't this precisely indicate that Mozi's moral system is based on human self-interest, albeit in a reverse manner? In fact, from my perspective, there are two different directions of relationship between human "self-interest" and "Heaven": (1) A positive relationship: On the one hand, human nature is profit-driven, and Heaven adapts to and utilizes this profit-driven nature. The Son of Heaven, through "rewards," persuades or induces the people to abide by moral principles. (2) A reverse relationship: On the other hand, human nature cannot be overly profit-driven, so Heaven must also restrain and discipline human's profit-seeking nature. The Son of Heaven, through "punishment," avoids or prohibits the people from excessively pursuing profits and falling into a situation of "contention for profit." But whether it's a positive or negative relationship, both prove that Mozi established his moral system based on human's nature of "pursuing advantages and avoiding disadvantages."

The above are my humble opinions. However, taking your suggestion into account and to avoid misunderstandings, I have added a footnote to further clarify this point. Please see the endnote 19.

Comment 5:

Related to #4 above...the author argues that because Heaven rewards the good and punishes the evil, this ultimately means that Mozi's morality is based on self-interest.  But if this is true, it applies to all divine command theories in religious/theistic frames.  I just wonder if the author recognizes this consequence.  it seems instead that the focus in Mozi is on the source of the moral norms that are meant to override and guide self-interest, and those are derived from Heaven. Cf with lines 475-485.  See also, lines 587-604.

Response 5:

Thank you for your suggestion. My answer is the same as the one for #4 above. I believe it's twofold: on the one hand, moral norms originate from or at least conform to human's innate nature (which might be similar to what Confucianism refers to as "formulating rites based on emotions禮起於人情"); but on the other hand, moral norms indeed restrain or transcend human's innate dispositions.

Thank you for pointing this out! Your suggestion has prompted me to think more deeply about this issue. Thanks a lot!

Comment 6:

The author seems to be saying that Mengzi's four seeds, inherent to human nature, are not tied to self-interest...or if they bring about self-interests, they are not validated or sourced from it. Accordingly, some origin of them must be explained.  Are they natural as the moral ethologists/evolutionists would have it...or simply given by Tian as features of human nature (setting it off as a 'kind' from other natures)?  It seems the author leans toward the latter.  if so, it is fair to ask why Tian implants these rather than some other...and this takes us back to Mozi's reward/punishment or benefit/detriment argument.

Response 6:

Thank you for your comment. Yes, as you said, regarding the origin of the "four seeds" mentioned by Mencius, I tend to agree with the latter interpretation. That is, the four seeds are inherent human nature bestowed by Tian, distinguishing humans from other species, rather than being naturally developed as suggested by moral ethologists/evolutionists. But as for why Tian implants these particular beginnings and not others, to be honest, I don't know. It seems that Mencius did not further inquire or provide an answer to this question. Perhaps this could be considered a certain deficiency or omission in Mencius's theory? Regardless, I believe the question you raised is very enlightening, and I will further ponder and explore it. Thank you very much!

Comment 7:

In lines 681-688 the author overlooks an important alternative when arguing that obedience to Tian's commands is based on self-interest.  This neglects other options such as devotion to Tian or simply the motivation to obey what Tian commands.

Response 7:

Thank you for your suggestion. Your viewpoint is also very reasonable. I believe this should be seen from two aspects, which may coexist and are not contradictory. Why do people obey to the commands of Tian? On the one hand, it is motivated by self-interest, because only by following the commands of Tian can people receive rewards from Tian; on the other hand, the reason why people offer sacrifices or worship Tian may indeed be solely motivated by obedience to the commands of Tian. I think both factors are present.

Comment 8:

What is the alternative that Mengzi supposedly offers that makes his views preferable to Mozi?  What's the validation that one's acts are moral?  it is not enough to say that the agent is acting according to inborn moral sentiments....because the origin of the sentiments is not clearly explained.  To say they come from the original heart-mind (from human nature) as implanted by Tian (lines 613-617) fails, in itself, to overlook the 'why' Tian chooses these (lines 928-940 raise the same problem)

Response 8:

I think this question is essentially similar to the question #6 above. First, I want to explain that I don't think Mencius's approach is more preferable than Mozi's (in fact, both have their own rationality and different theoretical foundations and presuppositions). I just want to say that Mencius provided a new way of considering and leading to the highest faith. It is precisely because of his different understanding of the “intrinsic quality” of human kind as such and his criticism and dissatisfaction regarding the Mohists’ theory of “self-interest as a root”, that Mencius tried to propose another source of belief consensus which took the “heart-mind” as a root. It prompts people to turn their eyes inwardly and start looking within rather than external rituals or sacrificial rites. It also reminds us that only moral motivations based on genuine inner acknowledgement can determine a person's fate and fortune.

But regarding the origin of the " intrinsic sentiments " mentioned by Mencius, of course, they originate from the original heart-mind (from human nature) as implanted by Tian. But as to why Tian chose to implant these particular qualities rather than others upon humanity, in fact, Mencius did not provide a further explanation. I believe this may be a deficiency or lack of completeness in Mencius's theory. Regardless of how it may be, this question is worthy of further contemplation. Thank you very much for your comments!

Comment 9:

Lines 772-785 the author never provides an explanation for the instinct to love benevolence and righteousness....except that they stand out prominently in Heaven's eyes...but this does not preclude Mozi's points about Heaven's use of reward and punishment.

Response 9:

Similarly, the essence of this question is the same as that of Question #8 and Question #6. For Mencius, the innate instinct of benevolence and righteousness in humans does not seem to require an explanation, because Tian is purely good and without evil, and since humans come from Tian, Tian implants goodness into the human heart. In this sense, Mencius can be said to advocate that "Tian is good, thus human nature is good." However, it is worth noting that Mencius does not deny that Tian uses rewards and punishments. In other texts, Mencius also mentions that if rulers do not govern well, Tian will send down punishments. But for Mencius, the fact that Tian can reward goodness and punish evil is precisely proof of Tian's goodness (or justice). Moreover, for Mencius, Tian's rewarding goodness and punishing evil are matters of acquired nature and practical significance, which are not on the same level as the innate goodness and absence of evil in human nature.

However, as you pointed out, Mencius indeed does not seem to explain why Tian is purely good and without evil, or why Tian chose to implant humans with goodness rather than other qualities. This seems to be a deficiency in Mencius's theory.

Comment 10:

My comments should not be taken to imply inadequacies of the essay.  Actually, they reveal that the essay stimulates further thought and analysis both philosophically and religiously and that is most certainly one of the central purposes of our journal.

Response 10:

Thank you very much for taking the time to meticulously read and review my article. Your substantial comments and suggestions have proven quite stimulating and have pushed me to improve my article in several ways. My revisions might not fully satisfy all of your concerns, but all of your suggestions have nonetheless been greatly beneficial. Thanks again!

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your substantial comments and suggestions have proven quite stimulating and have pushed me to improve my article in several ways.

       Below, I would like to respond to the twelve main points the reviewer listed and explain the changes I have made to the article:

Comment 1:

While there is an effort made to engage with scholarly research on the topic, more could be done to highlight how the author(s)’ work builds on, criticizes, or differs from extant research. The use of both English- and Chinese-language resources is commendable.

Response 1:

I fully agree with your comment. Thank you very much for pointing this out. To better illustrate how my research differs from previous academic studies and where the innovation of my article lies, I have added a note to explain this issue. Please see endnote 4 for details.

Comment 2:

More should be said regarding the relationship between religion and philosophy.

Response 2:

Thank you very much for your suggestion. I also believe that this point is very important. However, since my article is not specifically discussing the relationship between philosophy and religion, due to time and space constraints, I did not delve deeper into this issue. Nevertheless, considering the importance of your suggestion, I have retained the discussion in endnote 1 to better explain to readers why I believe that pre-Qin Confucianism and Mohism possess religious nature and can be seen as religious theories in a certain sense, rather than just philosophical theories. (Please see endnote 1 for details.)

Comment 3:

The author(s) should not refer to non-Chinese scholars as “overseas” when writing in English. This might be a result of translation (海外 -> overseas), but it is recommended to refer to non-Chinese scholars as “international,” “English speaking,” or something similar.

Response 3:

Thank you very much for your reminder! Following your suggestion, I have revised the term "overseas Sinological circle" to "international Sinology research field". (Please see line 145-146.)

Comment 4:

   When Chinese names and key terms appear for the first time, they should be accompanied by their respective Chinese characters. Subsequent instances cant omit the Chinese character.

Response 4:

Thanks for your reminder! Following your instructions, I have checked all the Chinese names and key terms in the article and added respective Chinese characters. Thank you very much!

Comment 5:

The idea of “whistleblowing” backed up by Mohist ethics is a topic worthy of further exploration.

Response 5:

Thank you for your suggestion. I think it's a very good idea. However, due to limitations in length and energy, I may not have enough time to further explore Mozi's concept of "whistleblowing" in this article. But in my next article, perhaps I will write a specific piece to discuss this issue. Thank you for providing me with such good ideas and suggestions. Thanks a lot!

Comment 6:

The author(s) seem to have a very standard reading of Mengzi where morality is “innate.” This, however, seems to contradict the author(s) statement that Yao and Shun “attained” sagehood. (p. 6). Further reflection could be made in regard to this. I recommend reading Roger Ames and James Behuniak.T

Response 6:

Thank you for pointing this out. I would like to further explain my viewpoint to you. I do not think that there is any contradiction or conflict between Mencius's assertion that morality is "innate" and the status of Yao and Shun as "attained" sages. In my opinion, for Mencius, human moral nature is indeed "innate," but this does not mean that morality is "completed" for every person in reality. That is to say, Mencius only presupposes that everyone has an innate moral nature, but this does not mean that everyone will ultimately become a moral person. Being born with this nature only means having the potential for goodness, but to ultimately become a sage or virtuous person, one still needs to cultivate and nourish their mind, and may even require some external environment and fortune (what Mencius calls "opportunity 时"). This is true not only for ordinary people but also for sages and virtuous individuals.

However, following your suggestion, to avoid misunderstandings, I have added a endnote to further explain my viewpoint and guide readers to further ponder this issue. (Please see endnote 17.) Thank you very much!

Comment 7:

The introduction of “ethical consensus” in Part 3 seems rather abrupt, even if it is thematically consistent.

Response 7:

I agree with you. To make the emergence of the concept of "ethical consensus" less abrupt, I have added a paragraph at the beginning of Part 3 to make the transition more natural. The revised content is as follows (see details in line 431-438):

“The further question is, why did Mencius and Mohism discuss the fundamental similarities of humankind? We know that during the fragmented era after the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period, with "different policies among the feudal lords"(zhuhou yizheng諸侯異政) and "different theories among the hundred schools of thought"(baijia yishuo 百家異說), facing the chaos and breakdown of the original unified social form and value beliefs, both Mencius and Mohism intended to reconstruct a universal ethical consensus or norm. However, the establishment of such a consensus must be based on some "similarities" among humankind. It is precisely because they disagree on what makes humans “similar” that Mencius and Mohists have different understandings of how ethical consensus is possible. Let us take a look at Mozi first.”

Comment 8:

There are several, yet minor, English spelling and grammar errors that need to be fixed.

Response 8:

Thank you very much for your reminder. I have checked the entire article and corrected all English spelling and grammar errors as much as possible.

Comment 9:

The discussion focuses on “self-interest” and “heart-mind” as representative of Mozi and Mengzi respectively, but these do not seem to belong to the same category of concepts. How does the author(s) understand this problem? Does qing 情 in the sense of the tendencies to go toward benefit and avoid harm (quli bihai 趨利避害) appear in the Mozi? Would that be a better concept to compare with the Mengzi’s concept of xin 心?

Response 9:

Thanks for your suggestion. I also agree that "qing" is a better concept for comparison with Mencius's "xin". And in early texts, people's innate tendency to "seek benefits and avoid harm" is often regarded as "qing" or "renqing" (such as in the Liji and Huang-Lao philosophy). However, unfortunately, the concept of "emotion" does not appear in the text of Mozi, and Mozi did not summarize "seeking benefits and avoiding harm" as "qing". Therefore, I have temporarily chosen the concept of "self-interest" to compare with "xin". I understand that there may be some inequality between the two, but at present, this seems to be the most appropriate generalization.

Comment 10:

The author(s)’ understanding of tian 天 in the Mengzi is highly controversial. This controversy should at least be pointed out in a footnote. I recommend Pang Pu’s article on tianren 天人 in his Liujia qianshuo 六家淺說 and Jim Behuniak’s chapter on human nature in his John Dewey and Confucian Thought.

Response 10:

Thank you for pointing this out. I fully agree with your viewpoint. To avoid misunderstandings, I have deleted the expression that regards "Heaven" as a so-called "personal god" and revised the paragraph discussing Mencius's understanding of "Heaven" (Please see line 635-646.) Additionally, I have added a footnote and included the two works you recommended in the references. (Please see endnote 20.) Thank you for your suggestions!

Comment 11:

I would be wary of characterizing the Wuxing as a work of Mengzi rather than belonging to the “Si-Meng School of Thought.”

Response 11:

Thanks a lot for your reminder. I understand that your viewpoint (considering all the "Jing" and "Shuo" parts of Wuxing as works of the Si-Meng school) is a mainstream one and quite reasonable. However, in this case, I have chosen to follow Chen Lai's research (Zhubo Wuxing Yu Jianbo Yanjiu), which attributes the "Jing" part to Zisi and the "Shuo" part to Mencius. Of course, to avoid misunderstandings, I have made further supplements and explanations in the endnote 21.

Comment 12:

Does the author(s) mean “impermanent” in line 934 on page 18?

Response 12:

Yes, that's exactly what I meant to express. In Mencius's view, “renjue” are impermanent (it can be stripped away at any time), but “tianjue” are stable, permanent, and can be controlled by human effort.

In addition, regarding the small issues you pointed out in the English language, I have made revisions to address each and every one of them.

Finally, thanks again for taking the time to meticulously read and review my article. My revisions might not fully satisfy all of your concerns, but all of your suggestions have nonetheless been greatly beneficial. Thank you very much!