in order to obtain from it the virtues of justice and
self-sacrifice which characterize the best of the human race. It is
impossible to maintain that man's nature is good in the same sense
that his eyes see and his ears hear; for in the latter there is no
alternative. An eye which does not see, is not an eye; an ear which does
not hear, is not an ear. This proves that whereas seeing and hearing are
natural to man, goodness is artificial and acquired. Just as a potter
produces a dish or a carpenter a bench, working on some material before
them, so do the sages and teachers of mankind produce righteousness by
working upon the nature of man, which they transform in the same way
that the potter transforms the clay or the carpenter the wood. We cannot
believe that God has favourites, and deals unkindly with others. How,
then, is it that some men are evil while others are good? The answer
is, that the former follow their natural disposition, while the latter
submit to restraints and follow the guidance of their teachers. It
is indeed true that any one may become a hero, but all men do not
necessarily become heroes, nor is there any method by which they can be
forced to do so. If a man is endowed with a capacity for improvement,
and is placed in the hands of good teachers, associating at the same
time with friends whose actions display such virtues as self-sacrifice,
truth, kindness, and so forth, he will naturally imbibe principles which
will raise him to the same standard; whereas, if he consorts with evil
livers, he will be a daily witness of deceit, corruption, and general
impurity of conduct, and will gradually lapse into the same course
of life. If you do not know your son, says the proverb, look at his
friends.

The next step was taken by the philosopher Yang Hsiung (_Sheeyoong_),
53 B.C. to A.D. 18. He started a theory which occupies a middle place
between the last two theories discussed above, teaching that the nature
of man at birth is neither wholly good nor wholly evil, but a mixture
of both, and that development in either direction depends altogether
on environment. A compromise in matters of faith is not nearly so
picturesque as an extreme, and Yang's attempted solution has attracted
but scant attention, though always mentioned with respect. The same may
also be said of another attempt to smooth obvious difficulties in
the way of accepting either of the two extremes or the middle course
proposed by Yang Hsiung.