Mencius met his critics with a blend of moral conviction and careful reasoning, always returning to the conviction that human nature is originally good. Against those who claimed that people are morally neutral or driven only by self-interest, he pointed to the spontaneous compassion one feels on seeing a child about to fall into a well as evidence of innate moral “sprouts.” He acknowledged that circumstances can obscure these inborn tendencies, yet insisted they are never wholly erased. This conviction undergirded his resistance to philosophies that reduced ethics to external control, profit, or self-preservation. By appealing to common human experience, he sought to awaken in his interlocutors a recognition of their own latent goodness.

In responding to rival schools such as Mohism and Yangism, Mencius argued that their doctrines failed to respect the natural structure of human relationships. He criticized Mohist “universal love” as neglecting the special obligations that arise within family and graded social bonds, warning that such undifferentiated concern could undermine proper hierarchy and order. Against Yangist individualism, he contended that radical self-interest ignores the inherently social character of human beings and their moral responsibilities to others. For Mencius, genuine self-fulfillment and social harmony were not at odds, but were realized together through the cultivation of virtue.

Politically, Mencius confronted both rulers and theorists who favored harsh, Legalist-style governance or purely profit-driven statecraft. He rejected the view that people must be controlled primarily through severe punishments and rigid laws, arguing instead that moral education and virtuous leadership form the true basis of stable rule. When asked about increasing profit, he redirected attention from material gain to righteousness, warning that a fixation on advantage would corrode trust and fuel conflict among the people. In his teaching on benevolent government, he maintained that a ruler’s legitimacy rests on caring for the people’s well-being and that cruelty ultimately forfeits the mandate to rule.

Mencius’ mode of engagement was dialogical and richly illustrative. He debated opponents directly, using analogies such as the once-lush Ox Mountain, stripped bare by repeated cutting, to show how a corrupt environment can damage but not fundamentally alter good human nature. He appealed to the examples of ancient sage-kings to demonstrate that benevolent rule is not a mere ideal but has historical precedent and practical efficacy. Through these conversations, he also admonished ministers who served unjust rulers without protest, teaching that true loyalty includes the courage to remonstrate. In all these responses, his strategy was to draw critics back to the inner moral sense and to a vision of political life grounded in humanity and righteousness.