略及一些英文的论文，集中在孟子的性善论究竟如何解读。ES的解读视角是道德教育，认为孟荀之争在道德发展究竟是由内而外还是由外而内。就孟子来说，道德是人之本然倾向，其证据是：人的一些原初反应，即善端（孺子入井，见父母身体为狐所食），道德培养即是培养善端；人在为善之时快乐，不为善则不快乐。荀子的观点认为，人生而有欲求，放任自然则发生争斗，争斗导致祸乱。因此善并非人之天然，而是圣人之天然。只有依靠人为努力才能由外而内地规训人之天性。何谓人性或自然？正常→自然；在人，社会性是正常状态的一部分。正常是规范性的观念。I propose that we consider a trait natural to an individual just in case it arises in that individual through a normal process of development in a normal, nutritive environment, rather than as a result of injury, acquired disease, malnutrition, or (especially) external imposition. With this understanding of the “natural” in hand, let me reframe the key idea of the previous section. A relatively stable social system is part of a normal, nutritive environment for human beings (and for all social animals). 孟荀之争的界定 The core question on which they disagree, I would suggest, is this: Is morality something imposed on people from outside (Xunzi) or something that arises in the normal process of human development if people are encouraged to reflect for themselves (Mencius)? In other words, is moral development a process more of indoctrination or self-discovery?道德发展：认为孟子是自由模式而荀子是权威主义模式。结论：孟子更胜一筹，但仍有争议。论据： Besides the researchers on moral development cited above who seem to favor views roughly of this sort, let me mention the work on early childhood sympathy by Zahn-Waxler and others; de Waal’s work on the origins of morality in non-human primates; Arendt’s suggestion that evil tends to flow from a failure to think in her study of Eichmann; and work on juvenile delinquency that suggests reduced recidivism when offenders are encouraged to reflect.