After establishing his ethical system in Groundwork of the Metaphysic Morals and Critique of Critique Practical Reason , Kant also advances the theory of the "radical evil" in Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone , with the intention of expounding the anthropological origin of the morally evil , and then of building up a theory moral discipline . With regards to this , some scholars , for example . Prof. Julia Ching , look upon Kant as an advance of the thesis that man is evil by nature as opposed to Mencius , whose belief in man's original goodness represents the dominant thinking of Confucianism .In my opinion , this is a superficial viewpoint . In order to dispute this thesis , I fully analyse the philosophical implications of the theory of the "radical evil" and its place in Kant's ethical system , with a view to clarifying common misinterpretations . 　　While Kant regards the "radical evil" as "natural" or "inborn" , he also holds man responsible for its origin in origin in order to reconcile the apparent contradiction in his theory . My analysis tries to explain this issue .Further , I stress that the concept of "hsing" （性） in Mencius is not equivalent to that of "nature" in Western philosophy , because the two concepts belong to different levels of discussion . Kant views the "radical evil in human nature" on the empirical level of "practical anthropology" , whereas Mencius advances the theory that man is good by nature on the non-empirical level of "metaphysic of morals" . Not only are the two theories by no means contradictory , but they are complementary to each other . Moreover , even on the level of "practical anthropology" , Kant is not an advocate of the thesis that man is evil by nature , since he is convinced of the "original predisposition to good in human nature".