It is not a decisive objection to Wang’s view that humans often fail to manifest benevolence to other humans, non–human animals, or plants.  Wang is arguing that all humans manifest these responses sometimes (and that this is best explained by his favored metaphysics).  Like all Neo–Confucians, Wang readily acknowledges that selfish desires frequently block the manifestation of our shared nature.  However, there are three lines of objection to Wang’s view that are harder to dismiss.  (1) There is considerable empirical evidence that some humans never manifest any compassion for the suffering of others.  In the technical literature of psychology, these people are a subset of those identified as having “Antisocial Personality Disorder” as defined in  DSM–V.[10]  (2) Wang asserts that when humans “see tiles and stones broken and destroyed, they cannot avoid feeling a sense of concern and regret.” This claim is important for Wang’s argument, because he takes this reaction to be evidence for the conclusion that our minds are ultimately “one Substance” with everything in the universe, not merely with members of our species, or other sentient creatures, or other living things.  We can perhaps motivate Wang’s intuition by considering how we might react if we saw that someone had spray painted graffiti on Half Dome in Yosemite National Park.  The defacement of this scenic beauty would probably provoke sadness in those of us with an eye for natural beauty.  However, it is certainly not obvious that everyone manifests even sporadic concern for “tiles and stones,” which is what he needs for his conclusion. (3) Even if we grant Wang his intuitions, it is not clear that the particular metaphysics he appeals to is the best explanation of those intuitions.  As Darwin himself suggested, our compassion for other humans can be explained in evolutionary terms.  In addition, the “biophilia hypothesis” (Wilson [1984]) provides an evolutionary explanation for the human fondness for other animals and plants.  There is not an obvious evolutionary explanation for why humans seem engaged by non–living natural beauty, like mountain peaks, but as we have seen it seems questionable how common this trait is.