MOZI (480-490)
May have been a disciple of Confucius. If so, he soon became an opponent. Confucius as refined gentleman vs. Mozi as militant preacher. Confucius focusus on ren*, but Mozi focuses on yi, which is directed by Tian. Conformity to the Will of Heaven makes "righteousness" as a translation of yi appropriate.
Mozi believes that each of us born with our own yi, but there is no agreement on these very personal norms so a sage king is required to rule with almost unlimited authority. True yi is definitely external for Mozi.
Confucius: moral life was an end in itself; Mozi: only for the benefits it brings; a deemphasis on li.
Confucius graded love vs. Mohist unconditional love. Ivanhoe translates jian'ai as "impartial care," which rightly takes most of the emotion out of what for Mozi is simply a utilitarian obligation. The best argument that Mozi makes for his position is that the partiality of family and friendly ties has been a great source of harm.
Confucius advised rulers about warfare; Mozi was a qualified pacifist, using violence only to protect the poor and the weak.
Mozi’s support came from the lower classes. "Mo" means tattoo, indicating that he may have had a criminal record.
MOZI AND JESUS: A COMPARISON
1. Both gained support from outcastes and lower class.
2. Will of Heaven important for both.
3. Less on religious ritual; more on moral action
4. Both were pacifists and preached universal love (Jesus’ agape), but we will see that Mozi was not as radical as Jesus on this point.
Chan's Source Book:
213: Utilitarianism: "promotion of benefits" and "removal of harm." Universal love would achieve this result best. P. J. Ivanhoe: best called a "state consequentialism," because utilitarianism requires hedonism. Pleasure per se is not Mozi's highest good, but the security and flourishing of the state is.
214: "Love thy neighbor as thyself: on political and family level.
215: Kings have persuaded people to do all sorts of difficult things. Universal love is no more difficult than these; Chan: Mozi's love is not based on human inclination, but on consequences alone.
217: Will of Heaven. Rewards and punishments. Shang Di and many shen keep watch over us and punish wrong doers.
Mozi's claim that Tian desires life and dislikes death appears to undermine the general life-death dialectic (i.e., life becomes death naturally) in Chinese thought and also the idea that Tian has no preferences.
MOZI’S THREE TESTS OF JUDGMENT (I&N, 106-07)
1. Basis: will of Tian and the ancient sage kings.
2. Verifiability: sense of hearing and sight of the common people.
3. Applicability: adopt it and see if it works or if it has benefits.
Mozi used #2 to prove the existence of departed shen and ghosts (gui). Using #3 he condemned music, dances, and elaborate funerals. Using #1 he agrees with Confucius that only the worthy should be promoted. Using #1 he lays down the principle of "identifying with one's superior"--ruler, sage, teacher. Bad rulers are replaced by Tian.
In religion Mozi returns to the Lord on High (Di) of the Shang Dynasty. He is a more personal God, who creates and loves all beings. (Ivanhoe suggests that Mozi's deity is actually no more personal than Confucian Tian.) Appears to be a religion of the lower classes just like the religion of Jesus.
TWO FORMS OF AGAPEISM
Theological Agapeism: The reason for being self-sacrificial is theological not philosophical. It is right that you should give your life for another because it is commanded of God.
Rational Agapeism: This view holds that humans are selfish by nature but reason, through the principle of utility, dictates that we ought to be self-sacrifical. Most prominent representative here is Michael Scriven who proposed such a position in his Primary Philosophy. Using game theory and utilitarianism, Scriven argues that we take all human lives as equal that we ought to sacrifice our life if we can save the lives of two others. Applying game theory to a fox hole scenario with three people, there will be a net gain of two lives in the situation where the self-sacrifical soldier falls on an incoming grenade to save his two buddies. The selfish foxhole would be totally wiped out. Does Mozi anticipate Scriven? Look at the following passage:
"Suppose this year there is plague and disease, many of the people are suffering from hardship and hunger, and the corpses of countless victims lie tumbled in the ditches. If the people could choose between these two types of ruler [one committed to universal love and the other not], which would they follow? It seems to me that, on occasions like this, there are no fools in the world. Though one may disapprove of universality himself, he would surely think it best to follow the universal-minded ruler" (Part III, Sec. 16, p. 43, Watson trans; Ivanhoe & van Norden, p. 67).
The differences are significant. It seems that only the king is required to act in a moral way. But more importantly, there is no mention of actual self-sacrifice. Mozi's position actually amounts to a form of altruism (you should think of others before youself) not agapeism.