= Chinese proponent of universal love and critic of Confucius; founder of the Mohist movement ; (born 470?, China—died 391? BCE, China). See also Mohism for the philosophy and movement.

Bio

1. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"Mozi’s teaching is summed up in ten theses extensively argued for in the text that bears his name, although he himself is unlikely to have been its author. The most famous of these theses is the injunction that one ought to be concerned for the welfare of people in a spirit of “impartial concern” (jian’ai) that does not make distinctions between self and other, associates and strangers, a doctrine often described more simplistically as “universal love.” Mozi founded a quasi-religious and paramilitary community that, apart from propagating the ten theses, lent aid to small states under threat from military aggressors with their expertise in counter-siege technology."

(https://iep.utm.edu/mozi/)

2. Jack Qiu:

“Mo Di (墨翟) is the original name of Mozi (Master Mo, Mo Tzu, or Micius the Latinized name). A key philosopher in ancient China, he founded Mohism, which was prominent among China’s “Hundred Schools of Thought” during 5th-3rd century BC, the foundational period for ancient Chinese philosophy overlapping partly with the Axial Age of India and Greece. Much remains “shadowy and mysterious” about Mozi the person (Johnson, 2010, pp. xviii-xix), although he must be younger than Confucius (551-479 BC) and older than Mencius (372-289 BC). He flourished in 5th century BC. After his passing, for two centuries until 221 BC, his disciples and followers accumulated considerable texts — by or attributed to Mozi through collective authorship — into The Mozi, the definitive anthology of Mohism (Johnson, 2010). This compilation consists of 71 books, of which 13 have been lost, but 58 have survived.

Mozi was a native of the State of Lu (Figure 2), from where he traveled to other states to teach and practice Mohism. For an unknown duration, he served as a minister in the State of Song. His students also became ministers in various states of China. It was not uncommon in this period for influential philosophers to hold high offices. But Mozi stood out through the idiosyncrasies of his life, his unusual ideas, and his radical techno-social praxis. Later generations of Mohists magnified his eccentricities, even manufactured legends, about Mozi, his thinking, feeling, and conduct.

“Mo” in Chinese means “black ink”. Exactly what does it reveal about Mozi the person? The answer is uncertain, and I leave the reader to decide. Many thought it suggests that he is dark-skinned. Some even contend that he is of Indian descent, as Mohism shares certain tenets with Jainism (Hu, 1929), e.g., egalitarianism and pacifism. Others took it as an indicator of “subaltern (jianming)” social class (Li, 2020, p. 3) rather than biological lineage. “Mo” could also mean “tattoo”, suggesting that he was “an ex-convict who had undergone the punishment of being tattooed, and flouted the fact in the face of society by adopting the name of his penalty” (Watson, 1963, p. 5). Watson admits that this interpretation is “highly dubious” (ibid). Even without being an inmate, Mozi could acquire dark skin tone due to his frugal working-class lifestyle. Unlike his peers with similar achievements who travelled around in animal-drawn cartridges, Mozi insisted on walking, including prolonged trips that last weeks on foot.“

(draft)

Mozi: The Book

* Book: The Mozi. A Complete Translation. Translated and annotated by Ian Johnston. Columbia University Press, 2019

URL = http://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-mozi/9780231152402

Description

1.

“The Mozi is a key philosophical work written by a major social and political thinker of the fifth century B.C.E. It is one of the few texts to survive the Warring States period (403-221 B.C.E.) and is crucial to understanding the origins of Chinese philosophy and two other foundational works, the Mengzi and the Xunzi. Ian Johnston provides an English translation of the entire Mozi, as well as the first bilingual edition in any European language to be published in the West. His careful translation reasserts the significance of the text's central doctrines, and his annotations and contextual explanations add vivid historical and interpretive dimensions.”

(http://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-mozi/9780231152402)

2. From the Wikipedia:

"The Mozi (Chinese: 墨子), also called the Mojing (Chinese: 墨經) or the Mohist canon,[1][2] is an ancient Chinese text from the Warring States period (476–221 BC) that expounds the philosophy of Mohism. It propounds such Mohist ideas as impartiality, meritocratic governance, economic growth and aversion to ostentation, and is known for its plain and simple language.

The chapters of the Mozi can be divided into several categories: a core group of 31 chapters, which contain the basic philosophic ideas of the Mohist school; several chapters on logic, which are among the most important early Chinese texts on logic and are traditionally known as the "Dialectical Chapters"; five sections containing stories and information about Mozi and his followers; and eleven chapters on technology and defensive warfare, on which the Mohists were expert and which are valuable sources of information on ancient Chinese military technology.[3] There are also two other minor sections: an initial group of seven chapters that are clearly of a much later date, and two anti-Confucian chapters, only one of which has survived.

The Mohist philosophical school died out in the 3rd century BC, and copies of the Mozi were not well preserved. The modern text has been described as "notoriously corrupt". Of the Mozi's 71 original chapters, 18 have been lost and several others are badly fragmented."

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozi_(book) )

The Ideas of Mohism

Mozi’s thought

Impartial Concern

Jack Qui:

“Mozi’s foundational idea is jian’ai, often translated into “universal love” (Mei, 1927; Watson, 1963) or “mutual love” (Johnson, 2010). Some, however, thought these translations are too literal and limiting. Graham (1989, pp. 41-42) contends that the connotation of jian is more about impartiality than universality or mutuality; and that the Mohist ai is not about emotional feelings, neither in the sense of “love God” nor “love his brother”. It means, more precisely, “concern for everyone”. Karyn Lai on the other hand suggests using the phrase “impartial concern” (2016, p. 79), which is a better contextualized interpretation given the emphasis of The Mozi on a single ethical standard applied to all.

What is “impartial concern” or “mutual love”? Why is it necessary? In explaining this primary concept, Mozi starts from the situation when jian’ai is absent: “A robber loves himself but not others. Therefore, he robs others in order to benefit himself…… Feudal lords each love their own state but do not love other states. Therefore, they attack other states in order to benefit their own states. Disorder in the world is entirely this and nothing else. If we examine this, from what source does it arise? In all cases it is due to lack of mutual love”. “So, if there is universal mutual love in the world, then there is order [whereas], if there is exchange of mutual hatred, then there is disorder” (Johnson, 2010, pp. 133, 135). Note the initial premise of Mozi’s argument is “disorder in the world”, under which circumstances selfish lords attack others like robbers pilfer. Mohism is not alone with this reality check. Confucianism, Taoism, Legalism, and most other schools at the time recognize the turmoil. Like Mohism, they share two more assumptions: “that, at certain periods in the past, enlightened rulers had appeared in China to order the nation and raise Chinese society to a level of peace, prosperity, and moral vigor unparalleled in later days” and that “it is still possible to discover…… how these rulers had acted and why — that is, to determine ‘the way of the ancient sage kings’ — and to attempt to put it into practice in the present day” (Watson, 1963, p. 4).”

(draft)

Mozi's view on 'Impartial Concern'

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"Whether “Heaven’s will” or “good consequences for the world” forms the ultimate criterion of the morally right, the most salient first-order ethical injunction in Mohist doctrine remains that of “impartial concern” (jian’ai). This is an injunction that is argued for both on the basis that it exemplifies Heaven’s Will (in the “Heaven’s Will” triad) and that it is conducive to the order and welfare of the world (in the “Impartial Concern” triad). In addition, the presentation of the doctrine (in all versions of “Impartial Concern”) strongly suggests that it is meant to be the panacea for all that is seriously wrong with the world and, to that extent, identifies the main substance of the Mohists’ Way.

As earlier indicated, “impartial concern” might be stated as the injunction that people ought to be concerned for the welfare of others without making distinctions between self and others, associates and strangers. Scrutiny of the core chapters, however, suggests both more and less stringent interpretations of what it entails by way of conduct. At one extreme, the injunction seems to require that people ought (to seek) to benefit strangers as much as they do associates, and others, as much as they do themselves. At the other extreme, it only requires that people refrain from harming strangers as much as they do associates, and others, as much as they do themselves. A third, intermediate possibility says that people ought (to seek) to help strangers with urgent needs as much as they do associates, and others, as much as they do themselves.

The least stringent interpretation is implied by passages (in all versions of “Impartial Concern”) where the injunction is argued for on the basis that adopting it will put a stop to the violent inter-personal and inter-group conflicts that beset the world, since on the Mohist account, it is people’s tendency to act on the basis of a greater regard for their own welfare over that of others, and that of their associates over that of strangers, that led them to have no qualms about benefiting themselves or their own associates at the expense of others and even to do so using violent means. The injunction of “impartial concern” is meant to be a reversal of this tendency. On the other hand, the more demanding interpretations are suggested especially by “Impartial Concern C,” in which it is said that if the doctrine is adopted b people, then not only will people not fight, the welfare of the weak and disadvantaged will be taken care of by those better endowed.

Whichever interpretation is taken, the basic injunction points toward an underlying notion of impartiality. We can take “impartial concern” as making explicit the notion that the common benefit of the world is, in some sense, impartially the benefit of everyone.

In “Impartial Concern” C, the Mohists put forward an interesting thought experiment ostensibly to show that even people who are committed to being more concerned for the welfare of self that for that of others, and associates than strangers have some reason to value impartial concern. They described a scenario in which the audience is asked to imagine that they are about to go on a long journey and need to put their family members in the care of another. The Mohists claim that the obvious and rational choice would be to put one’s family members in the care of an impartialist rather than a partialist (that is, someone who is committed to “impartial concern” as opposed to someone who is committed to the opposite).

There are several problems with this argument. It seems to involve a false dilemma since the options of impartialist and partialist hardly exhaust the range of possible choices. Even if the Mohists were correct to claim that the impartialist is the obvious and rational choice, all it shows is that partialists have good reason to prefer that other people conduct themselves according to the dictates of impartial concern, rather than that they have reason to so conduct themselves, as Chad Hansen and Bryan W. Van Norden have pointed out. In defense of the Mohists, however, it might be the case that they are ultimately only concerned to establish that even partialists have reason to propagate the Mohists’ doctrine of impartial concern, a conclusion that could follow from their argument."

(https://iep.utm.edu/mozi/)

Feigong: Against Aggression

Jack Qiu:

“The worst manifestation of partiality, according to Mozi, is warfare. Books 17-19 of The Mozi are dedicated to laying out the rationale for feigong, i.e. “against aggression”. Other books in the collection elaborate how this cardinal doctrine of Mohism is carried out through Mozi’s personal conduct and extensive engineering and communication techniques (e.g., Books 52-71). These techniques, including how to coordinate through the use of flags, drums, and passwords, were likely accumulated from hands-on experiences in military defence.

Mozi’s logic is again utilitarian (Johnson, 2010, p. 169): “The killing of one person is spoken of as unrighteous and certainly constitutes one capital offence. Reasoning on this basis, killing ten people is ten times as unrighteous, so certainly constitutes ten capital offences…… Now when something small is a crime, people know and condemn it. When something great is a crime, like attacking states, then they don’t know and condemn [it], but go along with it and praise it.” Mozi enumerates the costs of war: casualties, injuries, livelihoods, material loss of all kinds. He then compares these with the supposed gains: territory, wealth, jobs, added fame for rulers. He concludes, “states start wars, depriving the people of their livelihood and stripping the people of benefit, all to a very great degree” (ibid, p. 173). “The world is,” as a result, “wearied by prolonged attack and reduction like a young boy playing at being a horse” (ibid, p. 195).

It is imperative to fight against military aggressions, Mozi reckons. Another world is possible if there is an army of peacekeepers. “If attack and reduction were replaced by good order in our state, the efficacy would certainly be multiplied. If we calculated the cost involved in raising an army to protect against the evils of the feudal lords, then [we could see that we] would certainly be able to obtain substantial benefit (from avoidance of warfare)” (ibid, p. 197). Finally, “it would be possible to have no enemies in the world. This would be of incalculable benefit to the world” (ibid).

Book 50 of The Mozi (ibid, pp. 724-729) best illustrates Mohism’s pacifist praxis, backed by some of the most advanced defensive technology of the time. “

Jieyong: Moderation in Use

Jack Qiu:

“Books 20-22 of The Mozi are entitled Jieyong, 1-3 (Moderation in Use, I-III). Unfortunately, the last of them, Jieyong 3, is lost; only the first two are preserved. Ideas about moderation in use, however, can be found throughout The Mozi, for instance, in Books 23-25 Moderation in Funerals and Books 32-34 Condemning Music. By “moderation in use”, Mozi means “[d]oing away with useless expenditure” (Johnson, 2010, p. 203). This simple definition would surprisingly shed light on today’s digital industries in the era of the Anthropocene.

In arguing for moderate expenditures that deliver use value without waste, Mozi refers frequently to the moral authority of past kings. Book 20 begins as such: “When a sage governs a single state, that one state’s [benefits] can be doubled. On a larger scale, when [a sage] governs the world, the world’s [benefits] can be doubled. His doubling [of benefits] does not come through acquiring land beyond the borders, but by doing away with useless expenditure in his own state…… the use of resources is without waste, the people are not over-burdened, and the increase in benefit is considerable” (Johnson, 2010, p. 199). This general principle is then applied to the supply of clothing, housing, transportation vehicles, and defensive weaponry. Then, in Book 21, the argument starts again with past kings: “the sage kings of ancient times……said: ‘Through the world all the many artisans — wheelwrights and car makers, tanners and salters, potters and metal workers, and carpenters — should each do the work they are capable of.’ They [also] said: ‘Everywhere they should provide enough for the people’s use and then stop.’ Anything over and above this is wasteful and does not add to the benefit of the people so the sage kings did not do it.” Ditto for food and drink: “[Provide] enough to fill what is empty and to aid the spirit, to give strength to the legs and arms, to make the ears and eyes sharp and keen, and then stop. Do not go to great lengths to blend the five flavors or to harmize the various aromas and do not look to distant lands for things that are rare, strange and different.” (ibid, p. 205). These warnings against overproduction and excessive accumulation ring a bell nowadays: Do consumers really need a new smart phone every year? How much wealth is enough for Big Tech billionaires? At a time when malnutrition in the Global South remains widespread?

A goal for Mohist “moderation in use” is the doubling of population, a human-centric view, limited to its time-space as China was sparsely populated back then. Yet, as discussed earlier, such a view concerns future generations as much as it concerns past and present people. This rudimentary idea about sustainable development serves as a basis for Mozi’s contentions against wasteful practices, for instance, in funerals and music-making, which the contemporary reader would find eccentric.”

More information

Lowe, Scott. Mo Tzu’s Religious Blueprint for a Chinese Utopia: The Will and the Way. Ontario: Edwin Mellen Press, 1992.

Mei, Yi-pao. Mo-tse, the Neglected Rival of Confucius. London: Arthur Probsthain, 1934.
- The Ethical and Political Works of Motse. London: Arthur Probsthain, 1929.

Mozi

Contents

Bio