In the Mo-tzu, there are three chapters devoted to the subject of all-em-bracing love. In them, Mo Tzu first makes a distinction between what he calls the principles of "discrimination' and ' all-embracingness." The man who holds to the principle of discrimina tion says: It is absurd for me to care for friends as much as I would for myself, and to look after their parents as I would my own. As a result, such a man does not do very much for his friends. But the man who holds to the principle of all —embracingness says,
086 MO TZU, THE FIRST OPPONENT OF CONFUCIUS
on the contrary: I must care for my friends as much as I do for myself, and for their parents as I would my own. As a result, he does everything he can for his friends. Having made this distinction, Mo Tzu then asks the question: Which of these two principles is the right one?
Mo Tzu thereupon uses his "tests of judgment" to determine the right and wrong of these principles. According to him, every principle must be exam-ined by three tests, namely: Its basis, its verifiability, and its applicability. A sound and right principle should be based on the Will of Heaven and of the spirits and on the deeds of the ancient sage-kings." Then "it is to be ver-ified by the senses of hearing and sight of the common people." And finally, "it is to be applied by adopting it in government and observing whether it is beneficial to the country and the people." (Mo-tzu, ch. 35.) Of these three tests, the last is the most important. Being beneficial to the country and the people is the standard by which Mo Tzu determines all values.
This same standard is the chief one used by Mo Tzu to prove the desir-ability of all-embracing love. In the third of three chapters, all of which are titled "All-embracing Love, he argues:
"The task of the human-hearted man is to procure benefits for the world and to eliminate its calamities. Now among all the current calamities of the world, which are the greatest? I say that attacks on small states by large ones, disturbances of small houses by large ones, oppression of the weak by the strong, misuse of the few by the many, deception of the simple by the cunning, and disdain toward the humble by the honored: these are the mis-fortunes of the world....When we come to think about the causes of all these calamities, how have they arisen? Have they arisen out of love of others and benefiting others? We must reply that it is not so. Rather we should say that they have arisen out of hate of others and injuring others. If we classify those in the world who hate others and injure others, shall we call them 'discrimi-nating' or 'all-embracing'? We must say that they are 'discriminating.' So, then, is not mutual discrimination the cause of the major calamities of the world? Therefore the principle of discrimination is wrong.
"Whoever criticizes others must have something to substitute for what he criticizes. Therefore I say: Substitute all—embracingness for discrimination. What is the reason why all-embracingness can be substituted for discrimi-nation? The answer is that when everyone regards the states of others as he regards his own, who will attack these other states? Others will be regarded like the self. When everyone regards the cities of others as he regards his own, who will seize these other cities? Others will be regarded like the self. When everyone regards the houses of others as he regards his own, who will disturb these other houses? Others will be regarded like the self.
"Now, when states and cities do not attack and seize one another, and when clans and individuals do not disturb and harm one another, is this a calamity or a benefit to the world? We must say it is a benefit. When we come to consider the origin of the various benefits, how have they arisen?
O88 , MO TZU, THE FIRST OPPONENT OF CONFUCIUS
Have they arisen out of hate of others and injuring others? We must say not so. We should say that they have arisen out of love of others and benefiting others. If we classify those in the world who love others and benefit others, shall we call them 'discriminating or 'all-embracing ? We must say that they are 'all-embracing.' Then is it not the case that 'mutual all-embrae-ingness is the cause of the major benefit of the world? Therefore I say that the principle of all—embracingness is right. (Mo—tzu, ch. 16.)
Thus, using a utilitarianistic argument, Mo Tzu proves the principle of all-embracing love to be absolutely right. The human-hearted man whose task it is to procure benefits for ihe world and eliminate its calamities, must estab-lish all-embracing love as the standard of action both for himself and for all others in the world. When everyone in the world acts according to this stan-dard, then attentive ears and keen eyes will respond to serve one another, limbs will be strengthened to work for one another, and those who know the proper principle will untiringly instruct others. Thus the aged and widowers will have support and nourishment with which to round out their old age, and the young and weak and orphans will have a place of support in which to grow up. When all-embracing love is adopted as the standard, such are the consequent benefits." {Ibid.) This, then, is Mo Tzu's ideal world, which can be created only through the practice of all-embracing love.
The Will of God and Existence of Spirits
There remains, however, a basic question: How to persuade people thus to love one another? One may tell them, as was said above, that the practice of all—embracing love is the only way to benefit the world and that every hu-man-hearted man is one who practices all-embracing love. Yet people may still ask: Why should I personally act to benefit the world and why should 1 be a human—hearted man? One may then argue further that if the world as a whole is benefited, this means benefit for every individual in the world as well. Or as Mo Tzu says: "He who loves others, must also be loved by others. He who benefits others, must also be benefited by others. He who hates oth-ers, must also be hated by others. He who injures others, must also be in-jured by others." (Mo-tzu, ch. 17.) Thus, then, the love of others is a sort of personal insurance or investment, which pays, as Americans would say. Most people, however, are too shortsighted to see the value of a long term investment of this sort, and there are a few instances in which such an in-vestment does, indeed, fail to pay.
In order, therefore, to induce people to practice the principle of all-em-bracing love, Mo Tzu, in addition to the foregoing arguments, introduces a number of religious and political sanctions. Thus in the Mo-tzu there are chapters on "The Will of Heaven," and also ones titled Proof of the Existence of Spirits." In these we read that Cod exists; that He loves mankind; and that His Will is that all men should love one another. He constantly super
090 , MO TZU, THE FIRST OPPONENT OF CONFUCIUS
vises the activities of men, especially those of the rulers of men. He punishes with calamities persons who disobey His Will, and rewards with good fortune those who obey. Besides God, there are also numerous lesser spirits who likewise reward men who practice all—embracing love, and punish those who practice "discrimination."
In this connection there is an interesting story about Mo Tzu: When Mo Tzu was once ill, Tieh Pi came to him and inquired: Sir, you hold that the spirits are intelligent and control calamities and blessings. They reward the good and punish the evil. Now you are a sage. How then can you be ill? Is it that your teaching is not entirely correct or that the spirits are after all not intelligent? Mo Tzu replied: Though I am ill, why should the spirits be un-intelligent? There are many ways by which a man can contract diseases. Some are contracted from cold or heat, some from fatigue. If there are a hundred doors and only one be closed, will there not be ways by which rob-bers can enter? "' (Mo-tzu, ch. 48-) In modern logical terminology, Mo Tzu would say that punishment by the spirits is a sufficient cause for the disease of a man, but not its necessary cause.
A Seeming Inconsistency
Here it is timely to point out that both the Mohists and the Comfucianists seem to be inconsistent in their attitude toward the existence of spirits and the performance of rituals connected with the spirits. Certainly it seems in-consistent for the Mohists to have believed in the existence of the spirits, yet at the same time to have opposed the elaborate rituals that were conducted on the occasion of funerals and of the making of sacrifices to the ancestors. Likewise, it seems inconsistent that the Confucianists stressed those funeral and sacrificial rituals, yet did not believe in the existence of the spirits. The Mohists, for their part, were quite ready to point out this seeming inconsis-tency as regards the Confucianists. Thus we read in the Mo—tzu: Kung — meng Tzu [a Confucianist] said: 'There are no spirits.' Again he said: 'The superior man should learn the rituals of sacrifice. Mo Tzu said: 'To hold that there are no spirits, and yet to learn sacrificial ceremonies, is like learn-ing the ceremonies of hospitality when there are no guests, or throwing fish nets when there are no fish. (Ch. 48.)
Yet the seeming inconsistencies of the Confucianists and Mohists are both unreal. According to the former, the reason for performing the sacrificial ritu-als is no longer a belief that the spirits actually exist, though no doubt this was the original reason. Rather, the performance springs from the sentiment of respect toward his departed forebears held by the man who offers the sacrifice. Hence the meaning of the ceremonies is poetic, not religious. This theory was later developed by Hsiln Tzu and his school of Confucianism in detail, as we shall see in chapter thirteen of this book. Hence there is no re-al inconsistency at all.
OOi MO TZU, THE FIRST OPPONENT OF CONFUCIUS
Likewise there is no aetual inconsistency in the Mohist point of view, for Mo Tzu' s proof of the existence of spirits is done primarily in order that he may introduce a religious sanction for his doctrine of all-embracing love, rather than because of any real interest in supernatural matters. Thus in his chapter on Proof of the Existence of Spirits, he attributes the existing con-fusion of the world to a doubt (among men) as to the existence of spirits and a failure lo understand that they can reward the good and punish the bad. He then asks: "If now all the people of the world could be made to believe that the spirits can reward the good and punish the bad, would the world then be in chaos? (Ch. 31.) Thus his doctrine of the Will of God and the existence of spirits is only to induce people to believe that they will be, rewarded if they practice all—embracing love, and punished if they do not. Such a belief among the people was something useful; hence Mo Tzu wanted it. "Economy of expenditure" in the funeral and sacrificial services was also useful; hence Mo Tzu wanted it too. From his ultra—utilitarian point of view, there was no inconsistency in wanting both things, since both were useful.
Origin of the State
Besides religious sanctions, political ones are also needed if people are to practice all-embracing love. In the Mo-tzu, there are three chapters titled Agreement with the Superior, in which Mo Tzu expounds his theory of the origin of the state. According to this theory, the authority of the ruler of a state comes from two sources: the will of the people and the Will of God. Furthermore, the main task of the ruler is to supervise the activities of the people, rewarding those who practice all -embracing love and punishing those who do not. In order to do this effectively, his authority must be abso-lute. At this point we may ask: Why should people voluntarily choose to have such an absolute authority over them?
The answer, for Mo Tzu, is that the people accept such an authority, not because they prefer it, but because they have no alternative. According to him, before the creation of an organized state, people lived in what Thomas Hobbes has called "the state of nature." At this early time, "everyone had his own standard of right and wrong. When there was one man, there was one standard. When there were two men, there were two standards. When there were ten men, there were ten standards. The more people there were, the more were there standards. Every man considered himself as right and others as wrong. "The world was in great disorder and men were like birds and beasts. They understood that all the disorders of the world were due to the fact that there was no political ruler. Therefore, they selected the most virtuous and most able man of the world, and established him as the Son of Heaven." (Mo-tzu, ch. II.) Thus the ruler of the state was first established by the will of the people, in order to save themselves from anarchy.
In another chapter bearing the same title, Mo Tzu says: Of old when God
094 MO TZU, THE FIRST OPPONENT OF CONFUCIUS
and the spirits established the state and cities and installed rulers, it was not to make their rank high or their emolument substantial....It was to procure benefits for the people and eliminate their adversities; to enrich the poor and increase the few; and to bring safety out of danger and order out of confu-sion. (Ch. I2.)According to this statement, therefore, the state and its ruler were established through the Will of God.
No matter what was the way in which the ruler gained his power, once he was established, he, according to Mo Tzu, issued a mandate to the people of the world, saying: "Upon hearing good or evil, one shall report it to one's superior. What the superior thinks to be right, all shall think to be right. What the superior thinks to be wrong, all shall think to be wrong." (Ch. II.) This leads Mo Tzu to the following dictum: "Always agree with the superior; never follow the inferior. (Ibid.)
Thus, Mo Tzu argues, the state must be totalitarian and the authority of its ruler absolute. This is an inevitable conclusion to his theory of the origin of the state. For the state was created precisely in order to end the disorder which had existed owing to the confused standards of right and wrong. The state's primary function, therefore, is, quoting Mo Tzu, "to unify the stan-dards. Within the state only one standard can exist, and it must be one which is fixed by the state itself. No other standards can be tolerated, be-cause if there were such, people would speedily return to 'the state of na-ture " in which there could be nothing but disorder and chaos. In this politi-cal theory we may see Mo Tzu's development of the professional ethics of the hswh, with its emphasis upon group obedience and discipline. No doubt it also reflects the troubled political conditions of Mo Tzu's day, which caused many people to look with favor on a centralized authority, even if it were to be an autocratic one.
