The ancient Mohists are often said to be the world’s first consequentialists — the first on record to propose that we should consistently live by an ethical standard that asks us to bring about as much good as possible for the world. In this episode, we put Mohist consequentialism under a microscope. On the Mohist view, the best action is always the one that maximizes benefit and minimizes harm. How did the Mohists justify this approach? What sorts of things count as “benefit”? Is the theory too demanding to be viable or useful for most people? Join us as we try really hard to set aside our biases and explore what’s good and admirable about a central feature of both Mohist ethics and many ethical theories today.
Key passage
子墨子言曰：「仁者之為天下度也，辟之無以異乎孝子之為親度也。」今孝子之為親度也，將柰何哉？曰：「親貧則從事乎富之，人民寡則從事乎眾之，眾亂則從事乎治之。當其於此也，亦有力不足，財不贍，智不智，然後己矣。無敢舍餘力，隱謀遺利，而不為親為之者矣。」若三務者，孝子之為親度也，既若此矣。雖仁者之為天下度，亦猶此也。 曰：『天下貧則從事乎富之，人民寡則從事乎眾之，眾而亂則從事乎治之。』當其於此，亦有力不足，財不贍、智不智，然後已矣。無敢舍餘力，隱謀遺利，而不為天下為之者矣。 (from ctext §§1-3, which follows Sun Yirang’s 孫詒讓 emendations in《墨子閒詁》)
Our teacher Mozi says, “The way benevolent people plan on behalf of the world is just like the way filial children plan on behalf of their parents.” Now how is it that filial children plan for their parents? Our teacher Mozi says, “If their parents are poor, they do what they can to enrich them. If the members of their clan are few, they do what they can to increase their numbers. If the family is in chaos, they do what they can to make it well ordered. In pursuing these ends they may find that their strength is insufficient, their resources inadequate, or their knowledge too limited, and that they fall short. But they would never hold back any of their strength or any scheme or advantage and not apply these in their efforts to realize their parents’ well-being.” These are the three benefits that filial children plan for on behalf of their parents. And this is the way they work to realize these ends. This is also the way that benevolent people plan on behalf of the world. Our teacher Mozi says, “If the world is poor, benevolent people do what they can to enrich it. If the people are few, benevolent people do what they can to increase their numbers. If the world is in chaos, benevolent people do what they can to make it well ordered. In pursuing these ends benevolent people may find that their strength is insufficient, their resources inadequate, or their knowledge too limited, and that they fall short. But they would never hold back any of their strength or any scheme or advantage and not apply these in their efforts to realize the world’s well-being.”
Mozi, chapter 25 (“For Moderation in Funerals”), Philip J. Ivanhoe’s translation
Sources and phrases mentioned
- Aaron Stalnaker, scholar of Chinese philosophy at Indiana University, Bloomington (reading the Zhuangzi with Richard)
- Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) at the University of Hong Kong
- Mohism (the school of thought named after Mozi 墨子)
- consequentialism
- G.E.M. (Elizabeth) Anscombe, “Modern Moral Philosophy“
- li 利 (benefit)
- hai 害 (harm)
- Chris Fraser, The Philosophy of the Mòzĭ
- Joshua Greene, “The Secret Joke of Kant’s Soul“
- the three (types of) benefit (sanli 三利): wealth (fu 富), population (zhong 眾), and order (zhi 治).
- Philip J. Ivanhoe, characterizes early Mohist ethics as “state consequentialism”
- Tywin Lannister, a character in Game of Thrones
- John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism
- “…that each person’s happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons” (quote from Mill, Utilitarianism, linked above)
- Bryan W. Van Norden, Virtue Ethics and Consequentialism in Early Chinese Philosophy
- The Mohist Canons, a work attributed to the “later Mohists”
- Canon I defines “benefit” as “what it pleases one to get” (所得而喜) and “harm” as “what one dislikes getting” (所得而惡)
