Taiwan Today

Mo Tzu or Mo Ti was born a few years after Confucius' death and died a few years before Mencius' birth. The dates usually ascribed to his life are 470-391 B.C. Little is known about his origins. Probably he was from the state of Sung or Lu. Some have said he may have been born of prisoners or slaves. However, he was well educated in the classics. He had to be, because he strongly attacked many of the fundamental assumptions and teachings of Confucianism. When Mencius set out to revitalize Confucianism, he first turned his philosophic attack against Mo-ism.

As a philosophy, the teachings of Mo Tzu disappeared more than 2,000 years ago, swallowed up in the triumph of the Confucian revival. Yet in some respects Mo Tzu's influence survived and perhaps tempered the views of the Confucianists. At the least, Mo Tzu demonstrated the early diversity of Chinese thought. Confucianism did not win without an intellectual struggle.

To Mo Tzu, the Confucianists were stuffed shirts and obsessed with rites. He condemned rituals and music. All energy should be devoted to feeding, clothing, and housing the people, he said. He brought the metaphysics of Heaven back into importance and taught that all men are equal before God. Heaven manifests itself in love for men. Men must follow the example and love one another. Universal love is the keystone of Moism. To assure a proper and prosperous social order, the leaders should obey the will of Heaven and the people should obey their leaders.

Mo Tzu was no fireside armchair philosopher. He believed in action, especially against those who refused to listen to him.

The Confucianists counseled only rulers who treated them respectfully. They did not force themselves on bad kings. Mao Tzu regarded offensive warfare as the ultimate waste. When he heard that a state was going to make war, he hurried to the capital and tried to dissuade the ruler. If he failed, he and his followers sought to assist the state that was attacked. Mo Tzu and his disciples acquired the reputation of being able tacticians for defense against siege and wrote on the subject. He and his group were highly disciplined and led an ascetic life. The movement survived his death for some time.

It is interesting to speculate about why Mo-ism didn't fare better in competition with Confucianism. His followers were better organized. For a time his ideas may have had greater currency than those of the Sage. He had an interest in logic and must be recorded as one of the fathers of dialectics. Some of his concepts could have enriched Chinese thought and improved Confucianism. His utilitarianism might have changed some of the directions of Chinese history.

Too Extreme

Mo Tzu failed primarily because he was an extremist. He went too far with almost all his beliefs and advocacies. This ran against the Chinese grain. He was too austere, too puritanical, too much a Quaker. He was lacking in the psychological subtleties of which the Chinese are so fond and which Confucius served so well. Chinese preferred the grays of Confucianism to the blacks and whites of Mo-ism in both the mundane and the metaphysical. Mo Tzu's Heaven wasn't so other-worldly; it was designed to serve men on this earth and to reward those followed its moral judgments. However, the Chinese preferred the gentle agnosticism of Confucius: leave Heaven to the Gods and leave the World to Man.

Mo Tzu spoke against aggression in this wise:

"Humane men are concerned about providing benefits for the world and eliminating its calamities. Now among all the current calamities, which are the worst? I say that the attacking of small states by large states, the making of inroads on small houses by large houses, the plundering of the weak by the strong, the oppression of the few by the many, the deception of the simple by the cunning, the disdain of the noble towards the humble - these are some of the calamities of the world.

Cause of Calamities

"Again, the want of kindness on the part of the ruler, the want of loyalty on the part of the ruled, the want of affection on the part of the father, the want of filial piety on the part of the son-these are some further calamities in the world. Added to these, the mutual injury and harm which the vulgar do to one another with weapons, poison, water, and fire is still another kind of calamity in the world.

"When we come to inquire about the cause of all these calamities, whence have they arisen? Is it out of people's loving others and benefiting others? We must reply that it is not so. We should say that it is out of people's hating others and injuring others. If we should classify one by one all those who hate others and injure others, should we find them to be universal or partial in their love? (He called the Confucian concept of love according to relationship 'partial love'.) Of course, we should say they are partial. Now, since partiality among one another is the cause of the major calamities in the world, then partiality is wrong.

"Partiality is to be replaced by universality. But how? Now, when everyone regards the states of others as he regards his own, who would attack the other's state? One would regard others as one's self. When everyone regards the cities of others as he regards his own, who would seize the others' cities? One would regard others as one's self. When everyone regards the houses of others as he regards his own, who would disturb the others' houses? One would regard others as one's self. Now when the states and cities do not attack and seize each other, and when the clans and individuals do not disturb and harm one another-is this a calamity or a benefit to the world? Of course it is a benefit.

"When we come to inquire about the cause of all these benefits, whence have they arisen? Is it out of men's hating and injuring others? We must reply that it is not so. We should say that it is out of men's loving and benefiting others. If we should classify one by one all those who love others and benefit others, should we find them to be partial or universal in their love? Of course we should say they are universal. Now, since universal love is the cause of the major benefits of the world, universal love is right."

Mo Tzu described universal love as useful. If that were not so, he said, he would disapprove of universality. Think of two friends, he said, one partial and one universal. The partial man would not help his friends, whereas the universal man would take care of his friend as of himself. Or suppose there is a battle, or one is sent far from home. To whom would one entrust his parents, his wife, and his children? Even a person who objects to universal love would be compelled to put his trust in a friend who practices such love.

Rulers Contrasted

Mo Tzu said: "Suppose there are two rulers. Let one of them hold to partiality and the other to universality. Then the 'partial' ruler would say to himself, 'How could I be expected to take care of the people as I do of myself? This would be quite contrary to the nature of things. A man's life on earth is of short duration; it is like a galloping horse rushing past a crack in the wall.' Therefore when he finds the people cold he would not clothe them. When they are sick he would not minister to them, and upon their death he would not bury them. Such is the word and such is the deed of the 'partial' ruler. The 'universal' ruler is quite unlike this either in word or in deed. He would say to himself: 'I have heard that to be an intelligent ruler of the empire one should attend to his people before he attends to himself.' Therefore when he finds his people hungry he would feed them, and when he finds them cold he would clothe them. In their sickness he would minister to them, and upon their death he would bury them. Such is the word and such is the deed of the 'universal' ruler."

Evidence of Love

Mo Tzu said "gentlemen of the world" give lip service to universal love as humane and righteous but claim it cannot be attained, asserting: "Universal love is as possible as picking lip Mount Tai and leaping over rivers with it." So universal love is propounded only as a pious wish never to be materialized. To pick up a mountain and leap over rivers has not been accomplished, Mo Tzu said, but the "great ancient sage kings" actually practiced universal love. The evidence, he insisted, was to be found "written on bamboo and silk, what is engraved in metal and stone, and what is cut in the vessels that have been handed down to posterity".

This resort to the sage-kings for proof affords another contrast between Mo-ism and Confucianism. Confucius also looked back to the Duke of Chou and other earlier rulers as examples of competent, kindly, responsible administrators in an era of peace and plenty. Mo Tzu went Confucius one better. He reached back to even earlier times about which even less was known—so little that Mo Tzu could put words of universal love or almost anything else in their mouths without fear of contradiction.

Although Mo Tzu frowned on much of Confucianism, and rejected and ridiculed elaborate funerals and the three years of mourning for one's parents, he paid respect to filial piety, and thought universal love would help to assure its practice. "Now let us inquire into the way the filial sons take care of their parents," he said. "I may ask, in caring for their parents, whether they desire to have others love their parents, or hate them? Judging from the whole doctrine of filial piety, it is certain that they desire to have others love their parents. Now, then, what should I do first in order to attain this? Should I first love others' parents in order that they would love my parents in return, or should I first hate others' parents in order that they would love my parents in return? Assuredly I should first love others' parents in order that they would love my parents in return. Hence is it not evident that those who desire to see others filial to their own parents had best proceed first by loving and benefiting others' parents? ... It is then quite incomprehensible why the gentlemen of the world should object to universal love."

Mo Tzu cried out, as had Confucius before him, that rulers couldn't see their noses in front of their faces. "The only trouble is there is no ruler who will encourage universal love," he sighed. "If there were a ruler who would encourage universal love, bringing to bear the lure of reward and the threat of punishment, I believe the people would tend toward universal love and mutual aid like fire tending upward and water downwards-nothing in the world could stop them."

Will of Heaven

As for the will of Heaven, Mo Tzu asked why there should be so much disorder in the world. "It is because the gentlemen of the world understand only trifles but not things of importance," he answered, and this is "because they do not understand the will of Heaven. How do we know they do not understand the will of Heaven? By observing the way people conduct themselves in the family. When a man commits an offense in the family, he might still escape to some other family for refuge. Yet father reminds son, elder brother reminds younger brother, saying: 'Beware, be careful! If one is not cautious and careful in his conduct in the family, how is he to get along in the state?' When a man commits an offense in the state, he might still escape to some other state for refuge. Yet father reminds son and elder brother reminds younger brother, saying:' 'Beware, be careful! One cannot get along in a state if he is not cautious and careful! Now all men live in the world and serve Heaven. When a man sins against Heaven he has nowhere to escape for refuge. On this point, however, people fail to caution and warn each other. Thus I know that they do not understand things of importance."

Ladder to Heaven

He urged people to do what Heaven desires and forsake what it abominates. He said Heaven demands righteousness, because "when righteousness prevails in the world, there is order; when righteousness ceases to prevail in the world, there is chaos." Thus righteousness is the "proper standard". Despite his differences with Confucius, Mo Tzu builds a sort of Confucian ladder to Heaven that runs from people to scholars, from scholars to ministers, from ministers to feudal lords, from lords to the chief ministers, from chief ministers to the Son of Heaven (emperor), and from the Son of Heaven to Heaven itself. He does not stop the pyramid of power at the emperor, saying  - with attribution to the sages of old: "When the Son of Heaven has done good, Heaven rewards him. When the Son of Heaven has committed wrong, Heaven punishes him. When the Son of Heaven is unfair in dispensing reward and punishment and not impartial in judging lawsuits, the empire is visited with disease and calamity, and frost and dew will be untimely. Thereupon the Son of Heaven will have to fatten the oxen and sheep and dogs and pigs, and prepare clean cakes and wine to offer prayer to Heaven and invoke its blessing. I have not yet heard of Heaven praying and invoking the Son of Heaven for blessing. Thus I know that Heaven is more honorable and wise than the Son of Heaven." Heaven is the most honorable and wise, and those who desire righteousness must obey its will.

What is the will of Heaven? That all men love universally. Heaven accepts sacrifices from all and always has. Having accepted the sacrifices, Heaven must love all men. A further proof is that throughout the world the murder of an innocent person is followed by calamity. The calamity is caused by Heaven, which loves the people and thus must react to the murder of the innocent.

Heaven inevitably rewards the good and punishes the evil. Mo Tzu again resorts to the sage-kings for proof. The good kings loved the world universally and sought to benefit it. Heaven was pleased and helped the kings to rule well, making them Sons of Heaven and models for men. But the wicked kings hated the people and tried to oppress them. So Heaven punished them, "letting fathers and sons be scattered, their empire be put to an end, their state be lost to them, and capital punishment fall upon them".

Mo Tzu asks: "What is it like when righteousness is the standard of conduct? The great will not attack the small, the strong will not plunder the weak, the many will not oppress the few, the cunning will not deceive the simple, the noble will not disdain the humble, the rich will not mock the poor, and the young will not encroach upon the old. And the states in the empire will not harm each other with water, fire, poison, and weapons. Such a regime will be auspicious to Heaven above, to the spirits in the middle sphere, and to the people below. Being auspicious to these three, it is beneficial to all. This is called the disposition of Heaven. He who follows it is sagacious and wise, humane and righteous, kind as a ruler and loyal as a minister, affectionate as a father and filial as a son, and all such good names in the world are gathered and attributed to him. Why? Because such conduct is in accordance with the will of Heaven."

Origin of the State

If force becomes the standard of conduct, the results will be evil and Heaven will be violated. He who violates Heaven is a "robber and a thief, not humane and not righteous, unkind as a ruler and disloyal as a minister, unaffectionate as a father, and unfilial as a son, and ail such evil names in the world are gathered and attributed to him. Why? Because such conduct is in opposition to the will of Heaven."

Political scientists might profitably compare the origin-of-state theories of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Mo Tzu. Hobbes and Locke developed contract theories, although they differed on the essential nature of man and the right of revolution. Hobbes held that man was evil, that he entered into a compact with the ruler for his own protection, and that he could not renounce the agreement, no matter what the ruler did. Locke maintained that man was good, that he entered into the social compact to protect himself from "outsiders" and for convenience, and that men not only had the right but the duty to overthrow a tyrannical ruler.

People and Standard

In a sense, Mo Tzu combines Hobbes and Locke. He said: "In the ancient beginning of human life, when there was yet no law or government, the dictum was 'everyone according to his own standard of right and wrong' (Locke). Hence, if there was one man, there was one standard; if two, two standards; if ten, ten standards-the more people, the more standards. Everyone upheld his own standard and condemned those of the others, and so there was mutual condemnation among men (Hobbes). Even father and son and brother and brother entertained mutual dislike and dissatisfaction, and were kept apart by disagreements rather than united in harmony. People in the world tried to undermine each other with water, fire, and poison. When there was unspent energy it was not exerted for mutual aid; when there were surplus goods they were allowed to rot without being shared; those who knew the excellent way would keep it secret and would not instruct others. The world was in great disorder; men were like birds and beasts.

"The cause of all this disorder lay simply in the want of a ruler. Therefore
Heaven chose the most worthy in the empire and established him as the Son of Heaven (Mo Tzu). Feeling the insufficiency of his capability, the Son of Heaven chose the next worthy in the empire and installed them as the chief ministers. Seeing the vastness of the empire and the difficulty of attending to matters of right and wrong and benefit and harm among the peoples of far countries, the three ministers divided the empire into feudal states and assigned them to the feudal lords. Feeling the insufficiency of their capability, the feudal lords, in turn, chose the most worthy in their states and appointed them as their officials."

The hierarchy that Mo Tzu sets up is closer to Hobbes than Locke. In each case, it is the superior who decides what is right or wrong, or there is no order. However, the people must identify with Heaven as well as the Son of Heaven, just as the principal ruler also must listen to the will of Heaven.

How to get good government? Mo Tzu had the answer that still evades most nations: get the best people to serve the state. He said: "Now, in ruling the people, administering the state, and governing the country, the rulers desire to have their authority last a long time. Why then do they not realize that exaltation of the worthy is the foundation of government? When the honorable and wise govern the ignorant and humble, there is order. But when the ignorant and humble govern the honorable and wise, there is disorder."

Work by the Worthy

Mo Tzu falls back on the sage-kings again, because they "emphasized the exaltation of the worthy and the employment of the capable, without showing any favoritism to their relatives, to the rich and honored, or to the good-looking. The worthy were exalted and promoted, enriched and honored, and made governors and officials. The unworthy were rejected and banished, dispossessed and degraded, and made laborers and servants. Thereupon people were all encouraged by rewards and deterred by punishments, and strove one with another after virtue. Thus the worthy multiplied and the unworthy diminished in number."

How do the worthy rule? They get up early and go to bed late, working for country and people. The treasury is full and there is plenty of goods. The worthy man working in the fields assures ample grain. The worthy ruler makes proper sacrifice to Heaven and befriends neighboring countries.

Three axioms are applied by Mo Tzu in the exalting of the worthy. First, when the rank of the worthy is not high, the people will not respect them. Second, when the emoluments of government servants are inadequate, the people will not place confidence in them. Third, when the orders of the worthy are not final, the people will not stand in awe and obey. The sage-kings knew this and gave high rank, generous compensation, and sufficient authority. The result was good government.

If the unworthy are employed, the state falls upon evil times. The unworthy are unfilial, they do not respect their elders, they disregard decorum between the sexes, they steal, revolt, double cross their lord and then decline to follow him into exile. Petty-minded rulers often employ the unworthy. They give jobs to their relatives, to the rich without merit, and to the handsome. When the unwise and unintelligent rule, disorder is inevitable.

Mo Tzu made a lot of sense nearly 2,500 years ago and he still does. Behind all his thought lies the idea of universal love. If men loved each other and did unto others as they would have done unto them, the world would be an infinitely better place. Christ said so, too, as did Dr. Sun Yat-sen, the great Chinese philosopher and political actionist of this century. China can be proud that Mo Tzu was among the first to set forth in detail one of the world's greatest and most unselfish aspirations.