This essay will discuss and analyse the work of the Ancient Chinese philosopher, and founder of the Mohist tradition, Mo Tzu. We shall do this by focusing on one extract of his work and evaluating it in contrast to the dominant schools of thought in the era which he was writing; we shall also look at subsequent schools, his impact on Chinese society and his role in the wider development of Chinese Political Thought. Before discussing Mo directly, it is prudent to make a note about the very nature of Chinese Philosophy especially in regards to Western Grecian Philosophy of the same epoch. The socio-economic base of China was overwhelmingly agricultural compared to, for example, the mercantile nature of ancient Athens; this can be seen as having profound effects as “the mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general”. That is to say that those being governed had very different needs, concerns and behaviours compared to the subjects of Grecian thought, therefore it is fair to comment that Chinese thought “express[es,] in one way or another, the inspirations and aspirations of the farmer”. Mo is believed to have been born between the years 480 – 465 (all dates BCE unless stated) and to have died between 390-375; thus making him a subsequent of Confucius, and a near contemporary of later thinkers such as Mencius (Confucian) and Lao Tzu (Taoist). It is stated by his followers that Mo hails from the state of Lu in the North East of China: Although this is not proven fact it is not diminished in its value to us, as it can be seen as a method of linking Mo to Confucius (who also was from Lu). The linking of newer ideas to the past (for example Confucius to the ‘Sage Kings’) was a technique used to give credibility to ideas, one can reasonably infer that Mo was being ‘marketed’ by his followers as the anti-thesis to Confucian ideas and the next step in political thought. Mo is recorded as having “studied under a Confucian” again presenting him as a ‘reformer’ of political thought as a ‘Luther-esque’ figure ridding the established doctrine of its faults and championing the lower classes against aristocratic “luxuries that had no practical utility”. Unlike Confucius, Mo was not of the ruling aristocracy or bureaucracy, the name ‘Mo’ itself can translate to ‘tattoo’, a common feature on the bodies of slaves, soldiers and other members of lower classes. It is thought that Mo was of the lower artisan class or the ‘hsieh’ class, as he was an educated man yet of lowly station this as we shall see later had influences of his writing and thought. Mo was active during the era known as the ‘Warring States Period’ (479-221) a time of conflict and uncertainty which gave rise to many philosophers, and which again has influence on the political thought of the day, especially Mo’s, as ‘war weary’ people sought stability and order. Although somewhat less well known than Confucius to the modern reader, Mo Tzu was by no means insignificant because “in ancient times, the fame of Mo Tzu [...] was as great as that of Confucius and his teachings were no less influential”. When Mencius came to defend Confucianism he felt it necessary to devote much of his work to challenging Mohism, highlighting its significance. As with many ancient Chinese texts the sole authorship of ‘Mo Tzu’ cannot be assumed to be entirely the work of Mo himself, his students and followers may have also added and edited the work slightly, as is also the case with Confucius’ ‘Analects’ (albeit to a much greater degree). Mohism, however, more-so that many other schools of this early period represents “a systematic and coherent system of thought”. Mo represents a break, however temporary it might appear, from the ‘orthodoxies’ of ancient Chinese political doctrine, rather than simply offering advice to ‘worthy’ patrons, Mo would “preach his gospel to anybody who would listen”. This gave Mo’s works a distinctly different approach to other thinkers, for example his magnum opus is overtly practical and his line of debate is far more in tune with ‘plebeian’ wants, needs and even levels of understanding. In this gobbet we shall study an extract from the text ‘Mo Tzu’ called ‘Universal Love’. The concept of ‘universality of love’ is at the very core of Mo’s political thought, the idea can be summarised and simplified by looking at what Mo says in regards to the family: “If men were to regard the families of others as they regard their own, then who would raise his family to overthrow that of another”. This principle advises men to, in all aspects of life to love all men and to “promote what is beneficial to the world”. As all men would be acting in a similar way the system becomes an ‘insurance policy’ for members of society, in the same way one would protect the child of another from falling down a well, one would protect all in society from harm. Through mutual aid society would achieve a harmony that would benefit all, this can be compared to later Legalist ideas: Under Legalism harmony is achieved as everybody knows the law or ruler will reward or punish their behaviour accordingly, in a Mohist society each member knows that all will aid them and with this guarantee they will aid others. Universality is love for all others, the opposite of this is partiality, where one regards their own interests above all else, from this grows hate and competition, “Therefore we know that partiality is wrong”. Mo’s concept of universality of love was criticised as utopian, but Mo answered that even those who criticise ‘universal love’ accept it as being the best system and would chose it for their own society. Mo asks if a man who was about to depart on a dangerous journey would prefer to leave his family in the care of a universal minded man (or in a universal minded society) who would care from them as his own, or in the care of a partial minded man who says “how could I possibly regard my friend the same as myself” and who places his own concerns above all else friends. Being that no man wishes to leave his own family to harm, he would obviously choose the universal minded man. Universal love was criticised by followers of Confucius, who stated that to love the parents of all as if they were one’s own parents was an unfilial act. However this again was rebuffed by Mo who explained that a filial son does not wish harm to his parents, or wish for others to despise them. To ensure his parents are loved it is logical to love the parents of others as one’s own “so that they in return will love and benefit my parents”. Knowing that universal love will be returned, and that it is for the benefit of one’s own parents and for all of society Mo asks if his critics think that “filial sons of the world are too stupid to be capable of doing what is right” Although Mo gives a positive account of humanity’s ability to work together he did not believe in a utopian ‘state of nature’ rather he propagated ideas similar to those of Thomas Hobbes. In Taoist thought a state of nature is the ideal situation for mankind and so rulers must intervene in society as little as is possible, they should instead put faith in ‘the way’ to create natural harmony. “We are not to amputate what is by nature long, nor to lengthen what is by nature short'”, this extract from the Taoist Chuang Tzu highlights the previous point about ‘natural society’. Mo, much like much later European Social Contract theorists, claims that a state is necessary as humans are rational and thus have different views of what is right, these differing views lead to disagreement and conflict. To solve this problem and to allow for universal love between all men there must exist “unified standard”, Mo states that this should come from above: That is to say that like the principle of ‘cuius regio, eius religio’ found much later in 16th Century Europe Mo believed that the values of the leader must be assumed by the people: “What the superior thinks is right, all shall think is right”. Although this does not seem an attractive prospect to the modern reader due to its totalitarian connotations, it was to Chinese people of the Warring States era who wanted stability and social harmony over such secondary concerns as the ‘western’ conception of ‘liberty’. By top down action Mo aims to manufacture equality and allow universal love. In regards to Mo’s wider work it can be fairly stated that where Confucius had tried to rationalize the Chou principles, Mo had tried to “replace them with something with something that was simpler [...] and more useful” however it is untrue to think Mo neglected the past or the example of the Sage Kings. In fact Mo used them to support his argument; “Universal love and mutual aid were actually practiced by four sage kings of antiquity” with this argument Mo gives examples taken from the Classic of Odes. The difference between Confucius and Mo was where “they [Confucius and Lao Tzu] had looked to the past [...] Mo Tzu took the utilitarian path of looking for happiness in a promising future that would be achieved by actively creating a different world”. A distinct contrast between Mohism and other schools of thought is its “brevity and simplicity” which aided Mohism in appealing to the lower classes. Mo believed that any political doctrine should be scrutinised before “the hearing and sight of the common people”. This approach of preaching to the masses meant that Mo had support from the grassroots of society upwards, and was not plagued by the personal intrigues found in, for example, Confucianism. In a famous parable Mo is defending a city walls and tells the attacking force “though I can be murdered, you cannot exterminate them” this refers to both the mass of the people in support of him and the strength of his idea when in the hands of the masses. Mo was not merely an idealist propagating love and harmony to the masses he, as just referred to, actively defended those under attack and sought out those who needed to hear his theory. Of other political doctrines Mo stated that, unless they are effectively put into action they are “but a group of words”. Mo was critical of both Taoism and Confucianism; both could lead to fatalism thus “causing people to be lazy and to resign themselves to fate”. This went against Mohism which stated that the very point of a political doctrine was to actively change the world. Mo saw Confucianism as being a wasteful and decedent school of thought serving only the aristocracy. The lavish ceremonies expected to be carried out distracted the leader from his duty, instead a ruler serve his people by “satisfying [the people’s] immediate material needs and by abandoning all forms of activity and expense which do not contribute to the feeding, clothing and housing of the people”. Not only are such rituals wasteful but they are unrealistic Mo claimed that “even people with the vigour of youth cannot perform all the ceremonial duties, even those with long life cannot exhaust the learning required for their studied”. Mohists, unlike Confucians, stress the importance of religion however this does not replace the logical foundations of Mohism with unstable theological ones, in fact it has been asserted that Mohists were both “the most religious and the most logical” of thinkers. Although many Confucian bureaucrats were sceptics the majority of the population were still religious and so by using religious terms Mo can be seen as simply using a culturally resonant discourse to engage the subordinate classes of society. Much like Locke’s criticism of atheists, Mo puts across the argument that “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?”. With this example we can clearly see how Mohism uses religion in a largely utilitarian way. The concept of universal love although simple in itself is a central, if not the central, principle to Mohist thought. This coupled with the centrality of class issues, both in the reaction against aristocratic decadence and the in propagation of unity and in providing for the needs of the people is what makes Mo so significant in Chinese thought. This can be demonstrated by looking at Mencius’s revisions of Confucianism, for example he gave justifications for the rites by drawing on the same utilitarian arguments as Mo used, he also added greater ethical concern throughout all aspects of Confucianism. Mo made countless arguments that would resurface in future, for example Bentham and utility, Hobbes and the state of nature and Marx and the poverty of philosophy, further highlighting the significance of his arguments in both his own epoch and in the development of political philosophy
