25. Benefit, Then Stop: Mohism and Impartial Care
How did the Mohists establish their consequentialist ethic of “impartial care (jian ’ai)”? Was this theory ultimately grounded in the will of Heaven?
Themes:
• D. Ahern, “Is Mo Tzu a Utilitarian?” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 3 (1976), 185–93.
• Y. Back, “Reconstructing Mozi’s Jian’ai,” Philosophy East and West 67 (2017), 1092-1117.
• Y. Back, “Rethinking Mozi’s Jian’ai: the Rule to Care,” Dao 18 (2019), 531-53.
• C. Fraser, The Philosophy of the Mozi: The First Consequentialists (New York: 2016).
• C. Fraser, “Mohism and Self-Interest,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 35 (2008), 437–54.
• B.J. Kim, “‘Benefit to the World’ and ‘Heaven’s Intent’: the Prospective and Retrospective Aspects of the Mohist Criterion for Rightness,” Dao 23 (2024), 251-64.
• W. Lai, “The Public Good That Does the Public Good: A New Reading of Mohism,” Asian Philosophy 3 (1993), 125–41.
• H. Loy, “On the Argument for Jian’ai,” Dao 12 (2013), 487–504.
• H. Loy, “The Word and the Way in Mozi,” Philosophy Compass 6 (2011-10), 652-62.
• H. Loy, “The Nature and Scope of Mohist Morality,” Journal of Confucian Philosophy and Culture 36 (2021), 117–45.
• D. Robins, “Mohist Care,” Philosophy East and West 62 (2012), 60–91.
• D. Vorenkamp, “Another Look at Utilitarianism in Mo-Tzu’s Thought,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 19 (1992), 423–43.
• D. Wong, “Universalism vs. Love with Distinctions: an Ancient Debate Revived,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 16 (1989), 251–72.
Comments
Confucian / Mohist thinkers spacially organized
I have been thinking of the figures so far in the following spacial manner.
y = View of Human Nature
Mengzi Good
Yangzi Kongzi Mozi
Xunzi Bad
Particular <--> Universal
x = Benevolence
Simple, but it's helped me keep things straight as a beginner. What would you modify here?
I know Yangzi has not appeared in the series yet, nor am I sure that enough is known about him to confidently place him. What I am thinking, though, is that he teaches a very particular form of benevolence, i.e. only/mainly toward oneself. What I'm less sure of is where he goes on the "human nature" axis: Would Yangzi say this is "good", "bad", or just that it "is"?
In reply to Confucian / Mohist thinkers spacially organized by Christopher Walker
Yang Zhu
Actually we did do Yang Zhu already in episode 14! That should at least start to answer your question.
I can see the appeal of your chart though I am not sure it really makes sense to arrange benevolence and view of human nature as two axes of a single chart; I mean, you can do that if you want but as your chart actually shows, the two issues are basically independent from one another. The "middle" position of Kongzi himself is interesting, I think I'd edge him towards "particular" and then with respect to human nature, as far as I can see there is just no position on that in the Lunyu, it is an issue that comes into Confucianism with Mengzi.
Add new comment