The Argument for Impartial Caring in the Mozi 14-16 Loy Hui Chieh 黎輝傑 National University of Singapore (philoyhc@nus.edu.sg)

Background Philosophical disputation in Pre-Qin period Argumentative theory vs. practice The Mozi as a case study The argument for jian’ai Caveats…

Introduction The importance of the jian’ai doctrine Benefit to the world Heaven’s Intent The main argument for “jian’ai”

Jian and Ai (Briefly) ai 愛 jian 兼 A ai B: “A cares for B” Common verb “to combine or unite” Universal object quantifier Name of distinctive Mohist doctrine/way

Subject vs. Object Quantifier Universal Subject Quantifier All the Fs V G (e.g., all the people loves it) Fs 皆 V G (e.g., 人皆愛之) Universal Object Quantifier F V all the Gs (e.g., the king loves all of them) F 兼 V G (e.g., 王兼愛之)

Jian as Universal Quantifier Form 1: S 兼 V O Example: 順天之意何若？曰兼愛天下之人 “What is in accordance with Heaven’s intent? It is to care for all of the people of the world” Form 2: S 兼 而 V O Example: 其為政乎天下也，兼而愛之 “When they [the ancient sage kings] ruled the world, they cared for all [the people of the world]” Form 3: S 兼 O 而 V 之 Example: 天兼天下而愛之 “Heaven care for all [the people of] the world”

The Evils that Beset the World Group 1 臣子之不孝君父…所謂亂也 (A) 君臣不惠忠，父子不慈孝，兄弟不和調…天下之害也(B) 為人君者之不惠也，臣者之不忠也，父者之不慈也，子者之不孝也…天下之害也 (C) Group 2 盜賊…竊異室…賊人… 大夫之相亂家，諸侯之相攻國…所謂亂也 (A) 國之與國之相攻，家之與家之相篡，人之與人之相賊天下之害也 (B) 大國之攻小國也，大家之亂小家也，強之劫弱，眾之暴寡，詐之謀愚，貴之敖賤… 人之賤人，執其兵刃毒藥水火，以交相虧賊…天下之害也 (C)

Diagnosing the Evils 聖人以治天下為事者也，必知亂之所自起，焉能治之。不知亂之所自起，則不能治。譬之如醫之攻人之疾者然… (A 14/1-4) 當察亂何自起？起不相愛。(A) 凡天下禍篡怨恨，其所以起者，以不相愛生也… (B) 姑嘗本原若眾害之所自生，此胡自生？此自愛人利人生與？即必曰非然也，必曰從惡人賊人生。分名乎天下惡人而賊人者，兼與？別與？即必曰別也。(C)

The Diagnosis in Jian’ai A and B (1) Surface reading: S1,S2不相愛 = S1不愛S2, S2不愛S1 子自愛不愛父，故虧父而自利，弟自愛不愛兄，故虧兄而自利，臣自愛不愛君，故虧君而自利… 父自愛也不愛子，故虧子而自利，兄自愛也不愛弟，故虧弟而自利，君自愛也不愛臣，故虧臣而自利… 盜愛其室不愛其異室，故竊異室以利其室，賊愛其身不愛人，故賊人以利其身… 大夫各愛其家，不愛異家，故亂異家以利其家，諳侯各愛其國，不愛異國，故攻異國以利其國… (A) 今諸侯獨知愛其國，不愛人之國，是以不憚舉其國以攻人之國。今家主獨知愛其家，而不愛人之家，是以不憚舉其家以篡人之家。今人獨知愛其身，不愛人之身，是以不憚舉其身以賊人之身。(B)

The Diagnosis in Jian’ai A and B (2) (1) People care more for their own than others (2) People harm each other so as to benefit their own (1), given background conditions, leads to (2) (2) = a model for the evils that beset the world (1) = statement of the cause of (2)

The Diagnosis in Jian’ai A and B (2) (1) as the cause of (2) If (1), then (given background conditions, all things being equal), (2) If not (1), then (given background conditions, all things being equal), not (2)

The Diagnosis in Jian’ai C (2) People care more for their own than others (2) is either synonymous with or the outcome of: (3) People conduct themselves according to the maxim of BIE (roughly: “It is only proper that I care more for my own than others”)

The Overall Basic Argument (1) People care more for their own than others (3) People conduct themselves according to the maxim of BIE (roughly: “It is only proper that I care more for my own than others”) (2) People harm each other so as to benefit their own (1)/(3) is the cause of (2), such that if not (1)/(3) then (given background conditions, all things being equal), not (2) Assuming we want to bring it about that not (2), we have reason to bring it about that not (1)/(3) We have reason to not care more for our own than others

Solution and Promise (Jian’ai A)

Solution and Promise (Jian’ai B)

Solution and Promise (Jian’ai C)

Solution and Promise (Summation) (1’) People care for others as they do themselves, strangers as they do associates (3’) People conduct themselves according to the maxim of JIAN (roughly: “I ought to care for others as I do myself, strangers as I do associates”) (2’) People would not harm each other so as to benefit their own (1’)/(3’) is the cause of, or leads to (2’)

Three Main Possibilities How best to understand the injunction to care for others as self, strangers as associates? (J1) I ought to care for others and self, strangers and associates without distinction in that I ought to seek to benefit strangers as much as I do associates, and others, as much as I do myself. (J2) I ought to care for others and self, strangers and associates without distinction in that I ought (to seek) to help strangers with needs as much as I do my associates, and others, as much as I do myself. (J3) I ought to care for others and self, strangers and associates without distinction in that I ought to refrain from harming strangers just as much as I do my associates, and others, just as much as I do myself (even when I or my group am the stronger party).

Helping people in need 以兼為正，是以聰耳明目相與視聽乎？是以股肱畢強，相為動宰乎？而有道肆相教誨。是以老而無妻子者，有所侍養以終其壽，幼弱孤童之無父母者，有所放依以長其身。今唯毋以兼為正，即若其利也… (C 16/18-20) 士之言…曰:「吾聞為高士於天下者，必為其友之身，若為其身，為其友之親，若為其親，然後可以為高士於天下。」 是故退睹其友，飢則食之，寒則衣之，疾病侍養之，死喪葬埋之，兼士之言若此，行若此。(C 16/27-28)

Three Main Possibilities How best to understand the injunction to care for others as self, strangers as associates? (J1) I ought to care for others and self, strangers and associates without distinction in that I ought to seek to benefit strangers as much as I do associates, and others, as much as I do myself. (J2) I ought to care for others and self, strangers and associates without distinction in that I ought (to seek) to help strangers with needs as much as I do my associates, and others, as much as I do myself. (J3) I ought to care for others and self, strangers and associates without distinction in that I ought to refrain from harming strangers just as much as I do my associates, and others, just as much as I do myself (even when I or my group am the stronger party).

Sages Yu and Wen 古者禹治天下，西為西河漁竇，以泄渠孫皇之水，北為防原泒，注后之邸， [口+虖]池之竇，洒為底柱，鑿為龍門，以利燕代胡貉與西河之民，東為漏大陸，防孟諸之澤，灑為九澮，以楗東土之水，以利冀州之民，南為江漢淮汝，東流之，注五湖之處，以利荊楚干越與南夷之民。此言禹之事，吾今行兼矣。昔者文王之治西土，若日若月，乍光于四方于西土，不為大國侮小國，不為眾庶侮鰥寡，不為暴勢奪穡人黍稷狗彘。天屑臨文王慈，是以老而無子者，有所得終其壽，連獨無兄弟者，有所雜於生人之閒，少失其父母者，有所放依而長。此文王之事，則吾今行兼矣。(B 15/32-38)

Moral Impartiality What magic is there, in the pronoun ‘my’ to overturn the decisions of everlasting truth?” (William Godwin) I ought to treat strangers, associates and self as equals or deserving of equal consideration in some crucial respect (J1), (J2) and (J3) specify distinct content to the relevant “crucial respect”.

Argument for Jian’ai Background question: what counts as a good argument for a moral position? Argument as taking a target audience from premises that have a claim upon their allegiance (or they already affirm, perhaps implicitly) to some conclusion (usually one they don’t already affirm) What does the target audience already affirm? The world is really beset by the evils listed A world without those evils is a more preferable one There is reason to adopt a course of action that will bring about the resolution of those evils (all things being equal) Q: How strong a conclusion can the above sustain? At what cost?

Thank you!