boaz

Mohism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Mohist)
Jump to: navigation, search
Mohism (Chinese: 墨家; pinyin: Mòjiā; "School of Mo") or Moism is a Chinese philosophy founded by Mozi. It evolved at about the same time as Confucianism, Taoism and Legalism (Hundred Schools of Thought). It disappeared during the Qin dynasty. Mozi's philosophy was described in the book Mozi, compiled by his students from lecture notes.

In Mohism, morality is defined not by tradition, but rather by a constant moral guide that parallels utilitarianism. Tradition is inconsistent, and human beings need an extra-traditional guide to identify which traditions are acceptable. The moral guide must then promote and encourage social behaviors that maximise general utility. He also belived in the 2nd law and was in conflict with the ancients.

Mohism promotes a philosophy of universal love, i.e. an equal affection for all individuals. This universal love is what makes man good. This advocacy of universal love was a target of attack by other schools, most notably the Confucians who believed, for example, that children should hold a greater love for their parents than for random strangers.He also had much conflicts with Confucian ideas.

Mozi posited that the existence of society as an organized organism reduces the wastes and inefficiencies found in the natural state. Conflicts are born from the absence of moral uniformity found in man in his natural state, i.e. the absence of the definition of what is right (是 shì) and what is wrong (非 fēi). We must therefore choose leaders who will surround themselves with righteous followers, who will then create the hierarchy that harmonizes Shi/Fei. In that sense, the government becomes an authoritative and automated tool. Mohism is opposed to any form of aggression, especially war between states. It is, however, permissible for a state to use force in legitimate defense. Mohist ideology has inspired some modern pacifists.

In addition to creating a school of philosophy, the Mohists formed a highly structured political organization that tried to realize the ideas they preached. This political structure consisted of a network of local units in all the major kingdoms of China at the time, made up of elements from both the scholarly and working classes. Each unit was led by a juzi (literally, "chisel"—an image from craftmaking). Within the unit, a frugal and ascetic lifestyle was enforced. Each juzi would appoint his own successor. However, there was no central authority beyond the writings of Mozi. Mohists developed the sciences of fortification and statecraft, and wrote treatises on government, ranging in topic from efficient agricultural production to the laws of inheritance. They were often hired by the many warring kingdoms as advisors to the state. In this way they were similar to the other wandering philosophers and knights-errants of the period. They were distinguished from others, however, in that they hired out their services not only for gain, but also in order to realize their own ethical ideals.

Mohists believed in the heavens as a divine force (Tian), which knew the immoral acts of man and punished them, encouraging moral righteousness. Their belief in spirits was at best vague, but they were wary of some of the more atheistic thinkers of the time, such as Han Fei Zi. They polemicized against elaborate funeral ceremonies and other wasteful rituals, and called for austerity in life and in governance. Mohists also saw music and dance as forms of extravagance, which wasted resources that could be used to feed, house and protect the people.

boaz

《兼愛上》
1 兼愛上: 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，必 知疾之所自起，焉能攻之；不知疾之所自起，則弗能攻。治亂者何獨不然，必知亂之所自起，焉能治之；不知亂之 所自起，則弗能治。聖人以治天下為事者也，不可不察亂之所自起。
Universal Love I: The wise man who has charge of governing the empire should know the cause of disorder before he can put it in order. Unless he knows its cause, he cannot regulate it. It is similar to the problem of a physician who is attending a patient. He has to know the cause of the ailment before he can cure it. Unless he knows its cause he cannot cure it. How is the situation different for him who is to regulate disorder? He too has to know the cause of the disorder before he can regulate it. Unless he knows its cause he cannot regulate it. The wise man who has charge of governing the empire must, then, investigate the cause of disorder.

2 兼愛上: 當察亂何自起？起不相愛。臣子之不孝君父，所謂亂也。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，此所謂亂也。雖父之不慈子，兄之不慈弟，君之不慈臣，此亦天下之所謂亂 也。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。是何也 ？皆起不相愛。
Universal Love I: Suppose we try to locate the cause of disorder, we shall find it lies in the want of mutual love. What is called disorder is just the lack of filial piety on the part of the minister and the son towards the emperor and the father; As he loves himself and not his father the son benefits himself to the disadvantage of his father. As he loves himself and not his elder brother, the younger brother benefits himself to the disadvantage of his elder brother. As he loves himself and not his emperor, the minister benefits himself to the disadvantage of his emperor. And these are what is called disorder. When the father shows no affection to the son, when the elder brother shows no affection to the younger brother, and when the emperor shows no affection to the minister, on the other hand, it is also called disorder. When the father loves only himself and not the son, he benefits himself to the disadvantage of the son. When the elder brother loves only himself and not his younger brother, he benefits himself to the disadvantage of the younger brother. When the emperor loves only himself and not his minister, he benefits himself to the disadvantage of his minister, and the reason for all these is want of mutual love.

3 兼愛上: 雖至天下之為盜賊者亦然，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。此何也 ？皆起不相愛。雖至大夫之相亂家，諸侯之相攻國者亦然。大夫各愛其家，不愛異家，故亂異家以利其家；諸侯各 愛其國，不愛異國，故攻異國以利其國，天下之亂物具此而已矣。察此何自起？皆起不相愛。
Universal Love I: This is true even among thieves and robbers. As he loves only his own family and not other families, the thief steals from other families to profit his own family. As he loves only his own person and not others, the robber does violence to others to profit himself. And the reason for all this is want of love. This again is true in the mutual disturbance among the houses of the ministers and the mutual invasions among the states of the feudal lords. As he loves only his own house and not the others, the minister disturbs the other houses to profit his own. As he loves only his own state and not the others, the feudal lord attacks the other states to profit his own. These instances exhaust the confusion in the world. And when we look into the causes we find they all arise from want of mutual love.

4 兼愛上: 若使天下兼相愛，愛人若愛其身，猶有不孝者乎？視父兄與君若其身，惡施不孝？猶有不慈者乎？視弟子與臣若其 身，惡施不慈？故不孝不慈亡有，猶有盜賊乎？故視人之室若其室，誰竊？視人身若其身，誰賊？故盜賊亡有。猶 有大夫之相亂家、諸侯之相攻國者乎？視人家若其家，誰亂？視人國若其國，誰攻？故大夫之相亂家、諸侯之相攻 國者亡有。
Universal Love I: Suppose everybody in the world loves universally, loving others as one's self. Will there yet be any unfilial individual? When every one regards his father, elder brother, and emperor as himself, whereto can he direct any unfilial feeling? Will there still be any unaffectionate individual? When every one regards his younger brother, son, and minister as himself, whereto can he direct any disaffection? Therefore there will not be any unfilial feeling or disaffection. Will there then be any thieves and robbers? When every one regards other families as his own family, who will steal? When every one regards other persons as his own person, who will rob? Therefore there will not be any thieves or robbers. Will there be mutual disturbance among the houses of the ministers and invasion among the states of the feudal lords? When every one regards the houses of others as one's own, who will be disturbing? When every one regards the states of others as one's own, who will invade? Therefore there will be neither disturbances among the houses of the ministers nor invasion among the states of the feudal lords.

5 兼愛上: 若使天下兼相愛，國與國不相攻，家與家不相亂，盜賊無有，君臣父子皆能孝慈，若此則天下治。故聖人以治天下 為事者，惡得不禁惡而勸愛？故天下兼相愛則治，交相惡則亂。故子墨子曰：“不可以不勸愛人者， 此也。”
Universal Love I: If every one in the world will love universally; states not attacking one another; houses not disturbing one another; thieves and robbers becoming extinct; emperor and ministers, fathers and sons, all being affectionate and filial -- if all this comes to pass the world will be orderly. Therefore, how can the wise man who has charge of governing the empire fail to restrain hate and encourage love? So, when there is universal love in the world it will be orderly, and when there is mutual hate in the world it will be disorderly. This is why Mozi insisted on persuading people to love others.

boaz

《兼愛中》
1 兼愛中: 子墨子言曰：“仁人之所以為事者，必興天下之利，除去天下之害，以此為事者也。”然則天下之利何也？天下之 害何也？子墨子言曰：“今若國之與國之相攻，家之與家之相篡，人之與人之相賊，君臣不惠忠，父子不慈孝，兄 弟不和調，此則天下之害也。”
Universal Love II: Mozi said: The purpose of the magnanimous is to be found in procuring benefits for the world and eliminating its calamities. But what are the benefits of the world and what its calamities? Mozi said: Mutual attacks among states, mutual usurpation among houses, mutual injuries among individuals; the lack of grace and loyalty between ruler and ruled, the lack of affection and filial piety between father and son, the lack of harmony between elder and younger brothers - these are the major calamities in the world.

2 兼愛中: 然則崇此害亦何用生哉？以不相愛生邪？子墨子言：“以不相愛生。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。是故諸侯不相愛則必野戰。家主不相愛則必相篡，人與人不相愛則必相賊，君臣不 相愛則不惠忠，父子不相愛則不慈孝，兄弟不相愛則不和調。天下之人皆不相愛，強必執弱，富必侮貧，貴必敖賤 ，詐必欺愚。凡天下禍篡怨恨，其所以起者，以不相愛生也，是以仁者非之。”
Universal Love II: But whence did these calamities arise, out of mutual love? Mozi said: They arise out of want of mutual love. At present feudal lords have learned only to love their own states and not those of others. Therefore they do not scruple about attacking other states. The heads of houses have learned only to love their own houses and not those of others. Therefore they do not scruple about usurping other houses. And individuals have learned only to love themselves and not others. Therefore they do not scruple about injuring others. When feudal lords do not love one another there will be war on the fields. When heads of houses do not love one another they will usurp one another's power. When individuals do not love one another they will injure one another. When ruler and ruled do not love one another they will not be gracious and loyal. When father and son do not love each other they will not be affectionate and filial. When older and younger brothers do not love each other they will not be harmonious. When nobody in the world loves any other, naturally the strong will overpower the weak, the many will oppress the few, the wealthy will mock the poor, the honoured will disdain the humble, the cunning will deceive the simple. Therefore all the calamities, strifes, complaints, and hatred in the world have arisen out of want of mutual love. Therefore the benevolent disapproved of this want.

3 兼愛中: 既以非之，何以易之？子墨子言曰：“以兼相愛交相利之法易之。”然則兼相愛交相利之法將柰何哉？子墨子言： “視人之國若視其國，視人之家若視其家，視人之身若視其身。是故諸侯相愛則不野戰，家主相愛則不相篡，人與 人相愛則不相賊，君臣相愛則惠忠，父子相愛則慈孝，兄弟相愛則和調。天下之人皆相愛，強不執弱，眾不劫寡， 富不侮貧，貴不敖賤，詐不欺愚。凡天下禍篡怨恨可使毋起者，以相愛生也，是以仁者譽之。”
Universal Love II: Now that there is disapproval, how can we have the condition altered? Mozi said it is to be altered by the way of universal love and mutual aid. But what is the way of universal love and mutual aid? Mozi said: It is to regard the state of others as one's own, the houses of others as one's own, the persons of others as one's self. When feudal lords love one another there will be no more war; when heads of houses love one another there will be no more mutual usurpation; when individuals love one another there will be no more mutual injury. When ruler and ruled love each other they will be gracious and loyal; when father and son love each other they will be affectionate and filial; when older and younger brothers love each other they will be harmonious. When all the people in the world love one another, then the strong will not overpower the weak, the many will not oppress the few, the wealthy will not mock the poor, the honoured will not disdain the humble, and the cunning will not deceive the simple. And it is all due to mutual love that calamities, strife, complaints, and hatred are prevented from arising. Therefore the benevolent exalt it.

boaz

4 兼愛中: 然而今天下之士君子曰：“然，乃若兼則善矣，雖然，天下之難物于故也。”子墨子言曰：“天下之士君子，特不 識其利，辯其故也。今若夫攻城野戰，殺身為名，此天下百姓之所皆難也，苟君說之，則士眾能為之。況於兼相愛 ，交相利，則與此異。夫愛人者，人必從而愛之；利人者，人必從而利之；惡人者，人必從而惡之；害人者，人必 從而害之。此何難之有！特上弗以為政，士不以為行故也。
Universal Love II: But the gentlemen of the world would say: "So far so good. It is of course very excellent when love becomes universal. But it is only a difficult and distant ideal." Mozi said: This is simply because the gentlemen of the world do not recognize what is to the benefit of the world, or understand what is its calamity. Now, to besiege a city, to fight in the fields, or to achieve a name at the cost of death -- these are what men find difficult. Yet when the superior encourages them, the multitude can do them. Besides, universal love and mutual aid is quite different from these. Whoever loves others is loved by others; whoever benefits others is benefited by others; whoever hates others is hated by others; whoever injures others is injured by others. Then, what difficulty is there with it (universal love)? Only, the ruler fails to embody it in his government and the ordinary man in his conduct.

5 兼愛中: 昔者晉文公好士之惡衣，故文公之臣皆牂羊之裘，韋以帶劍，練帛之冠，入以見於君，出以踐於朝。是其故何也？ 君說之，故臣為之也。昔者楚靈王好士細要，故靈王之臣皆以一飯為節，肱息然後帶，扶牆然後起。比期年，朝有 黧黑之色。是其故何也？君說之，故臣能之也。昔越王句踐好士之勇，教馴其臣，和合之焚舟失火，試其士曰：‘ 越國之寶盡在此！’越王親自鼓其士而進之。士聞鼓音，破碎亂行，蹈火而死者左右百人有餘。越王擊金而退之。 昔者楚靈王好士細要，故靈王之臣皆以一飯為節，肱息然後帶，扶牆然後起。比期年，朝有黧黑之色。是其故何也 ？君說之，故臣能之也。昔越王句踐好士之勇，教馴其臣，和合之焚舟失火，試其士曰：‘越國之寶盡在此！’越 王親自鼓其士而進之。士聞鼓音，破碎亂行，蹈火而死者左右百人有餘。越王擊金而退之。”
Universal Love II: Formerly, Lord Wen of the state of Jin (about 630 B.C.) liked the uncouth uniform of the soldier. And so all his ministers and officers wore sheepskin jackets, carried their swords in leather girdles, and put on silk-spun hats. (1) Thus attired, they attended the Lord when they went in and paced the court when they stayed out. What was the reason for this? It was that what the ruler encourages the ruled will carry out. And Lord Ling of the state of Chu (about 535 B.C.) liked slender waists. And so all his ministers and officers limited themselves to a single meal (a day). They tied their belts after exhaling, and could not stand up without leaning against the wall. Within a year the court looked grim and dark. What was the reason for this? It was that what the ruler encourages the ruled will carry out. Again, Lord Goujian of the state of Yue (about 480 B.C.) liked the warrior's courage, and trained his subjects accordingly. He had his palace boat set on fire. To test his soldiers he proclaimed that all the treasures of the state were contained therein. And he beat the drum himself to urge them on. Hearing the drum the soldiers rushed on in disorder. More than a hundred strong perished in the flames. Thereupon the Lord beat the gong to let them retreat.

6 兼愛中: 是故子墨子言曰：“乃若夫少食惡衣，殺身而為名，此天下百姓之所皆難也，若苟君說之，則眾能為之。況兼相愛 ，交相利，與此異矣。夫愛人者，人亦從而愛之；利人者，人亦從而利之；惡人者，人亦從而惡之；害人者，人亦 從而害之。此何難之有焉，特士不以為政而士不以為行故也。”
Universal Love II: Therefore Mozi said: Now, things like scanty diet, coarse clothing, and the achievement of a name at the cost of death are those in which people find difficulty. Yet when the ruler encourages them the multitude can stand them. Besides, universal love and mutual aid are different from these. Whoever loves others is loved by others; whoever benefits others is benefited by others; whoever hates others is hated by others; whoever injures others is injured by others. Then what difficulty is there with it (universal love)? Only, the ruler fails to embody it in his government and the ordinary man in his conduct.

7 兼愛中: 然而今天下之士君子曰：“然，乃若兼則善矣。雖然，不可行之物也，譬若挈太山越河濟也。”子墨子言：“是非 其譬也。夫挈太山而越河濟，可謂畢劫有力矣，自古及今未有能行之者也。況乎兼相愛，交相利，則與此異，古者 聖王行之。何以知其然？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，呼池之竇，洒 為底柱，鑿為龍門，以利燕、代、胡、貉與西河之民；東方漏之陸防孟諸之澤，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。昔者武王將事泰山隧，傳曰：‘泰山，有道曾孫周王有事，大事既獲 ，仁人尚作，以祗商夏，蠻夷醜貉。雖有周親，不若仁人，萬方有罪，維予一人。’此言武王之事，吾今行兼矣。 ”
Universal Love II: Nevertheless. the gentlemen in the empire think that, though it would be an excellent thing if love can be universalized, it is something quite impracticable. It is like carrying Mt. Tai and leaping over the Ji River. Mozi said: The illustration is a faulty one. Of course to be able to carry Mt. Tai and leap over the Ji River would be an extreme feat of strength. Such has never been performed from antiquity to the present time. But universal love and mutual aid are quite different from this. And the ancient sage-kings did practise it. How do we know they did? When Yu was working to bring the Deluge under control, he dug the West River and the Youdou River in the west in order to let off the water from the Qu, Sun, and Huang Rivers. In the north he built a dam across the Yuan and Gu Rivers in order to fill the Houzhidi (a basin) and the Huzhi River. Mt. Dizhu was made use of as a water divide, and a tunnel was dug through Mt. Lungmen. All these were done to benefit the peoples west of the (Yellow) River and various barbarian tribes, Yan, Dai, Hu, Ho, of the north. In the east he drained the great Plain and built dykes along the Mengzhu River. The watercourse was divided into nine canals in order to regulate the water in the east and in order to benefit the people of the District of Ji. In the south he completed the Yangtze, Han, Huai, and Ru Rivers. These ran eastward and emptied themselves into the Five Lakes. This was done in order to benefit the peoples of Jing, Qi, Gan, Yue, and the barbarians of the south. All these are the deeds of Yu. We can, then, universalize love in conduct. When King Wen was ruling the Western land, he shone forth like the sun and the moon all over the four quarters as well as in the Western land. He did not allow the big state to oppress the small state, he did not allow the multitude to oppress the singlehanded, he did not allow the influential and strong to take away the grain and live stock from the farmers. Heaven visited him with blessing. And, therefore, the old and childless had the wherewithal to spend their old age, the solitary and brotherless had the opportunity to join in the social life of men, and the orphans had the support for their growth. This was what King Wen had accomplished. We can, then, universalize love in conduct. When King Wu was about to do service to Mt. Tai it was recorded thus: "Blessed is Mt. Tai. Duke of Zhou by a long descent is about to perform his duty. As I have obtained the approval of Heaven, the magnanimous arise to save the people of Shang Xia as well as the barbarians (from the tyranny of Emperor Zhou). Though (Emperor Zhou) has many near relatives, they cannot compare with the magnanimous. If there is sin anywhere, I am solely responsible." This relates the deeds of King Wu. We can, then, universalize love in conduct.

8 兼愛中: 是故子墨子言曰：“今天下之君子，忠實欲天下之富，而惡其貧；欲天下之治，而惡其亂，當兼相愛，交相利，此 聖王之法，天下之治道也，不可不務為也。”
Universal Love II: Therefore Mozi said: If the rulers sincerely desire the empire to be wealthy and dislike to have it poor, desire to have it orderly and dislike to have it chaotic, they should bring about universal love and mutual aid. This is the way of the sage-kings and the way to order for the world, and it should not be neglected.

boaz

《兼愛下》
1 兼愛下: 子墨子言曰：“仁人之事者，必務求興天下之利，除天下之害。”然當今之時，天下之害孰為大？曰：“若大國之 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，此天下之害也。又與為人君者之不惠也 ，臣者之不忠也，父者之不慈也，子者之不孝也，此又天下之害也。又與今人之賤人，執其兵刃、毒藥、水、火， 以交相虧賊，此又天下之害也。”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。然即之交別者，果生天下之大害者與？是故 別非也。”
Universal Love III: Mozi said: The purpose of the magnanimous lies in procuring benefits for the world and eliminating its calamities. Now among all the current calamities, which are the most important? The attack on the small states by the large ones, disturbances of the small houses by the large ones, oppression of the weak by the strong, misuse of the few by the many, deception of the simple by the cunning, disdain towards the humble by the honoured - these are the misfortunes in the empire. Again, the lack of grace on the part of the ruler, the lack of loyalty on the part of the minIster, the lack of affection on the part of the father, the lack of filial piety on the part of the son - these are further calamities in the empire. Also, the mutual injury and harm which the unscrupulous do to one another with weapons, poison, water, and fire is still another calamity in the empire. When we come to think about the cause of all these calamities, how have they arisen? Have they arisen out of love of others and benefiting others? Of course we should say no. We should say they have arisen out of hate of 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 in love or partial? Of course we should say they are partial. Now, since partiality against one another is the cause of the major calamities in the empire, then partiality is wrong.

2 兼愛下: 子墨子曰：“非人者必有以易之，若非人而無以易之，譬之猶以水救火也，其說將必無可焉。”是故子墨子曰：“ 兼以易別。然即兼之可以易別之故何也？曰：藉為人之國，若為其國，夫誰獨舉其國以攻人之國者哉？為彼者由為 己也。為人之都，若為其都，夫誰獨舉其都以伐人之都者哉？為彼猶為己也。為人之家，若為其家，夫誰獨舉其家 以亂人之家者哉？為彼猶為己也，然即國、都不相攻伐，人家不相亂賊，此天下之害與？天下之利與？即必曰天下 之利也。姑嘗本原若眾利之所自生，此胡自生？此自惡人賊人生與？即必曰非然也，必曰從愛人利人生。分名乎天 下愛人而利人者，別與？兼與？即必曰兼也。然即之交兼者，果生天下之大利者與。”是故子墨子曰：“兼是也。 且鄉吾本言曰：‘仁人之事者，必務求興天下之利，除天下之害。’今吾本原兼之所生，天下之大利者也；吾本原 別之所生，天下之大害者也。”是故子墨子曰：“別非而兼是者，出乎若方也。
Universal Love III: Mozi continued: Whoever criticizes others must have something to replace them. Criticism without suggestion is like trying to stop flood with flood and put out fire with fire. It will surely be without worth. Mozi said: Partiality is to be replaced by universality. But how is it that partiality can be replaced by universality? Now, when every one regards the states of others as he regards his own, who would attack the others' states? Others are regarded like self. When every one regards the capitals of others as he regards his own, who would seize the others' capitals? Others are regarded like self. When every one regards the houses of others as he regards his own, who would disturb the others' houses? Others are regarded like 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 think about the several benefits in regard to their cause, how have they arisen? Have they arisen out of hate of others and injuring others? Of course we should say no. We should say they have arisen out of love of others 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? Of course we should say they are universal. Now, since universal love is the cause of the major benefits in the world, therefore Mozi proclaims universal love is right. And, as has already been said, the interest of the magnanimous lies in procuring benefits for the world and eliminating its calamities. Now that we have found out the consequences of universal love to be the major benefits of the world and the consequences of partiality to be the major calamities in the world; this is the reason why Mozi said partiality is wrong and universality is right.

3 兼愛下: 今吾將正求與天下之利而取之，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，不識天下之士，所以皆聞兼而非者，其故何也？”
Universal Love III: When we try to develop and procure benefits for the world with universal love as our standard, then attentive ears and keen eyes will respond in service to one another, then limbs will be strengthened to work for one another, and those who know the Tao will untiringly instruct others. Thus the old and those who have neither wife nor children will have the support and supply to spend their old age with, and the young and weak and orphans will have the care and admonition to grow up in. When universal love is adopted as the standard, then such are the consequent benefits. It is incomprehensible, then, why people should object to universal love when they hear it.

4 兼愛下: 然而天下之士非兼者之言，猶未止也。曰：“即善矣。雖然，豈可用哉？”子墨子曰：“用而不可，雖我亦將非之 。且焉有善而不可用者？姑嘗兩而進之。誰以為二士，使其一士者執別，使其一士者執兼。是故別士之言曰：‘吾 豈能為吾友之身，若為吾身，為吾友之親，若為吾親。’是故退睹其友，飢即不食，寒即不衣，疾病不侍養，死喪 不葬埋。別士之言若此，行若此。兼士之言不然，行亦不然，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。若之二士者，言相非而行相反與？當使若二士者，言必信，行必果，使言行之合 猶合符節也，無言而不行也。然即敢問，今有平原廣野於此，被甲嬰冑將往戰，死生之權未可識也；又有君大夫之 遠使於巴、越、齊、荊，往來及否未可識也，然即敢問，不識將惡也家室，奉承親戚，提挈妻子，而寄託之？不識 於兼之有是乎？於別之有是乎？我以為當其於此也，天下無愚夫愚婦，雖非兼之人，必寄託之於兼之有是也。此言 而非兼，擇即取兼，即此言行費也。不識天下之士，所以皆聞兼而非之者，其故何也？”
Universal Love III: Yet the objection is not all exhausted. It is asked, "It may be a good thing, but can it be of any use?" Mozi replied: If it were not useful then even I would disapprove of it. But how can there be anything that is good but not useful? Let us consider the matter from both sides. Suppose there are two men. Let one of them hold to partiality and the other to universality. Then the advocate of partiality would say to himself, how can I take care of my friend as I do of myself, how can I take care of his parents as my own? Therefore when he finds his friend hungry he would not feed him, and when he finds him cold he would not clothe him. In his illness he would not minister to him, and when he is dead he would not bury him. Such is the word and such is the deed of the advocate of partiality. The advocate of universality is quite unlike this both in word and in deed. He would say to himself, I have heard that to be a superior man one should take care of his friend as he does of himself, and take care of his friend's parents as his own. Therefore when he finds his friend hungry he would feed him, and when he finds him cold he would clothe him. In his sickness he would serve him, and when he is dead he would bury him. Such is the word and such is the deed of the advocate of universality. These two persons then are opposed to each other in word and also in deed. Suppose they are sincere in word and decisive in deed so that their word and deed are made to agree like the two parts of a tally, and that there is no word but what is realized in deed, then let us consider further: Suppose a war is on, and one is in armour and helmet ready to join the force, life and death are not predictable. Or suppose one is commissioned a deputy by the ruler to such far countries like Ba, Yue, Qi, and Jing, and the arrival and return are quite uncertain. Now (under such circumstances) let us inquire upon whom would one lay the trust of one's family and parents. Would it be upon the universal friend or upon the partial friend? It seems to me, on occasions like these, there are no fools in the world. Even if he is a person who objects to universal love, he will lay the trust upon the universal friend all the same. This is verbal objection to the principle but actual selection by it - this is self-contradiction between one's word and deed. It is incomprehensible, then, why people should object to universal love when they hear it.

5 兼愛下: 然而天下之士非兼者之言，猶未止也。曰：“意可以擇士，而不可以擇君乎？”“姑嘗兩而進之。誰以為二君，使 其一君者執兼，使其一君者執別，是故別君之言曰‘吾惡能為吾萬民之身，若為吾身，此泰非天下之情也。人之生 乎地上之無幾何也，譬之猶駟馳而過隙也’。是故退睹其萬民，飢即不食，寒即不衣，疾病不侍養，死喪不葬埋。 別君之言若此，行若此。兼君之言不然，行亦不然。曰：“吾聞為明君於天下者，必先萬民之身，後為其身，然後 可以為明君於天下。”是故退睹其萬民，飢即食之，寒即衣之，疾病侍養之，死喪葬埋之。兼君之言若此，行若此 。然即交若之二君者，言相非而行相反與？常使若二君者，言必信，行必果，使言行之合猶合符節也，無言而不行 也。然即敢問，今歲有癘疫，萬民多有勤苦凍餒，轉死溝壑中者，既已眾矣。不識將擇之二君者，將何從也？我以 為當其於此也，天下無愚夫愚婦，雖非兼者，必從兼君是也。言而非兼，擇即取兼，此言行拂也。不識天下所以皆 聞兼而非之者，其故何也？”

boaz