 
308

We Seek to Rule

# Modern Life in the Spirit of Mozi

by R.D. South

 RULE (verb)

### 1. To control the will and actions of; to exercise authority or dominion over; to govern; to manage.

### 2. To control or direct by influence, counsel, or persuasion; to guide;

### 3. To establish or settle by, or as by, a rule; to fix by universal or general consent, or by common practice.

### 4. To require or command by rule; to give as a direction or order of court.

### 5. To mark with lines made with a pen, pencil, etc., guided by a rule or ruler;

### 6. To keep within a certain range for a time

Table of Contents

Introduction

Abstract

1. Heaven Presupposed

1. Theological Equivalence

1. Perspective Illusion

1. Think Globally

1. Act Locally

2. Three Models

2. Sage Kings

2. New Sages

2. Accrual of Wisdom

2. Popularity

2. Empirical and Reproducible

2. Practicality

2. Checklist

3. Universal Love

3. Manageability Through Organization

3. Priority of Work

3. Feed Underlings

3. Pay Dues

3. Save Up

3. Promote Growth

3. Sages

3. Disciples

3. No Fun

3. No Fun Ever

3. Purpose Based Moderation

3. Jading

4. Purpose Treatment

4. Evaluating Worthiness

4. Justice By All

4. Specialization

4. Benevolence and Righteousness

4. Hierarchies of Our Lives

4. Status Quo

5. Vertical Responsibility

5. Upward Identification

5. Remonstration

5. Downward Elaboration

5. Consensus Precepts

5. Changing Sovereigns

6. Sovereignty

6. Self Similarity and Growth

6. Exemplars in Kind

6. Assertiveness

6. Succession Issue

6. Mandate of Heaven

7. Proselytizing

7. Perennial

7. Simple Thoughtful Rites

7. Angels Only

7. Justice Plus Chaos

7. No Pile Ons

8. Yi and Li

8. Summary

8. The Horror

9. Additional Topics

9. Mohist Theology

9. Discerning Tolerance and Advocation

9 Sacrifices

9. Problem Of Evil

9. Mohist Karma

9. Mohist Charity

9. Jian Ai

9. Consequentialism

9. Mohist Innovation

9. Mohist Science

9. Mohist Education

9. Whence Surpluses

9. Mohist Economics

9. Mohist Creativity

9. Mohist Arts

9. Leading Like Leaders

9. Legitimacy Of Authority

9. Reconciling Peace and Justice

9. Mohism and Modern Democracy

9. Subversive Mohism

9. State Consequentialism

9. More About Conforming Upward

9. More About Parochial Rites

9. ReadingBetwenTheLines

9. An Enduring Ethic For the Growing Machine
Introduction

Mohism was an ancient Chinese movement with political, philosophical, and religious elements, founded by a man named Mozi. _The Mozi_ was a guide book for Mohist proselytizers and teachers, written to continue serving the Mohist movement as an authoritative source of doctrine after the passing of its founder. _The Mozi_ mostly consists of essays for reforming the ways of ancient Chinese noblemen. In it Mozi says to only talk about what can be acted on.

47-5

_Master Mozi said_ : "Words that can lead to actions may always be expressed, but if they cannot be followed up by action then one must never speak them. If you treat them as if they could lead to deeds and always talk about them, that's useless chatter."

As opposed to pure scholarship, the purpose of _this_ book is to propose how Mohist doctrine might still be applied in modern times. Therefore the proper organizing principle for this book is to recast the teachings of _The Mozi_ as more general guidance for behavior in all walks of life and in all times and places.

The endeavor of adapting Mohist political doctrine as a personal way of life is aided by the scalable self similarity Mozi saw in the world.

What applies on one scale often applies similarly on another.

25-1

_Master Mozi said_ : "If we compare the concern of a virtuous steward of the kingdom with the care of a reverent son for his parents, there is no difference between them..."

41-26

When one steps in front of the mirror, a reverse image appears, on a larger or smaller scale.

50-1

"...whoever for the sake of righteousness could not kill a few people, but kills large quantities; has no sense of analogy."

Just as Mozi can compare a kingdom to a family, I can reverse engineer Mohism by inferring individual guidance from his guidance to kings. That such usage was always intended is implicit in the precepts of _Identifying Upward_ , and _Standards and Models_. That Mozi's message was intended for the entire world, and for all times, is implicit in _Universal Love_ and the _Will of Heaven_. But ancient Mohism was aimed at the leaders. The plan was to reform society from the top down. It died out before it could become guidance for common people. So I hope to derive general principles that will enable anyone to apply the lessons of _The Mozi_ in many different kinds of conditions.

By design, the Mohist argument has many starting places. Wherever they were sent, Mohist agents were told to first preach the reforms that were most direly needed.

49-14

_...Master Mozi said:_ "Every time you come into a kingdom, choose what's most important, and carry it out. If there is disorder in the country, speak of favoring the worthy and of assertion of uniformity; if the land is impoverished, emphasize moderation in consumption and moderation in funerals. If the state revels in sounds and feasts, talk about the condemnation of music and the condemnation of fatalism, and if corruption and immorality reign, speak of the veneration of heaven and service to spirits. If the state is inclined to robbery and assault, talk of the unifying love and condemnation of the war of aggression. So when you speak, choose what is most needed and carry it out."

Similarly, a proselytizer could start with what the target valued and took for granted, then build proof of the entire Mohist doctrine on that premise. For example, a particularly pious ruler could be persuaded by an argument built on _The Will of Heaven._ Since the king already believed in the will of Heaven, the Mohist could use that to show how other Mohist precepts flow from Heaven. The ruler of a kingdom beset by nepotism and corruption would be approached in a different way. The Mohist would build the argument on the benefits of _Exalting the Worthy_ , showing how meritocracy leads to all the other Mohist precepts. Unfortunately, far from being helpful to my task, this multidirectional argument has been a stumbling block. But self examination has led me to honestly admit my true purpose for writing this book. I want to make Mohist doctrine useful and applicable in modern times. Understanding that has provided me with not only an order of presentation but also a clearer abstract understanding of the essence of the doctrine, an understanding free of distracting parochial clutter.

In order to make _The Mozi_ useful to common people today, I must convert it. Mozi's audience was noblemen of ancient China, rulers and ministers of troubled kingdoms.

10-6

"... Now if the kings, princes, and nobles really want to practice goodness and righteousness, to seek scholars, to walk the path of the wise rulers, and to benefit the families and the people, so that harmony prevails in the kingdom, the people thrive, those near and far live in peace, the sun and the moon give their splendor, ships and carriages come properly, and so that rain and dew moisten the soil for the grain to grow, then our method of preferring the capable must be heeded, because the services of the proficient are beneficial to Heaven, the spirits and humanity and because it is the best basis for state administration."

Mozi hoped they may be looking for ideas that may help them govern more effectively. My audience is ordinary individuals, citizens of the modern world. They won't need guidance on setting policies for their kingdoms, but they may be seeking an organizing principle for life. Such people instinctively know that the most reliable joy is found in purposeful, confident functioning.

2-2

In strenuous work, he does more every day, his desire is to continue to progress daily; daily he grows in strength and abundance.

They hope to find a reason and way to practice the self discipline and focus necessary for such flow and resiliency. Knowing that wisdom takes at least one lifetime to develop, but that meanwhile life must be lived, they cast about hoping to learn from the experiences of others. But they are rightly suspicious of accepting many teachings that are on offer. Many of them are degraded by institutional success and inertia, which has allowed them to retain critical flaws, or even to exploit people for nefarious purposes. Good ideas are more humble.

2-4

...The experts consider things, but do not make many words; they work with great energy, but do not brag about their deeds. In this way, their reputation and fame spread throughout the world. In words, it does not come down to the quantity, but to the rationality, not to the beautiful form, but to the striving for truth. Therefore, those who do not seek reason in their own interior will strike the wrong path and do not reach their wishes.

Major religions and ideologies have lost perspective, but less well established systems are even more suspect. They are likely to be the work of charlatans. Mohism is like none of those. It is a dead creed, a way once popular but now long abandoned. No large body of commentary has analyzed and clarified it, so it has languished unspoiled and dormant in obscurity. Here I hope to have drawn that needle from the haystack and polished the uncut gem so it can be put to useful purpose--perhaps as a lens or cutting instrument, certainly not as decoration.

5-4

"...They possessed wealth and honor, but were unprepared: armor is a rich treasure, supplies are more useful than gems, weapons are the claws and teeth, and castles are the protection of the regime. These three things are the tools of the realm."

Mohism has two kinds of things to teach us. One is the common sense stuff we already know. Care about people, prioritize, work hard, get along, go through channels. We don't need it for that stuff. The other is crazy stuff. Give up entertainment. Sacrifice to the spirits. Don't play favorites. We don't need Mohism for the first part to begin with, so why would we accept this stuff as a necessary cost that goes with it?

The thing is we are told these days that we can't really have that first set of common sense stuff just accidentally. We have to get it from somewhere. We have to identify ourselves as part of a tradition, receivers of a way of life. We can't just have common sense and a good disposition. Or else. We have to give credit to the religion that gave it to us.

So, here's the religion that really gave it to us.

Abstract

Mohism presupposes the existence of a benevolent deity which Mozi calls Heaven. If your supreme deity has some other name, you can think of that deity as equivalent to Heaven. The fundamental notion of Mohism is that once you start using objective standards you come to realize that the larger is more important than the merely near, despite the illusion of perspective. We should guide ourselves on the largest possible point of view, thinking globally, like Heaven. But we should act locally, starting with what is nearby simply for the sake of efficiency, which is a rule that ultimately benefits everyone globally.

We know what is right and true because we base our understanding on precedent, popularity, and practicality. Precedent is the words and deeds of the sages. Mozi set great store by the wisdom of sage kings, whose legends manifested the best of the accrued wisdom of the Chinese people up to his time, and we know of them through him. To his wisdom we can add that of other sages since his time, and from other places. Nothing can be true that contradicts the sages, though the new can always be added to the old. Popularity is widespread perception by many people. It is an important indicator that something may be true. Practicality is the usefulness of an idea in producing actual results. If something works, does not offend the sages, and is broadly accepted, it can hardly be disputed.

Personal behavior is based on the will of Heaven, which is benevolence, or universal love. This means doing your best to ensure everyone gets all they need, without regard for personal sentiment. In practice, the best way to do this is to join with others to find a place in society, then to prioritize expenditures of effort and resources according to four levels of priority. First provide for the needs of your underlings (self, subordinates, family). After your underlings have all they need (though not necessarily all they want) provide requested assistance to your superiors (boss, government, spirits and heaven). In practice this is the best way to practice universal love, since by supporting your superiors (and thence all their superiors) you support a world benefiting plan (in theory, see below). Next build a secure future (save, plan). In Mohist tradition, each echelon of society stockpiles a three year supply of all necessities for all underlings. Finally, once adequate security is ensured, invest all remaining resources and efforts into growth (invest, study, research, breed, build, proselytize, and practice ritual sacrifice and/or charity). One line of growth endeavor is to seek to become a sage, which involves particular devotion. If you self evaluate as having the potential for it then you should embark on the path to becoming a sage and ruler. Nowhere on this list is there ever time or resources for entertainment, waste or extravagance. No matter how good things get, surplus resources are better spent on ensuring a better future. But there's an optimal amount of everything, which for luxuries is vanishingly small. While they seem to benefit greatly at first, self indulgences become progressively more useless anyway, as you get jaded.

Interpersonal behavior is based on treating all in accord with the purpose (for Heaven) that they are fit for. Act so as to help make them most useful to society. For the most part, that means treating people in accordance with their observed (rather than inferred) status worthiness, which is a composite of virtue and competence. Help promote the worthy, demote the unworthy, and assign people to jobs they are most qualified for. As a rule, people should specialize, focusing on skills related to one kind of task until sufficient competence is developed to proceed to other pursuits. Virtue is in turn comprised of benevolence (proper personal and interpersonal behavior) and righteousness (proper organizational and political behavior). Based on our judgment of worthiness (and making sure to think globally and act locally) we select hierarchies to support, and practice correct organizational behavior within those hierarchies. In practice, it is usually most efficient to accept the hierarchies one finds oneself in unless there is some good reason to change.

Organizational behavior is based on properly enforcing standards both up and down and properly receiving standards from above and below. We apply and promulgate standards received from above, favoring those from higher up. When superiors are in error regarding the standards of their own superiors, we politely remonstrate with them and then appeal to the higher superiors. We can add to standards received from above, but cannot subtract When we add our own standards they should be guided by a consensus of the standards of our subordinates and based on sensitivity to their needs. When the standards of Heaven are being violated and all human authorities have been appealed to without hope of avail, appeal even higher, to Heaven, for guidance on possibly changing sovereigns.

Political behavior (decision making as a sovereign or participant in sovereignty) is mostly a scaling up of proper personal, interpersonal, and organizational behaviors (since I have in fact largely gleaned those from Mozi's advice about political behavior on the basis of the principle of self similarity), but it is particularly guided by the sages and Heaven. As in all dealings with near peers, friendly and assertive, but not aggressive, foreign policy is particularly important. The succession system is a particular concern that was never addressed perfectly by any ancient sages, leading dynasties to degrade over time, requiring the intervention of Heaven in establishing a new person or institution to act as supreme human authority.

Religious behavior requires denying fatalism and promoting belief in Heaven and service to the benefit of the world in accordance with the will of Heaven. Wherever there is civilization, there are generally similar beliefs and practices, though they take different ritual forms. In spiritual rites and practices the thought is what counts, and whatever rites you believe in should be carried out properly to express this reverence. Simplicity, however, is of the essence. Spirits exist and are everywhere, but they are unable to affect our world unless Heaven allows it, so all spirits good people see are agents of Heaven. They are sent to reward the worthy and are allowed to punish the wicked. Regardless of any possible afterlife, Heaven rewards good behavior and punishes bad behavior in this life, though there are also random factors involved, so virtue cannot be inferred from fortune. Further, Heaven's justice is Heaven's justice, which has been done, and adding human punishment or reward to what has already been done is double punishment or double reward.

That summarizes what I have to say, but it's not book length, so I guess I'll explain (1) how I got it from Mozi, (2) how it relates to what people already believe, and (3) how it might be applied in practice. Without the first it isn't Mohism, without the second it won't sell, and without the third it won't endure.

### Chapter 1: The Perspective of Heaven

26-8

_Master Mozi said_ : "I treat the will of Heaven as a wheelwright uses a compass, or a carpenter a square. Wheelwrights and carpenters use compasses and squares to measure circles and squares. What's fits, they take for true, what doesn't fit, for false. The scholars and nobles of the realm have written countless books and said an infinitely great deal. For the most part they are about princes, and secondly about various scholars, but they are far away from benevolence and justice. How do I know? I have a clear scale that is valid for the world I am showing you."

Heaven Presupposed

Mohism presupposes the existence of a benevolent deity which Mozi calls "Tian" or Heaven.

Was Mohism a religion? It was a philosophy that included Religion. Mozi was above all a social scientist, and he observed the indispensability of some sort of religion to social stability. In turn, only social stability can moderate the darker side of human nature. So Mohism placed great importance on Religion generally. But the only religions Mozi knew looked like decadent variants of his own, so when he preached respect for religion as part of his social philosophy, he advocated a back to basics version of the religious practices he was familiar with. But that doesn't affect the severability of the philosophy from that specific religious tradition. You can't be a Mohist without a religion but, because of Mozi's radical fundamentalism (rather than in spite of it) your religion doesn't have to be slavishly identical to the version of ancient Chinese religion the ancient Mohists may have practiced. Essentially, any theism will do. Proper religion is based on publically observable standards rather than privileged mysteries.

Chapter 4 is the most sublime epitome of _The Mozi_. In it Mozi introduces and describes his God and proposes that people conform to the will of God rather than the mandates of authority figures.

4-3

"But where should one take examples? It is to be replied that Heaven is the best example. In Its all-encompassing work, it is quite impartial; It gives in abundance, but does not insist on Its virtue. Its light shines forever and never takes off. That is why the holy kings took their example from Heaven. Now, if Heaven serves as a model, then one must do all his deeds and actions according to Heaven, do what Heaven desires, and refrain from what It does not desire. But what does Heaven want, and what displeases It? Heaven undoubtedly desires that people love each other and promote each other, and It does not want them to hate each other and to harm each other. But how do we know that Heaven desires that people love and benefit and does not like that they hate and harm each other? Because Heaven Itself loves all people and helps everyone. And how do we know that Heaven loves everyone and helps everyone? It is because It has all the people in Its power and sustains them all."

But this raises the problem of theocracy, because it opens the door to people claiming to speak for God, which just transfers power from arbitrary secular authority to arbitrary religious authority. So Mozi also proposes a basic definition of his God and grounds it in the consensus of broadly respected sources, the documented words and deeds of historical figures whose stories were fully established in his culture. In addition, Mozi's proposed social systems and epistemology will provide methods for controlling the kinds of abuses that can stem from placing the divine will above human authority.

36-5

"The false people at the time of three dynasties were similar, always pretending destiny, and for a long time they deceived the multitude in faith and beguiled the simple people with it. The wise rulers had a time of hard suffering, so they had it all written down on bamboo and silk and carved into metal and stone. In a book of former rulers, The Statement of Zhong Hui reads: _'I heard of the Xia that they pretended the will of Heaven, and spread their own commands among the people. That's why God hated them and scattered their armies.'_..."

For one thing, the will of Heaven is expected to be abundantly clear to all, not some secret revelation that any opportunist can claim. Heaven should be obvious to all.

19-7

"...When the nine tripods were to be moved, they did not go from the place. During the darkness, the phantom of a woman appeared, demons ached at night, women became men, the sky was raining flesh, thorns grew on the imperial roads, and the king's [dead] elder brother accosted him. A red bird with a scepter in its beak flew down to the altar of the gods of the Zhou lands and said: _'Heaven instructs the King Wen of Zhou to kill the Yin dynasty and take possession of their land.'_ [Mythical]Tai Tien appeared as a guest, from the Yellow River a green table emerged, and from the earth came a yellow horse..."

Mohism is theistic. If you are going to be a Mohist, you are going to have to come to terms with this. Theism may turn some people off but Mozi's near monotheism represented a vast reform. Heaven is a simplification of the many pagan gods of Chinese religion at the time, which Mozi essentially demotes to mere spirits that are subject to Heaven and thus largely decorative. But Heaven Itself is essential.

48-14

_..._ The Confucians think Heaven is not endowed with reason, and that spirits are not divine. So Heaven and the spirits are not tended to. That is enough to destroy the empire...

Mozi makes this clear not just because he gives Its will such a prominent place in his argument, but also when he extols pious rulers.

35-6

_...If righteous men stand at the top of the empire, then it is well managed. God, spirits, holy mountains, and divine rivers all have their worshippers and venerators, and in return the people are granted their blessings to an abundant extent. In addition, master Mozi noted:_ "In the old days, when Tang was ennobled in Bo, he had, rounding off, about fifty kilometers square. He was connected with his people by mutual love; he helped them, gave to them from his abundance, and led them to worship Heaven above and to serve the spirits. For this, Heaven and the spirits bestowed wealth upon him, the princes sided with him, the people supported him, and the most distinguished scholars agreed with him. Before he reached old age, he had gained dominion over the entire empire and the leadership of the princes..."

And he laments impious ones.

9-8

...They ruled the kingdom in such a way that they hated and harmed everyone equally. They also caused the people to revile Heaven and insult the spirits, and they treated the masses with contempt and arrogance...

Mozi observed that good rule coincided with overt belief, but I suspect what he was gleaning from the history he reviewed was that the people are pious, and benevolent leaders care about what the people think so they are pious too, whereas bad leaders don't revere the people, and thus they see no reason to revere their belief in a higher power.

25-9

Sometimes the worship of God and the spirits is even forbidden. In such a system of government, God and the spirits must intervene from above. They will ask themselves whether it is better to have those people or not, and conclude that it does not make a difference whether people are present or not. The punishments of God and ghosts will be sent down to the people, misfortune will be imposed upon them, and they will be chastised and discarded. Isn't that also what they deserve?"

Mozi never gives any justification for why we should believe in Heaven, or why It exists metaphysically, or how It works, but he gives plenty of description of what Heaven is.

The sky, aka The Universe is an intelligent being that favors thriving order, life, and civilization.

26-2

"But what does Heaven want and what does It hate? Heaven desires justice and hates wrongs. Therefore, when I lead the people to act righteously, I do what Heaven desires, and if I fulfill the wish of Heaven, Heaven will also fulfill my wishes. But what do I want and what do I not wish? I wish happiness and well-being, and hate calamity and perdition. If I do not do what Heaven desires, but what it does not wish, I will lead the people to bring about their own calamity and ruin. How do I know that Heaven desires justice and hates wrongs? Those who possess justice remain alive on earth, the unjust get what they have coming, the righteous become rich, the unjust become poor, the righteous live in harmonious relationships, the unjust in turmoil and unrest. Now, Heaven loves life, wealth, and order while it dislikes death, poverty and confusion. Therefore, I know that Heaven desires justice and abhors wrongs."

This entity, Heaven, has influence over seemingly random events, which can be attributed to the acts of intermediary "spirits" that It sends to nudge human behavior. (My theory is that the "spirits" are just Heaven's representation in our world of the interests of past and future people). Obviously visible spirits are sent only under exceptional circumstances. Ironically, those least in need of their guidance, or those beyond it, see them least often.

46-6

_Wu Mazi made reproach to master Mozi because of his ways of pursuing righteousness: "He is helping the people of whom he sees nothing and donates abundantly to the spirits of which he has no awareness. This way of acting is madness." Master Mozi replied_ : "Suppose that you have two servants. One only works when he sees you, and if he doesn't see you, he doesn't do anything. The other, however, works both when he sees you, and when he does not see you. Which of these two would you prefer?" _Wu Mazi replied: "I would prefer the one who works both when he sees me as well as if he does not see me."_ "In that case," _said master Mozi,_ "you also give the madman the preference."

Heaven imbues existence with purpose because Heaven has a purpose. It is something to be having that purpose, something beyond which there is nothing.

26-1

"...The proverb says: _'How bright the sun shines! How can anyone who perpetrates a crime flee from it?'_ That means there is no sanctuary, for, to Heaven, there is no forest thick enough, no place dark, hidden, or deserted enough; Its light sees everything..."

Rather than arbitrarily making our choices based on our own tiny irrelevant reasons we can identify with something greater, we can simply harmonize with the universal and measure our compasses against a true north star.

26-8

_Master Mozi said_ : "I treat the will of Heaven as a wheelwright uses a compass, or a carpenter a square. Wheelwrights and carpenters use compasses and squares to measure circles and squares. What's fits, they take for true, what doesn't fit, for false. The scholars and nobles of the realm have written countless books and said an infinitely great deal. For the most part they are about princes, and secondly about various scholars, but they are far away from benevolence and justice. How do I know? I have a clear scale that is valid for the world I am showing you."

There's nothing wrong with this simple vision of the deity. Mozi's God doesn't get in the way of normal human concerns. It has not been improved on in all the ages since, though it has been pre-empted for less noble purposes. Heaven seems to play an important role in the Mohist moral message, but on close examination it is not vital. Attributing _Universal Love_ to the _Will of Heaven_ really just plays the role of corroboration. "Impartial care makes life better for everyone. Also the eye in the sky will punish you if you don't practice it."

Mozi tends to be a "belt and suspenders" kind of guy like that. He gives multiple reasons for many things he says, and they are all interlinked, so if you are trying to construct a linear narrative of his logical argument you will just go around in circles. Not only is Heaven the universal viewpoint we should all imitate, but Heaven is also the agent of the Mohist version of karma, which is an extra reason to behave well, if the intrinsic merits and practical benefits of universal love are not persuasive enough.

Morality may be possible without Heaven, and Mozi gives several arguments that don't involve It.

15-4

"...Namely, anyone who loves others is to be responded to with love, whoever brings them advantage, with advantage; anyone who hates others, is to be responded to with hatred, and whoever harms them with harm. What is difficult about this? ..."

But belief in Heaven is nevertheless a vital part of Mohism. Mozi considers belief in Heaven and its "karma" enacting spirits to be vital to an orderly society.

31-1

"... The confusion in the realm begins. What is the reason? It is that when deciding whether or not there are spirits, people doubt and they do not see that the spirits reward the good and punish the wicked. How could the realm be able to get into confusion if people believed in the power of the spirits to reward the good and punish the wicked?"

I tend to agree with him in my own way. Lacking something beyond our individual selves, something even beyond humanity, we lose perspective and humility. Besides, I've seen It acting in the world. I know It's real. Far from being unreason, Heaven is our tool _against_ unreason.

27-9

"...In the Great Explanation it is said, _'Zhou had to be torn away from his lusts and sat in crouching position. He did not want to serve God, and he neglected the sacrifices for his ancestors and to the spirits of Heaven and earth. He said,_ I have the mandate _, and did not improve in his behavior. Heaven rejected Zhou and did not protect him._ ' The reason for the rejection and the withdrawal of the protection was that he had contravened the will of Heaven..."

When the king becomes a tyrant, Heaven is there above the king. "Build a shrine to you? I think not, there's something above you." Or someone might say, "Humanity is all that matters," to which we might answer "But doesn't Heaven care for the spirits of this old growth forest, or this pure stream?"

35-6

"...If I predicted that if a righteous man were at the head of the realm, it would be well-managed, so God, the mountains, rivers and spirits would have their worshippers and venerators and the people would thus partake of their manifold blessings, then I have demonstrated it with these incidents."

Certainly, theism can be abused, but I tend to think those abuses are a result of poor organizational and interpersonal ethics rather than the use of theism. When a monster wants to act like a monster, any handy ideology will do.

Mozi makes clear that his belief in Heaven's benevolent disposition is based on observation. Acts of Heaven consistently lead to greater life, wealth and order. The trend of constant increase of these things is evidence of that. Progress can only be slowed or issued temporary setbacks by ignorant and unenlightened practices. What's important is that Mozi lays out the true Mohist values (life, wealth, and order) and attributes their origin to Heaven. Mozi supported belief in Heaven, it can have beneficial results, and similar theisms are widespread in the world.

Theological Equivalence

If your supreme deity has some other name, you can think of that deity as equivalent to Heaven. Heaven serves several functions in Mohist doctrine. If your deity can fill those roles, then your deity is Heaven. Belief in one God, or a very supreme God, is widespread. The irreligious are a minority in the world.

That must mean something. It's real evidence, not a quirk of human nature or misperception. People who criticize religious belief by explaining it away like this really earnestly believe that religion is a major source of problems with the world, so they consider it worthwhile to undermine it by telling people their eyes are lying to them. But they are making an error.

Religion is not the source of the problems, it is merely the vehicle. People are seeing something and opportunists tell them, "Yes, what you see is a great spirit that wants you to give me all your hard earned wealth and die in wars stealing more wealth for me and enslaving more people for me." Atheists believe the way to counter this kind of abuse is to tell people their eyes are lying to them. The truth will out. If there's something there to see, people will see it. The less clearly they see it the easier it is to tell them it is something it's not. Evil is not countered by rejection of God, as evidenced by the mass murders perpetrated in modern history at the behest of Godless ideologies.

Getting rid of God doesn't make the evil go away. Keeping God doesn't make the evil go away, either--not by itself. Even well-meaning religion is harmful when it becomes cocky, believing itself to have the final answer. For example, in many ways Roman Catholicism bears a striking resemblance to Mohism, even down to the encouragement of fecundity, veneration of saints, and belief in visiting angels.

The difference is that Catholicism is unable to change, to realize that when a different phase of history calls for different divine rules that difference doesn't mean God has changed any more than the passing of night and day means that the Sun has moved. As I shall later demonstrate, Mozi's support for fecundity, for example, was always conditional rather than essential. The deity may be unchanging, but our position differs from time to time and from place to place, so in different times and places we must see the deity differently. Mozi's objection to the god spurning rulers of history wasn't that they didn't practice religion (which he would consider a matter between them and Heaven) but that they interfered with the practice of it by others.

Mozi wouldn't tell people they should abandon their religions. He would want people to practice their own religions in a Mohist manner, if possible. Mozi doesn't tell us he has the final answer, and for me he has the final answer for that reason. Being later isn't necessarily being the last word; sometimes it's just being late. It is a great evil to tell people to stop using their eyes, an evil Mozi never commits. Though he venerates the lessons of the past, Mozi tells us to apply our minds and perceptive abilities eternally to the project of a better world. But why should we care about a better world?

Perspective Illusion

The fundamental notion of Mohism is that once you start using objective standards you come to realize that the larger is more important than the merely near, despite the illusion of perspective.

At the time of Mozi, the craftsman class was being elevated to unprecedented opportunities in a world where many things were broadly uniform, but many other things varied from place to place. There was a single Chinese culture almost as far as the eye could see, but it was broken up into many independent states that had many of their own unique ways.

Within this culture, many of the ancient Mohists were craft workers or the equivalent of engineers. They stumbled upon a priceless lesson because all such professions use standards, such as calibrated yardsticks. Such use of standards teaches a fundamentally different kind of thinking than reliance on just language. Language puts things in categories or not. Measurement implicitly recognizes infinite complexity, at least in theory.

4-1

_Master Mozi said:_ "Anyone who does anything in the world cannot do without a model, because in the absence of a model, the undertaking concerned does not come to fruition... _._ In this way, all craftsmen have a guideline with which to measure. Now the greatest are ruling the realm and the major states, but they have no model with which to judge their actions, and so they lag behind the artisans."

In ancient China, thought was by comparison and analogy, but without consistent standards to carry from one comparison to another linking them all together. Lacking such standards, all comparisons are necessarily ad hoc and local, resulting in perceptions that are illusory and distorted.

28-1

_Master Mozi said:_ "What can we say is the cause of disorder in the realm? It is the fact that the scholars and nobles of the realm understand only small, but not great things..."

The core of Mohism is not any one of the Mohist values, such as preventing war or discouraging murder, or feeding starving children. Those are things a Mohist cares about, but the Mohist cares about those things because a Mohist sees the true size and importance of everything, rather than being fooled by perspective.

The perspective illusion distorts appearances, making nearby things larger and distant things smaller.

28-13

_Therefore, master Mozi says:_ "If you give yourself a false perception, it is the same as blurring the difference between black and white, or between sweet and bitter...Under the reign of the present kings, princes and lords, if someone kills a man, the administration will intervene; but if the number increases and someone is able to kill many of the inhabitants of the neighboring state, it is considered to be an extremely just thing. Is that different from the differences between white and black, sweet and bitter?"

  >

By repeat application of an unchanging standard, you can adjust for the illusion of perspective and build up an increasingly accurate picture of the world as a whole. Your start thinking universally, you become more fit to rule. When you don't adjust for the illusion of perspective, you think that people or things are larger and more important because they are near you. Your thinking retains local favoritism.

Stand in an open place where you can see a crowd in the distance. A friend can stand nearby and block out the crowd. The friend seems larger, but the crowd is actually larger, and we should not forget that.

The apparent largeness of the near is not objectively true. The objectively larger should be more important to those who want to value things appropriately. We should adjust our perceptions so we see things as they are, rather than distorted by the illusion of perspective. When you establish objective unchanging standards, such as calibrated measuring sticks (rulers), you make this rectification of scales possible. By comparing them both to the ruler, you can measure your friend and you can measure the crowd and see that the crowd is larger.

Thus, from standards flows selfless concern for the world. This leads us to understand the value of social unity built around shared standards. And it leads to understanding that some standards are better than others, and that society should be organized so that power should go to those who apply good standards well, rather than the opposite. From this commitment to meritocracy flows a desire to gain power through benevolence and righteousness, and for benevolent and righteous reasons.

28-14

For this reason, master Mozi has established the will of Heaven as a guide and norm.

Think Globally

We should guide ourselves on the largest possible point of view, thinking globally, like Heaven. More realistically, we think like a hypothetical emperor of the world and imagine how things should be to make them Heavenly. By comparing what is with what should be we can determine what needs to change. You can't materially benefit the entire world all by yourself; you can only give it your thoughts. So the only way to love the entire world is to think about the global consequences of every action we take. This is called consequentialism. If you are a consequentialist, your actions may turn out to have unintended consequences, for ironically what characterizes a consequentialist is the decision making process, not the actual consequences. But part of that decision making process is trying to optimize the consequences of your decisions. You try to gain the power to ensure your consequences are actually as beneficial as possible. Education and organization are the means to do that. Wisdom helps you know the best actions. Organization makes your wise actions take effect more broadly. Organization also leverages your wisdom by letting you lean on the wisdom of others, who are higher in the organization. If you are truly thinking globally then you seek to become wiser and you seek to join with and support systems organized along lines of wisdom and to become worthy to rise in them by demonstrating superior virtue and competence. You seek to rule.

Universal love is the will of Heaven and simply a good idea, but nobody can actually be of benefit to everyone in the world. Only Heaven can benefit everyone in the world, and similarly only the ruler of a nation can benefit the whole country. One's scope of action is limited by one's power.

49-12

"I have considered the matter," _said master Mozi further,_ "I thought of tilling fields and feeding the people of the world. In the best case, I could do the work of one man, and when I divided all my grain among the people of the world, each individual would not even get a liter of rice, but even supposing that everyone received a liter of rice, I would not be able to satiate the hungry of the whole world..."

Mozi's personal solution is to benefit the whole world by producing intellectual goods. That worked for him personally, but it's hardly guidance for everyone else. An entire world in which everybody focuses on producing intellectual goods is a world in which a bunch of geniuses starve because nobody is farming.

5-3

"...If the producers are few, but the eaters are many, the harvest is not sufficient..."

So how can a farmer practice universal love if she can't produce infinite grain? She does it the same way Mozi does it, by giving the world the product of her mind. In everything she does, she thinks about how it affects the larger world. Such common concern is not limited or poorly distributed. Universal love is still universal love even if it isn't universally beneficial. (Yi Pao Mei's translation of 1-3 speaks to this.)

First there's the "love":

15-3

_... The master Mozi said,_ "By means of all-embracing mutual love and by exchanging mutual benefits, you can help." _But what does this means of universal love and exchange of mutual benefits consist of? Master Mozi replied:_ "Such people look at other states like their own, consider the houses of their neighbors as their own, and equate other persons with themselves..."

Then the love leads to consequences.

15-3

"...If the princes love each other, they will not go to the field against each other, when the family leaders live together in friendship, they can band together against attackers, and if individuals are connected by love, they will not perform acts of violence against each other..."

Love is a state of mind, not an outcome.

44-12

Wanting and accomplishing cannot always go hand in hand.

It's a state of mind that cares about outcomes and is likely to produce them, but what it really consists of is the state of mind. So in a sense, universal love is risky emotional commitment to something you don't wholly control. This call for emotional commitment distinguishes Mohism from Stoicism. A sage has refined out all emotions but righteousness and benevolence, but those leave plenty of room to feel.

No, this is not an intent based moral philosophy. Good will is rightness in kind, but it isn't sufficient for merit. It's going the right direction, but not going far enough. Relative merit is indicated by good consequences. Excuses earn no credit; they just demonstrate an understanding of one's failure. They indicate that moral training is not what is deficient. You see, moral philosophy can be characterized by what it tells people to do. The implication of Mohist thought is that when someone has good will but poor results we should help that person become more competent, and when someone is competent but morally ignorant, we should help that person become more moral. In both cases, the recommended action is based on consideration of consequences.

46-1

_Master Mozi was annoyed at Geng Zhuzi, who said: "Am I not better than other people?" Master Mozi replied:_ "I want to get up Mount Tai Hang, and for riding I have an excellent horse or a goat. Which one should I ride?" _Geng Zhuzi replied that he would ride the horse._ "Why," _asked Master Mozi,_ "the horse?" _"The horse," said Geng Zhuzi , "is in a position to carry the burden." Master Mozi replied,_ "I believe that you too are able to carry your burden."

That universal love would even be an issue may seem strange to many modern people. Of course you can love someone without being able to benefit them. But in Mozi's day, nobody had ever thought of making the distinction. Then again, the phrase "think globally, act locally" is of modern origin. Maybe we aren't as advanced as we think. All that abstruse complexity (Kant, Hegel, etc...) and this commonplace never turned up. Part of the reason may be that thinkers weren't trying to create one ethical standard for everyone, they were aiming at intellectuals. But what is the categorical imperative, really, other than "think globally" or "care inclusively". Another reason could be that Mozi's ideas are widely (but not universally) known, without being recognized as such. They are already practiced, worldwide, on an intuitive or culturally subliminal level. Thus they seem either unacceptable or unremarkable. We think these ideas are personality traits, and thus we miss out on consciously recognizing them, with all the benefits that come from understanding as opposed to intuition.

Most people naturally tend to treat close relatives and friends well. That's not morality. Morality is extending that decency to a larger circle.

44-12

...Those who govern people according to certain purposes are the spirits. One may do good to a single person for reward and praise, but one does not benefit humanity in general for these reasons, because doing so doesn't earn any special respect from humanity generally.

The golden rule, by itself, doesn't clearly call for inclusive care because it's about how to act in relationships but not about what relationships to be aware of. Mozi is the first to make the final step and call for the extension of equal love to everyone in the known world. For the first time good will is more than mere partisanship, it is universal, it has become a thing unto itself. And this is important. We need to consciously recognize that what we are doing is choosing universalism over favoritism in our decisions. Then we can know whether we are acting locally because of sentiment, deceived by perspective, or for practicality.

Act Locally

We should act locally, starting with what is nearby simply for the sake of efficiency, which is a rule that ultimately benefits everyone globally. Why should we act locally?

48-21

_...Master Mozi gave this answer:_ "... A sage estimates how far his power reaches and only then does he act"

The universal viewpoint is not the one we should adopt all the time. Rather it is simply one of the considerations our decisions have to harmonize with. The need remains to prioritize nearby challenges in practical decisions about how to help the world. My eyes can see farther than my arms can reach. Local concerns are a fact of life. Mozi constantly made clear that he understood the current sorry state of affairs he lived in.

31-1

_Master Mozi said:_ "Since the wise rulers of the three old dynasties are no longer alive, the world has lost justice, and only the tyranny of the feudal lords has remained. Between princes and subjects, superiors and subordinates there is no goodness and no fidelity, between fathers and sons or older and younger brothers is no goodness or filial love, and no respect for the elders or respect for virtue. The leaders of the government do not try to fulfill their duties in the administration, while the ordinary people do not apply themselves to their work. The people are corrupt and vice ridden, rebellious and indignant. Thieves and robbers invade with weapons, poison, and water, burning innocent travelers in the road, throwing them to the ground on the side paths and robbing wagons, horses, dresses and furs to enrich themselves..."

Competition, even fierce warfare, is a reality he was intimately familiar with.

39-7

But if both parties are wrong and they are thus in dispute, then if the winner allows routed enemies to escape, and if he refuses to shoot surrounded enemies, and if he releases prisoners of war with provisions, then he will not be more noble despite all such efforts in this direction.

Mozi lived in the real world; this was not some ethereal dreaming. In learning to see things from the perspective of Heaven, we need not forget how to see them from our own perspective. In proposing a better world, Mozi is not demanding that we ignore the current one.

2-1

A scholar has knowledge, but it mainly depends on his actions. As long as you do not have a firm foundation, the desired outcome is beyond consideration. Before you have understandings with the neighbors, you cannot think of those who are afar, and before you are on good terms with your family, you do not regulate foreign relations. First you are looking for purity in your own things, only then can you take on other matters. As long as one of the simplest things is unknown, one does not aspire to universal education. The rulers of old also ruled the empire by first examining the nearby before going to the more distant. The noble also examines the obvious and for him this is self cultivation. If his personality is uncultivated, he will perish, therefore he turns inward to himself. He is dissatisfied with himself, examining himself and improving himself.

### Chapter 2: The Three Models

4-1

_Master Mozi said:_ "Anyone who does anything in the world cannot do without a model, because in the absence of a model, the undertaking concerned does not come to fruition. Even the best scholars, who become generals or ministers, have their models, and even the best craftsmen use models to do their work. If they make a rectangle, they use the square, and for a circle the compass, for a straight line the cord and for a perpendicular the plumb line. Skilled craftsmen and clumsy all use these five instruments as a guide. The skillful hit the mark; the clumsy don't hit it, but nevertheless don't abandon the model. They work on their instruments and thus come beyond themselves. In this way, all craftsmen have a guideline with which to measure. Now the greatest are ruling the realm and the major states, but they have no model with which to judge their actions, and so they lag behind the artisans."

Three Models

We know what is right and true because we base our understanding on precedent, popularity, and practicality. In science you might call this trio established fact, empirical evidence, and reproducible results.

The Mozi was not written by Mozi, it was written by Mohist leaders who repeated the words of Mozi as they remembered them. The core doctrines were written down as several sets of essays on each topic, three essays per principle. While the essays in each triad repeated essentially the same information second and third times, there were differences, and you can discern different personalities in the authors.

The author of the first essay in each triad kept the message short and tended to be more of the iconoclast with a simple, striking pitch. These may be the actual words of Mozi himself, transcribed by a contemporary. I think of this author as a passionately reforming union boss, cunning in the ways of power, slyly petitioning the powerful with enticing, but loaded, deals.

35-3

_..._ _What are the three models? Master Mozi said:_ "One deals with the 'origin', another with the 'basis', and the third with the 'practical application'. What is the origin? One finds the origin in the history of the old, wise rulers. And what's the basis? The basis is discovered in the reliable sensory truth of the people corporately. And how is the practical application found? It is by applying various principles of justice and administration and observing which has benefitted the state, the families, and people. These are the so-called three models of discussion."

The author of the second essay in each triad offered more sophisticated arguments, but tended to be more of a paternalistic and pious elitist. I think of the second generation author as pastor of a successful mega-church, conservative but authentically magnanimous.

36-1

_..._ Nowadays, a lot of upside-down views are common in the world, but they are hard to discern. Therefore, here are three methods for use in discussions. What are these three methods? One is to ask for the origin, a second to ask about the basis and the third is to ask about practical application. For the origin one must explore the will of Heaven and the spirits and the history of the holy kings and for the basis one must examine the scriptures of the former rulers. And what is the practical application? It is the transforming of these principles into justice and administration. These are the three methods of discussion."

The author of the third essay in each triad offered the most polished argument, with the most historical and philosophical support. This third generation paraphrasing of the accepted words of the master is informed by experience of actually trying to practice Mohism in the real world for several decades. I think of author three as the educated president of a respected university, scholarly leader of Mohism in its prime as a thriving intellectual movement. The third version of the three models calls them by different, more modern sounding names, but they represent the same three items as the first version.

37-1

"...What must be understood about these three methods? One method deals with testing, another one deals with the foundation, and the third deals with practical application. What does testing involve? It involves examination of the history of earlier sages and great kings. And what does the foundation involve? It involves the perceptions of the crowd, the transmissions of the eye and the ear. And what does the practical application involve? It involves application to the government of the realm and examination of the effects on the people. These are what I call the three methods of discussion."

Mozi presented the "three models" at the beginning of each of the _Against Fatalism_ chapters, but the three versions are different, with differing names for the three models. The first and third essays talk about the words and deeds of the sage kings, the eyes and ears of the people, and applicability in policy. The second essay eliminates any reference to the eyes and ears of the people, making up the space by dividing up the first model's "words and deeds of the sage kings." The new first model is comprised just of the will of the spiritual world and deeds of the sage kings, ie _theology_ and _historical analysis_ (which Mozi uses as a basis of philosophy and social sciences). The eyes and ears of the people are out, replaced with the words of not just the sage kings but the words all former rulers, ie _settled law_. Perhaps we can take these changes as a sign that the first model is most important and the second model is least important, but I tend to take it as a sign that the second essay is out of step. Some of Mozi's words were left out. But the second model still has value because it really expands on what the first model comprises.

In line with precedent, I've changed the names of the three models. I also expand the first model to include all settled knowledge and standards in all fields, the accumulated wisdom of past applications of the three models. The second model is data collected by passive empirical observation. The third model is experimental verification.

Sage Kings

What I call precedent is what Mozi calls the words and deeds of the sages. Heaven can reveal Its will in miraculous signs, but when Mozi places the will of Heaven above the commands of contemporary authority figures he is mainly calling on us to refer to fixed and unchanging documents, words written in stone. He is placing certain principles above more transient human demands the way a country might have a constitution that cannot be changed by mere statute.

16-9

_...Master Mozi said,_ "I do not live with them in the same generation or at the same time, have also not personally listened to their words or looked at their traits, but I know it from what they wrote on bamboo and silk, engraved on metal and stone, in bowls and on shells and left for the descendants of later generations...

After all, even the wisest leader in the world is not as wise as the wisest leader of all time. Mozi knew that nothing of the ancient sage kings was irreconcilable with his benevolent vision of God, and also he was relying on the fact that everything about the ancient sage kings was (1) already well known and thus unalterable by cheaters and (2) already being cited as a source of authority. By casting his own theories as extensions and interpretation of the ways of the sage kings, Mozi hoped to make his theories both unassailable and impossible to abuse.

Every culture has its sages. These are the founders, the universally revered progenitors of the bedrock cultural principles. The words of the sages are the go-to textbook examples. Though people within a culture have many differences and tribal allegiances everybody agrees on the sages and their principles. Sages need not be figures in government. Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein have all had something of sage king status in the subculture of the scientific community. They were great, but imperfect or incomplete. Just as with political sage kings, the teachings of these scientific sages earned treatment, in their time, as undeniable law. We may quibble about other things, but the teachings of the sages are a stable point of common reference. Regardless of your field, the words and deeds of the sages are an invaluable resource. By building on their shoulders you don't have to reinvent the wheel.

Reliance on the sages is a big part of any field of endeavor. When we apply self similarity to the three principles and project their application into everyday life, regular sages will do nicely. The sage _kings_ of ancient China neglected to address many topics, so these lesser sages handle such details just as their delegated officials took care of local matters. Mozi cited the sage _kings_ because they were well documented, as he repeatedly belabors.

31-11

"As they feared that their descendants might not know this in later generations, they let it be written down on bamboo and silk for the consumption of posterity, and out of concern, thus engraving bowls and carving in metal and stone to repeat it, for they thought that the descendants of later generations would perhaps fail to have awe for the spirits in efforts to obtain blessings from them..."

10-4

"Therefore it is recorded on bamboo and silk rolls and carved into bowls and plates as a legacy for sons and grandchildren of later generations...."

47-12

_Master Mozi said:_ "The holy kings of antiquity wanted to pass on their teachings to posterity, so they wrote them on bamboo and silk and carved them in metal and stone to leave them to the sons and grandchildren of later generations. The sons and grandchildren of the following generations should take these as models. If we now hear of this legacy of the former kings and do not follow it, so we insult this tradition."

He also cites them because they were well known and universally respected in his society, and thus their words were likely to be both familiar and impressive. But they also must have had special wisdom because their having attained supreme rule without losing popularity was evidence they were doing something right. The sage kings weren't just any popular leaders; they must have been special because they were the founders of long stable dynasties. More than that, they were archetypes, refined to essences by the telephone game of history and legend.

9-3

"...They wrote this all well and beautifully, depicting that everything good and beautiful was to the credit of the sovereign and all discontent and slander was due to his servants..."

When the winner writes the history, he claims to have been something he never was, but the very act of making that distortion is an act of responding to intuitions and collective ideals that are real and valuable. Something similar occurs when Americans recount the legend of George Washington refusing the crown or confessing to chopping down a cherry tree, or the legend of Abraham Lincoln learning to write on a shovel. It doesn't matter whether these stories are true. They aren't really about that man; rather they're about an idealization, someone as real as Paul Bunyan. And that idealization is something real, something that lives in the hearts of a people.

The sages Mozi cites introduced new technologies, displayed exceptional virtue, and overthrew tyrants while refusing to imitate them. They worked their way up from more modest origins, and forged unity from disunity. They bear timeless lessons. But we know of Mozi's sages only from Mozi. Other sources of his time are from competing traditions and cannot be trusted. We don't have access to the same documents that Mozi had. In essence, for us the true sage king is Mozi himself. In light of that, what we really have in the tales of the sage kings is not so much history (either as data or tradition) but disguised speculative fiction.

When Mozi talks about the wise kings of ancient times he is doing two things. First, he is complying with the standards of his society and presenting his ideas not as original but as old and therefore respectable. These ideas came from the indisputable wise kings of the golden age. This sort of presentation was necessary for participation in intellectual discourse in Mozi's world. It was as obligatory as citing sources in the APA format when submitting a scholarly paper to a research journal in the social sciences.

Second, he is using the ancient wise kings and their reigns as a way to talk not about the past but about a proposed future. After all, in 47-5 Mozi says to only talk about what can be done. This is "Utopia" or "The Republic". Take this passage:

21-1

_Master Mozi said:_ "The discerning kings and wise men of ancient times exercised dominion over the kingdom and guided the princes through their faithful love of the people and the abundance of benefits they gave them. They united devotion and fidelity and at the same time they pointed the people towards what was useful to them. Throughout their lives, they would not tire of working for them, and they did not weary until their ends. In this way, the enlightened kings commanded and instructed the kingdom and guided the feudal princes."

You can simply translate this into different terms and you will see it not as an irrelevant historical recitation but as a proposal for improved ways.

"The discerning administrations and eminent scholars of future times could exercise dominion over the country and guide enforcement agencies and state governments through their faithful love of the people and the abundance of benefit they bring to the nation. They could unite devotion and fidelity and at the same time point the people toward what is useful to them. Throughout their lives, they will not tire of working for them and they will not weary until their ends. In this way the enlightened future leaders will command and instruct the country and guide the states and agencies."

We must take Mozi's references to the sage kings this way because we don't really have access to the same documents he had. For modern Mohism, the role of the sage kings in the three models is filled only by the words and deeds of Mozi himself. Mozi is our sage king. We revere him as he revered his predecessors.

New Sages

To the wisdom of Mozi we can add that of other sages since his time, and from other places. Who could deny that Marcus Aurelius or Abraham Lincoln is also a sage king? Does such a notion contradict Mozi?

The list of sage kings was presumably once shorter. During the Shang dynasty the Zhou sage kings were not on the list because they didn't exist yet. If we are going to generalize Mozi to our own times why not generalize all the way? Must we assume that history stopped with Mozi? Furthermore, need a "sage king" be the head of a nation? Can we not learn from others? The relevance of a sage extends to the sphere of her expertise. In an effort to refute the notion that antiquity confers nobility, Mozi mentions the putative inventors of various technologies.

39-6

...Furthermore, the Confucians say that a noble follows after, but does not invent himself. It is to be retorted that in ancient times Yi invented the bow, Yu invented armor, Xi Zhong invented the wagon and Qiao Cui invented the ship. Are today's leather workers, smiths, wagon makers and carpenters all noble? Are Yi, Yu, Xi Zhong, and Qiao Cui but ordinary people? The ones you follow may have introduced new features and should be commoners according to this principle...

Those legendary figures could be counted as sages by workers in fields associated with those technologies, but may be simply story characters to anyone else. The relevance of a sage extends to the sphere of his expertise, but sage _kings_ are special because they are sages in the art of ruling, which touches on everything else. Mozi considers the field of scholars and government officials (topped by sage kings) to be most important. Each nation (or political party) will have its own sage kings that characterize a commonly admired leadership style and a common set of high level collective goals. In this sense, new sage kings emerge throughout history.

Nevertheless, since Mozi's sage kings were those revered by the founder of Mohism, his sage kings must be among the sage kings revered by all Mohists.

47-19

_Master Mozi said:_ "My words can be applied. If you spurn my words without thinking first, it is like harvesting grain but not keeping any of it. Those who use their words to attack mine are like people throwing eggs at a stone. You can use up all the eggs in the world, but the stone remains and cannot be shattered."

We simply know nothing about them other than what Mozi tells us. So really it is Mozi who is our sage king. The words and deeds of Mozi are our most general purpose precedential authority on ethical matters and all that depends on them such as politics and careers. Mozi's sage kings transcended dynasties, so maybe their value is transcendent enough to extend to modern times. Even more so, Mozi himself must extend to modern times.

In light of what I've said, I'll answer the question with which I started this section. Marcus Aurelius would be important only to stoics, and if he was a sage he was certainly a flawed one as we shall see in the section on succession. Most loyal Americans would count Abraham Lincoln a sage, but that reverence necessarily extends only to Americans. Many people around the world hold Albert Einstein to have been a sage, but he never ruled. So he can teach us nothing about government, but within his field of expertise he is a sage for physicists.

We need to take the larger view and not be put off by Mozi's obsession with specific ancient Chinese sage kings. The point is the process.

Accrual of Wisdom

Nothing can be true that contradicts the sages, though the new can always be added to the old. Mozi constantly makes it clear that while regimes and dynasties degrade over time, the body of human wisdom is growing over time.

46-17

Kung-said: "The noble does not create anything new, but only imitates."

_Master Mozi replied:_ "It is not like that. The very ignoble among the people do not imitate the good of the old times, and they don't do the good of the current times either. The less ignoble do not follow the good of antiquity, but they carry out the good that they themselves have, and wish that the good should come from them themselves. Now, if you imitate, but do not create yourself, it is not much different than if you don't like to follow, but act on your own initiative. I think that if you imitate the good old ways and also bring the good of our time to execution, you are multiplying the good as wished."

The implication is that future regimes and dynasties will be even better than current ones. But Mozi also implies that earlier dynasties had some superiority over later dynasties. But this is in the context of pointing out that antiquity is no guarantee of value.

48-4

_...Master Mozi retorted_ : "In ancient times, under the reign of the Shang King Zhou, the Minister Fei Zhong was the greatest villain and Barons Ji and Wei were the greatest saints of the realm. They spoke the same language, but the one was virtuous, the other not. Duke Dan of Zhou was a saint, while Guan was a villain in the realm. Their costume was the same, but the one was righteous, the other was not. So clearly it doesn't come down to the old costume or the old language. You also cite the Zhou and not Xia. Your antiquity is not the real antiquity...."

I think the value found in old stories is mainly because the older stories have been polished to a higher shine, and the simplicity of earlier times has been remembered while the suffering and misery has been forgotten. That doesn't mean that the golden age Mozi describes isn't relevant, it just means it's more theoretical than historical. To say further growth is not possible would be akin to fatalism.

48-5

_...Master Mozi retorted,_ "To tell a man that he must learn and at the same time cling to fatalism is like asking him to cover his head, but to take off his cap."

Another deduction you might make is that there are larger cycles than the dynastic cycle. A series of dynasties, let's call it a culture, can decline in some ways over time and need a larger renewal than mere dynastic change. As an example from Chinese history, I offer that this period of renewal is exactly what the warring states period was. Feudal China was experiencing a sea change, becoming fully Imperial China. Imperial China was to endure many dynastic changes, but would be in turn replaced by the phase of Post-Imperial China. In some ways each dynasty can improve on earlier ones, but there are always other ways in which something excellent in earlier dynasties decays over the course of time in later ones. Early lessons are forgotten, buried under layers of irrelevant "sophistication". Mozi was militating for this sea change. A sea change occurred, but not exactly the one Mozi wanted. Similarly every other civilization experiences larger and smaller cycles, epicycles and meta-cycles of renewal. China specifically is not important except as a metaphor for the whole world. The overall trend is improvement, but from a more myopic point of view there appears to be decay at times.

What does this mean to the modern world? It mainly means that we can expect received wisdom, if it is truly wise, to be expanded upon, but never fully discarded. Additions just cast the old sages in a new light, changing the composition of the whole and the role of any one sage. A good example is Isaac Newton. His lessons have been superseded by more technically accurate ones taking relativity into account, but they are still in daily use for many common applications, when relativity doesn't have a relevant impact. The work of true sages never deserves to be completely discarded. We have to see things in perspective and use them for what they're good for.

This is.

This is true.

This is true here.

This is true here, that is true there.

Popularity

Popularity is widespread perception by many people.

  Electoral Democracies

35-3

_..._ The basis is discovered in the reliable sensory truth of the people corporately...

37-1

_..._ It involves the perceptions of the crowd, the transmissions of the eye and the ear....

In science, this would consist of publishing results and data. Mozi doesn't address popular data much, but any time he refers to something universally self apparent he is indirectly applying the second model without explicitly mentioning it. The one time he overtly uses this model is in proving the existence of ghosts.

31-3

_In any case, since this question must be examined, we will try to clarify it. What do we have to say? Master Mozi notes this:_ "This investigation is the same as the one, which in general determines whether something is or is not: one uses reliable sensory perceptions with eyes and ears as a means to recognize what exists or does not exist. If one is in doubt about something, it is believed that it does not exist, even if it is seen or heard. But why not go to the streets or the villages to inquire afterwards? Since there have been people, from ancient times to the present day, ghosts have always been perceived and the voices of spirits have been heard. So how can one claim that there are no ghosts and spirits? Would they be able to claim the existence of such things if they hadn't heard or seen them?"

Scientific applications will be guided by modern sources. That's self explanatory. But Mozi did address politics, and in a way his political ideas demonstrate use of the second principle. Sometimes leaders seem to be all ears.

13-10

What made the wise rulers of antiquity so distinguished in their administration...Great was the number of those who supported them in seeing and listening... An old adage says: "One eye does not see as well as two eyes, one ear does not hear as well as two, and one hand does not grasp as vigorously as two hands." Because they could rely on other people, they had such advantages. If at the time of the reign of the ancient wise kings a virtuous man was at a distance of more than a thousand kilometers, then the king could reward him before all his local and community comrades had heard of his existence, and if a sinful man was within a thousand kilometers, the ruler could punish him, even before his local and community comrades had become aware of his existence. Can this only be attributed to the delicacy of the ear and the sharpness of the eye of the king? Could he look over a thousand kilometers with a glimpse and hear at a distance of a thousand kilometers? The wise rulers do not go themselves to see, and do not enter themselves into places to hear, but use the ears and eyes of others who support them in seeing and hearing.

Elsewhere Mozi seems to say leaders should talk rather than listen.

13-2

_But what do we have to do to be clear about the conditions among the people? Master Mozi said:_ "It is enough to elevate the unity of opinion as the principle of government..."

Does it really say, "I know what you feel because I told you what to feel?" This is clear nonsense, so it is as good as an underline. This is the teacher clearing his throat to telegraph that something will be on the test; it tells us reading between the lines is called for here.

"Know how the people feel by applying unity of principles," means you will know what the people feel, if you apply the system, because the system, properly applied, _must_ be designed to feed information upward. If you apply the system by designing it to feed you information then you will be informed. Therefore the system must involve polling, or the equivalent, in some sense.

If the people don't agree with what you're doing, or you don't do what the people agree with, then your authority will be degraded. So rather than suffering the embarrassment of acceding to demands, a good leader finds out what the people want before-hand.

13-4

"How is it, that nowadays the superiors cannot rule those subordinate to them, and that the inferiors do not want to serve their superiors? Seniors and subordinates put evils upon each other. What is the reason? Their views do not match. When differences of opinion prevail, parties form. If, then, the rulers reward someone because of his virtue, he may well obtain the reward of his superiors, but he does not pass the condemnation of the people, therefore, whoever does good cannot be encouraged by the prospect of reward. On the other hand, if the rulers hold anyone accountable for their wickedness, then he may well be punished by his superiors, but he feels that the people pay tribute to him, so the vicious ones are by no means deterred by the impending punishment. So the rewards and accolades from above are inadequate to serve as an incentive to virtue, and censure and punishment are not sufficient deterrents against vice."

13-4 just reiterates how necessary it is to feel the people, though, it doesn't explain a method. If the people disagree with your values, then they won't be impressed by people being made an example of. You must either (1) conform to a more sophisticated version of a median of _their_ values or else (2) get them to conform to yours. Those are the only two ways to bring the values into harmony and as just explained _you can't_ _reliably get conformity from above with either punishment or bribery_. So logically the only remaining possible way to bring the values of leaders and led together is for leaders to take their values from the led. If your values conflict with those of the people you will be an occupier, not a leader, and there will be an insurgent attitude. So when Mozi says unification of principles helps you know what the people are feeling, one thing he is implying is that leaders should base _their_ principles, in part, on the consensus of what the people feel. The leader doesn't create the standards; the leader merely uses the hierarchy to force outliers to conform-- _not_ to the _leader's whim_ , but to the leader's judgment of the _consensus_. The leader is merely a vessel for the will of the people--naturally informed by the will those above, or at least Heaven and the sages. Leaders do not have freedom they have responsibility.

While education can also be a factor in aligning the values of leaders and led without coercion, the obvious shortest path is to use democracy to determine what the people mostly want and then authority to get them all on the same sheet of music. If your values match theirs, they won't mind your correcting of non-conformists, provided your methods also conform to the values you share with them.

Here's how it works in the idyllic "past" time of the sage kings. The people (via Heaven and the spirits or the other way around) pick someone who approximates exemplification of their values. Then they empower that leader to make everyone's values even more alike. (Note: "son of Heaven" means "the emperor".)

12-2

"The reason for this confusion was evidently that the people had no leaders who could unite the many opinions within the realm. Therefore, from among the most virtuous, wise and insightful men in the kingdom one was chosen and raised up as the son of Heaven, so that he could work towards unifying the many opinions in the realm..."

In this scheme, the leader, selected because he already possesses characteristics the people jointly admire, must consider the existing will of the people in order to unite them in consensus. But this is not openly pandering democracy. This is _authoritative_ democracy that literally requires everyone to revere the will of the majority, at least in matters of importance to the state. The closest modern American parallel would be not the authority of the President, an official who only leads the enforcement of the laws by government employees, but the Supreme Court, whose rulings (aka "opinions") establish final unshakable precedent that everyone must accept.

The Mohist vision of an authoritative democracy seems repressive, but in some ways, there is still use of individual liberty. Everyone is required to publically agree with the important goals and values of the majority, or suffer at least disempowerment, but individual initiative _in the service_ of those majority goals is to be lauded.

1-3

... Ministers who only encourage him in his actions are corrupting to a prince, and subjects who only flatter him are bad for a ruler. A prince must have officials who dare to confront him and a ruler must have subjects who express their displeasure. As long as discussion reigns and a healthy opposition will assert itself, the prince's life will be safe, and he will not endanger the existence of the state. If, on the other hand, officials and subjects appear to be most focused on their rank and position, and they dare not say anything, leaving the prince surrounded by silence, and if the officials in the country do not open their mouths, then grudges will accumulate in the hearts of the people. Autocracy reigns at court, and any freedom of expression is frowned upon. Then the state is in danger...

Also, innovation is to be encouraged rather than discouraged.

39-5

The Confucians explain that a noble, to be virtuous, must speak and dress like the ancients. But the speech and the costumes of the ancients were once also modern. The ancients who spoke and dressed in this way were not yet noble. Do we also have to accept the costumes of non-noble people and speak the words of non-noble people to be virtuous?

Innovating is actually following the best of all time because they were innovators.

47-4

_Master Mozi said_ : "All words and deeds that benefit Heaven and the spirits and the people, you must bring to execution, and all words and deeds that harm Heaven and spirits and the people you must refrain from. The holy kings, Yao, Shun, Yu, Tang, Wen, and Wu accomplished all the words and deeds which were profitable to the three dynasties, and the criminal kings Jie, Zhou, You, and Li, refrained from all the words and deeds which were profitable to the three dynasties."

Also, Mohist authoritative democracy is less than repressive because mobility is always an option.

26-1

_Master Mozi said:_ "... If someone lives in a family and goes against the head of the family, then the families of the neighbors are still open to him where he can flee... If a citizen perpetrates any offence against the head of state, he may find refuge in neighboring states..."

So there's some room for a kind of freedom under the heel of Mozi's authoritative democracy, as long as you give up your self interest _as an end in itself_. But it seems to sound like dictatorship of the majority. What about minorities?

15-9

"...The great states did not despise the little ones, and the crowd did not treat the abandoned without consideration..."

Mozi repeatedly talks thus about defense of minorities. This is a matter of benevolence. It takes precedence over even righteousness, over the good system of authoritative democracy, which should steer itself, guided by the hearts of the people who respect the wishes of Master Mo, to protect minorities--while denying them special authority.

Mozi often gives lists of testimonies in order to prove a point. The testimony of the common people is provided first.

31-9

_Those who deny the existence of ghosts will say: "How can doubts be solved by the sensory perceptions of the multitude, and how could someone claiming to be regarded as an eminent scholar in the world rely on the dissolving sensory perceptions of the crowd?" Master Mozi retorted:_ "If what the crowd sees and hears is not considered reliable and is not considered suitable to solve doubts, surely the sages of the three dynasties of Yao, Shun, Yu, Tang, Wen, and Wu can serve us as norms? In this matter, all those who rise above the average will be aware that the wise rulers of the three old dynasties are likely to serve us as a norm...."

Mozi was quite happy to cater to the prejudices of his audience if that's what it took to make his point. But the fact that he started with the testimony of the common people tells us that his mind set store in the big data.

Empirical and Reproducible

Popularity is an important indicator that something may be true. But a simple report of an observation is not a useful fact. The parameters matter. When did the phenomenon occur? Who saw it? Under what conditions was it witnessed? If those circumstances are replicated, does the phenomenon recur?

It could be argued that Mozi's argument against elaborate funerals most fully follows this format. The lesson here is more than just that the expensive funerals are bad. The medium is part of the message. Mozi describes a set of criteria that must be met in order for a case to be proven.

25-3

"...We believe that if, according to their proposals and applying their views, it is indeed true that pompous funerals and long mourning will make the poor rich, multiply the population, inhibit dangers and remove unrest, they must be considered the virtuous, rightful duty of a son..."

Then he goes through the evidence, the data, and shows how none of the criteria are met.

25-5

"...If these rules are complied with...completed products are taken into the grave and afterwards wealth accumulation is interrupted for too long..."

25-6

"...If you apply the contemporary great funerals and long mourning as part of the administration program...this also makes it impossible for men and women to have intercourse..."

25-7

"...Now, when sumptuous funerals and long mourning are taken into account in the administration... the number of robbers and bandits will exceed itself, and that of the peaceful citizens shall diminish..."

The predicted results are not reproduced in application. The thesis is disproven. This example of Mozi's process shows that the three models is similar to the scientific method in that it recognizes empirical evidence, the eyes and ears of the masses, but also sets great store in reproducible results, which I call practicality.

Practicality

Practicality is the usefulness of an idea in producing actual results. Mozi was mainly focused on reforming government, so he presents this principle in terms of effective government policy.

35-3

"...And how is the practical application found? It is by applying various principles of justice and administration and observing which has benefitted the state, the families, and people...."

36-1

"... And what is the practical application? It is the transforming of these principles into justice and administration..."

37-1

"... And what does the practical application involve? It involves application to the government of the realm and examination of the effects on the people..."

But to limit Mohism to that application, rather than to allow abstraction, is to limit and weaken and attack it rather than to maintain pedantic purity for some positive reason. Let's have a big tent. In addition to usefulness, such abstraction and generalization is popular and Mozi himself uses it every time he generalizes a principle from a story.

Mozi's three principles are essentially a good chunk of the scientific method. Reproducible experimental results are a short jump away from the third model. But the scientific study of large things, such as societies, is difficult. Geologists and astronomers can't conduct experiments, and it's very difficult for economists and sociologists. What are you going to do, put different planets in different test tubes with different kinds of minerals and see how plate tectonics comes out? Such scientists just have a huge pile of existing data, like all the stars or all the rocks. They can look at some of it, derive a principle from an observed pattern, then look at another part of it and see if the same principle applies there. Mozi was practicing large scale social science similarly. He was mining history and using it as data.

Much of Mozi's argument for his doctrines is that he supposes them to have been derived from the principles of the sage kings, who ruled over a utopian period. Mozi says his principles are practical because they have been tried and they worked. His evidence that the era of the sage kings was all that may be questionable. His assertion that he based his ideas on the words of the sage kings rather than being a sage and creative genius himself seems implausible. More likely Mozi had applied similar doctrines on a smaller scale as a project manager for the construction of defensive works and found them to work.

50-3

_"...Master Mozi also said,_ "I know what you must do to defeat me, but I'm not saying it." _The king of Chu asked for the reason, and master Mozi said:_ "Gong Shu Ban's plan is only to assassinate me, so that after my murder Song no longer has a defender and he can attack it. My students alone, Qin Hua Li and others, three hundred in all, have my defensive instruments already in hand on the city wall of Song and expect the robbers from Chu, so even if I am murdered, he will not achieve his goal."

The king of Chu said, "Well. I don't want to do an attack against Song anymore."

(Actually he more likely worked on the Great Wall of Qi, but I can't find a public domain picture of it)

Treat the workers well and listen to their grievances and they will take initiative and do good work for you. Nevertheless, the point is valid. If something is tried and it works, there's good cause to derive a principle from it and imagine that the principle will be broadly applicable.

For the most part Mozi's advice to give credence to effective results seems to go without saying to most of us today. Like much of Mohism we would consider it common sense, an idea so obvious as to not need repeating. But common sense is not so common. In Mozi's day there appears to have been a pernicious fad for fatalism. The belief that everything is fated is antithetical to the notion that certain kinds of actions produce certain kinds of results.

35-11

"Now, if the words of fatalists are followed, the rulers will no longer take care of the government, and their subjects will be careless at their employment. If the rulers do not take care of the government, the judiciary and the administration will be broken, and the people will not work properly, so there will be a lack of consumer goods..."

18-1

_... Therefore master Mozi said_ : "The old ones had a proverb: _'_ _If one cannot realize his plans, one must learn the future from the past, and infer from the unknown. If you do so, you gain knowledge.'_..."

Somebody had to invent and spell out the notion that if you do A and get result B this may be a consistent thing and we can learn to use it to our advantage. If the common people believe in fatalism they starve. Those who are better off have less common sense because they can get away with it, thus it's better to listen to the populace as a whole rather than just the elites. But there are indeed experts, who have done just these things (listened to the people and derived principles from results), and listened to experts before them to boot, and they are especially worth listening to.

Checklist

If something works, does not offend the sages, and is broadly accepted, it can hardly be disputed. The three models could be taken to say that satisfying any one model is sufficient grounds for a proposition to be true. I'm prone to think of it as a checklist. Every block must be checked, and every light must be green or no take off. Certainly you can present an argument without using all three models. Mozi often does. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do if some of the checks are satisfied by common assumptions that don't bear repeating, or if they are established in another (hopefully prior) part of the argument.

But a simple model like that is still not quite right. It's more that an assertion can have strong evidence in one area and mere acquiescence in the others. Otherwise, if you require strong evidence in all three areas, then there would never be new ideas, and Mozi clearly thinks there should be new ideas. There would never be new ideas because if you base proof on people believing something, and people don't believe anything until there's proof, then you are in a catch 22. If an idea has to be proven effective before it can be used then nothing will ever be tried. If existing sages must speak strongly in favor of any valid idea, then there will be no new ideas because there are many things the existing sages did not address. Taken to an extreme, the three models could be taken as strictures that nothing is true unless it is (1) received wisdom, (2) believed by everyone, and (3) tried and true. Taken to an extreme, anything is wrong. Too much water can kill you, but most of us drink it every day.

To have new ideas and forward progress there must be a hierarchy of notions. There must be provisional ideas, which can be discussed and tried because they have some kind of strong support and don't conflict with anything in a fatal manner. An example would be belief in ghosts for Mozi. The sage kings spoke of them, the people believed in them deeply, and Mozi saw a practical value to such a belief.

31-19

_"..._ If there were really no ghosts, only the substances related to wine, cider, rice and millet would have been wasted. If you waste something yourself, you deliberately pour it into sewers and ditches and let it go. In this case, however, the relatives and comrades from outside in the village and community, take part in food and drink, as they have been prepared from the sacrificial victim, even if there should be no ghosts, then the merry gathering is a success, which makes it possible to acquire the friendship of your local community comrades."

But as time has gone on we have come to see belief in ghosts as less practical, and fewer people believe in them, so the theory of ghosts is less compelling. It's worth discussing as a historical matter or a metaphor, but you couldn't seriously base an argument to day on the assumption that ghosts exist. They're simply too shy. Something exists to make people believe in them, and it crops up independently too often to be totally dismissed. But let's say ghosts are a ridiculous idea, now out of favor. Then there are more ridiculous ideas, those which are not even worth considering. These contradict known facts, the words of our sage kings, they are broadly disbelieved, and/or belief in them has been shown to be impractical and useless. Pyramid power is an example. And at the other extreme there must be ironclad ideas. These are spoken of positively by the words and deeds of our sages. They are broadly believed to be true. And putting them into practice never seems to fail. Such ideas can form the basis of other ideas. They can function not only as working theories but as premises.

 \---->

Most of Mozi's theories are such ideas, similar to the advice of a doctor. They seem too obvious to bother with because they do reflect common sense. They're old hat. "Eat right and exercise." Mozi's version includes ideas like "hire competent people," "don't waste time and money," or "believe in cause and effect." Lulled by this we are shocked when other ideas seem drastic. A doctor might say, "Swallow this poison and let me cut you." Mozi's says, "Love everyone equally," and "devote yourself to it utterly."

### Chapter 3: Personal Behavior

2-2

In strenuous work, he does more every day, his desire is to continue to progress daily; daily he grows in strength and abundance. This is the way of the noble. He is seen in poverty as one who is justly humble, righteous in wealth, loving with the living, and filled with grief at the sight of death. These four statements must not be untrue and hypocritical, which is why he looks inside himself. Without ever getting exhausted, he expresses his inner feeling in his loving activity, his apprehension in his posture, and his teachings in his utterances. His sensations pour out like a stream through all his limbs, which penetrates to the outer skin. Even if he already has white hair, he still keeps it up. Isn't he like a saint?

Universal Love

A Mohists personal behavior is based on the will of Heaven, which is benevolence, or universal love. This means doing your best to ensure everyone gets all they need, without regard for personal sentiment. But this idea opens up a huge can of worms. Caring for everyone equally is almost impossible. For instance, when you pick employees based on competence, is that not unequal love, preferring one over another? When I prepare dinner for myself and my family, rather than for the neighbor's family, is that not favoring my family? It seems it would be impossible to preach universal love without being a hypocrite because nobody can really practice it.

In one incident from the dialogs, a disciple actually accused Mozi of hypocrisy.

48-22

_Some disciples reported to master Mozi that Gaozi had called his words righteous, but had called his deeds very bad, so that he should be expelled. Master Mozi replied_ : "It is not a question of praising my words to slander my deeds. That is more than oblivion. If someone explained that I was very wicked because I worship Heaven, serve the spirits and love the people, but lack virtue, that would be more than oblivion. Gaozi is very eloquent in disputing, he talks about benevolence and justice, but does not slander me; if Gaozi slanders me, then it's more than oblivion."

The master considered praise for his words better than nothing, even if it went with condemnation of his behavior. This relates to how we might misunderstand Mozi today. He gave the world the concept of universalism, yet parochialism and favoritism seem to suffuse _The Mozi_. The contradiction can be resolved, and this leads to better understanding of both the universalism and the parochialism.

Mozi's solution to the ills of ancient China is the same solution many teachers around the world and throughout time have proposed. If people are being hateful to each other and suffering for it, they should stop that and love on each other instead.

14-2

Therefore the wise (who are responsible for the management of the realm) must become clear about the origin of the turmoil. They will find that they have their reason in the absence of mutual love...All cases of breakdown in the world are part and parcel of this. If we investigate the causes, it is always the lack of mutual love."

There's nothing unique here except the universality. The Old Testament called for Jews to love their neighbors as themselves. The guy from across town, on the other hand, is presumably fair game. Mozi calls on robbers to love their fellow human beings.

14-3

If all the inhabitants of the world could be caused to join together for mutual love and to love others as well as themselves, would their attitude then be even less filial? Would there still be unfriendly people? If you regard your son, younger brother, or underlings as you regard yourself, would you still be unfriendly against them? There would be no more factionalism and unfriendliness. Would there still be thieves and robbers? If the houses of others are looked upon as one looks upon one's own, then who would steal from them? And if we equated foreign persons with our own selves, who would still perpetrate violence? Thieves and robbers would disappear...

He calls on rulers to love the nations of other rulers.

16-2

_... Therefore, Master Mozi spoke so as to put forth universalism instead of factionalism. But how can accord occur instead of schism? It is to be retorted:_ "If everyone looked at other states like his own, who would ever send the troops of his own state to attack another, for they would be equal to his own? If everyone equated foreign cities as their own, who would send the inhabitants of his city to conquer another, since those of his own would be the same?"...

He calls for citizens and employees to love their governments and employers.

14-2

The subject loves only himself and has no love for his prince, so he harms his prince, while he is mindful of his own benefits.

He also calls for governments and employers to love their citizens and employees.

14-2

The prince loves only himself and has no heart for his subjects, so he harms them and always has his own benefits in mind.

He doesn't just call for sons to love their fathers.

14-2

The son only loves himself, but not his father, so he damages his father and benefits himself.

He calls on fathers to love their sons.

14-2

The father only loves himself and not his son, so he disadvantages the son and only benefits himself.

This is a great equalizer, freeing everyone from special claims on their affections. If anyone demands you to love them, you can honestly say you do, just as you love everyone. All duties to love are equal, and all love is equal.

14-3

_If all the inhabitants of the world could be caused to join together for mutual love and to love others_ **as well as** _themselves, would their attitude then be even less filial? Would there still be unfriendly people? If you regard your son, younger brother, or underlings as you regard yourself, would you still be unfriendly against them? There would be no more factionalism and unfriendliness. Would there still be thieves and robbers? If the houses of others are looked upon as one looks upon one's own, then who would steal from them? And if we_ **equated** _foreign persons with our own selves, who would still perpetrate violence? Thieves and robbers would disappear. Would high officials seek to ruin each other's houses, and national leaders attack the states of their rivals? If the houses of others are_ **on a par with** _one's own, who would want to disrupt them, and if you look on the states of others as_ **equal to** _your own, how could you attack them?_

Universal love is considered one of Mozi's most original ideas. Meritocracy, unity, and parsimony were already in the air, part of the emerging thought of a Chinese nation then experiencing turmoil and reformation as hard times demanded that aristocratic feudal elites be displaced from power by lowborn professional officials. But "universal love" came out of nowhere, unique to Mohism. Its demands were also largely responsible for the failure of Mohism, even more so than the various calls for frugality. The problems seen with implementing it may lie in a misunderstanding of what was being called for.

You can't feed the whole world, but you can _care_ about the whole world being fed. You can't give an incompetent a good job, but you can _wish_ you could, and maybe help him to come to deserve such a job. Efforts and resources are finite. Intellectual goods can be unlimited. The confusion comes from the fact that "universal love" can really be just common decency.

兼愛

The phrase "jian ai" is most often translated as "universal love" and touted as a major reason to see Mohism as an isolated precursor to Christianity. Machines translate this as "and love" so I take it 兼

means something like "including" or perhaps "inclusive." But I gather that both words, characters really, have connotations that make the combination mean something more like "mutual concern" or "common care". There are shades of the care being not just applied _to_ everyone, but _by_ everyone as a team effort. "Universal" tends to focus on the unlimited scope of people who are to receive this care, while "mutual" makes the work a team effort but says nothing about how widespread it is. The only English word that comes close to the proper meaning is "common," which has broad connotations of something both shared and widespread. It also emphasizes that what is being called for is nothing extraordinary. _Concern_ for others is a frequent (common) element of society, there's nothing rare about it. Another word for it is "decency". The only difference Mozi is calling for is the extension of this very ordinary care to everyone.

The care we owe the world is just an attitude of benevolence, but care for others, if it is real, leads to efforts to benefit them. But if you have few resources then all you can do is lend moral support and good wishes. You don't have a duty to seek out and benefit everyone in the world. That kind of expectation is never laid on any individual who isn't powerful enough to actually help everyone. Helping the world is the job of those who have power over the world, but those who have less power can express universal love by cooperating with those who are powerful and benevolent when they are trying to do the right thing.

Manageability Through Organization

In practice, the best way to practice universal love is to join with others to find a place in society. Nobody has the power to help everyone alone. Organization multiplies efforts so there is more benefit, and it conveys benefit from place to place so our efforts produce an impact that is at least broader, if not as universal as we would like.

If you decide to love universally and give away all your wealth to the nearest charity where will you be now? Your family will starve, taxes will be due, the larder will empty out, and you'll lose the ability to earn and produce. You'll become a beggar yourself. A world of beggars begging from each other might sound soulful to some people, but it won't work for long any more than an ecosystem of all carnivores. So how do you go about loving universally instead? Do you take the needy as they come, giving part of your wealth to each person who comes to you asking for it? Why are you favoring people who are nearby, or who are early birds? Why not find out who is the neediest person in the world, travel to them, and give them your wealth. Except that in travelling you would waste all those resources that could have helped so many more people. Even if you weren't worried about staying in business, you couldn't divide your wealth up evenly among all the people in the world, it wouldn't amount to anything. Somebody has to go first or the goods get spread very thin.

Mozi himself addresses this conundrum, describing how he could not benefit the whole world by becoming a farmer because he would be unable to produce enough grain to give everyone in the world even one single grain, or how he could never weave enough to clothe everyone.

49-12

"...I thought of weaving to clothe the people of the world. In a favorable case, I would be able to achieve as much as one master weaver, and if I share my fabric with the world, each individual will not even get a foot cloth, but even if everyone got their foot cloth, I would obviously not be able to warm the freezing of the whole world..."

Mozi's solution is to create intellectual goods, which are infinitely reproducible. But everybody can't do that. It would be just like the world of beggars or the world of tigers. A world of nothing but intellectuals would have many mouths speaking profoundly but not many farmers to make food for them.

47-2

_Master Mozi replied:_ "Imagine a man who has ten sons. One of them tends to the fields, while the nine others remain inactive. Therefore, the active one has to exert himself ever the more, but why? Because there are many eaters and workers are so very few..."

Only one person can materially benefit the whole world, or at least a whole nation, and that person is the ruler. The king can effectively love the whole country by making sure everyone gets enough to eat. For him, the entire nation is local. For everyone else it is global, and they can only love it by _thinking_ of it and supporting the "king". And how does the king benefit the whole nation? By farming himself? No, he does it by ensuring there are enough farmers, by running a _system_ that ensures there are people doing all the jobs that need doing. So we love the nation by paying taxes and supporting the government, or the economy if that is being used as a government. We are not producing enough grain for everyone alone, but we are taking part in ensuring everyone has all the things they need, including both wise words and grain. If we don't do this none of these goods will benefit anyone.

10-5

"...Those who earn rewards do not deserve them, and those who are punished are not guilty. This means that all the people will be libertines, giving themselves up, and they will let themselves be led away from the good. It leaves hands idle, does not encourage and does not lead; surplus products rot and are not distributed, and good teachings are kept secret so nobody introduces them. As a result, the hungry have nothing to eat, the freezing have no clothes, and rioters are not pacified."

So you would think it might end there: we love universally by properly taking part in the system.

Priority of Work

Once organized, we should prioritize expenditures according to five levels of priority.

**#1** Feed Self and Underlings to Maintain Function

**#2** Pay Taxes and Dues as Required

**#3** Stockpile Until Secure

**#4** Invest Efficiently in Growth Until Exhausted

**#5** Seek Pleasure for Its Own Sake

This is entirely something I made up. It is implied by Mozi simply because it includes all the things Mozi says to worry about and puts them in the only order that can work to make them all get done.

Priorities of work are like philosophies. You don't have the option of not having one. You just have the option of whether to think about it intentionally. So let's go through the logical sequence to figure out how a benevolent and righteous person must apportion everything.

What does the system of the world inevitably require of us? First, it requires that we take care of ourselves.

44-8

The sage hates diseases, but doesn't fear danger.

It requires that if we are heads of families we must take care of our families. It requires that if we are bosses of businesses we must take care of our employees, customers, and stockholders. Righteousness requires that everyone who has authority over anyone has a duty to ensure that subordinates have everything necessary. This is required for the system to work, and it must come before taking care of the king or the church or the village. That's the efficiency thing again. You take care of your "family" first. Imagine paying taxes and then applying for welfare. Sending money to the king and then asking for money back from the king is silly. Just keep it in the first place and save the postage. But this applies only to basic need. The priority right of your underlings is only over basic needs, what they need in order to perform their function. People who are sick or starved can't work.

This first level of local priority only ensures the most frugal of lifestyles. That's also part of Mohism.

21-3

"For the preparation of food and drink the wise rulers set the rule that it had to suffice to fill the emptiness, to preserve life, to strengthen the limbs and to sharpen eyes and ears... "

Think of it this way: the big machine will only continue to function if subsystems self-maintain, and this is more important than that they do work for the big machine because there are plenty of subsystems doing work for the big machine. (And if things are so broken down that that's not true, the big machine has no right to ask anything and it's every man for himself anyway.) Worse than having an individual subsystem not contributing, is to have that subsystem break altogether.

If the king takes everything but bare necessities and leaves you with no surpluses, then the priority of work list stops here. This is the situation of a slave, or the subject of a dictatorship, or perhaps a citizen of a country in dire circumstances where the pain is being spread around so that everyone at least scrapes by. The other end of the spectrum is when higher ups take very little and households have a huge surplus. How do we think about this? Why would the king not leave everybody just above starvation and take everything in order to do investment at the national level? It would make sense from the narrow point of view of the king's personal practice of the order of priorities. He leaves you enough to barely live, skips paying taxes because he's the king, fills the federal granaries against a disaster, and then he invests. Where is there room to leave peasants with untaxed surpluses? There's a reason to not take it all because sometimes leaving the people with surpluses is a form of investment. Investment should be guided by merit, however; so theoretically the king should take it all and then apportion the vast surplus on the basis of merit. But it could be argued that a market system apportions on the basis of merit, to an extent, so leaving taxpayers with surpluses is apportionment on the basis of merit. That's a "season to taste" call. I'd say a nice mix of different methods of judging merit for surplus allocation would be best, with a market system among them. Mozi didn't speak to specific tax rates. He did speak of both markets and taxes however.

9-2

"...The high officials slept at night and rose in the early morning to collect the levies at gates, and in markets, in mountains and forests, and at ponds and weirs, and which they carried to the treasury chambers. These were well filled and the riches were not wasted..."

32-9

...The scholars and nobles exhaust the power of their limbs and use the knowledge of their minds to manage their offices at home and to collect taxes outside at gates, in markets, on mountains, in forests, on lakes and dikes, and thus to fill the storehouses and treasure chambers...

47-17

_Master Mozi said:_ "By merchandising their goods at markets in all the four heavenly directions, merchants double and quintuple their profits, and, in spite of the difficulties at gates and bridges, and the dangers which robbers threaten them with, they pursue their trade..."

But in a household, if there are still surpluses after "taxes", what do you do with them? Mozi highly values stockpiling for the future. This is a duty at every level, so is it not the duty of those at higher levels to allow those at lower levels to do their duty? Mozi repeatedly talks about how the king should have a three year supply for the whole kingdom, the village should have a three year supply for the village, and the family should have a three year supply stockpiled for the family.

5-5

Wise men measure food to have the greatest value, therefore it is said in the book of the Zhou, _'If a kingdom does not have food for three years, the regime is doomed to fail, and if a family does not have enough to live for three years, then the sons will be lost.'_ This refers to the readiness of the regime."

When bad times come, they are weathered at the most local possible level. Then higher levels may need to step in. Suppose a famine in a neighboring province had exhausted the grain reserves in that province. The king rushes the national reserves to make up the shortfall. Once the king's stockpiles are gone, the king may take from richer villages to replenish the national stockpiles. Then the mayor of your village will tax you to replenish the village stockpile. Contributing to this is how you love the people of that other province. Barring emergencies, everyone's stockpiles are filled so this isn't necessary, and then subsequent priority levels can be proceeded to.

Also, stockpiling doesn't just involve food. It involves the means of defense and other goods.

5-4

"If you don't have any cereals in your stores, you can't stand a famine. If the arsenals are not full of weapons, injustice cannot be fought with justice. Without ramparts and walls in good condition, a defense is not possible, and if one has not taken precautions in the spirit, one cannot encounter unforeseen cases..."

In Mozi's time having good defense meant literally having an armory full of weapons. In our times, when most battles are fought in court, it may mean a rainy day fund for legal defense. Once you have that, and still have surpluses, what now? Is it time to have a party? Mozi says we never have a party.

20-1

Everything that is only beautiful, but not some kind of an improvement, will be set aside. In the manufacture of these objects nothing is done that does not increase the use. Thus products are not consumed in a futile way, thus not depleting the power of the people, and the only concern is increases in benefits.

21-3

"...They did not go further, specially exhausting the compositions of the five flavors or the mixture of smells and spices. Also, one did not let precious and rare tidbits come from distant lands..."

We always prepare for the future. So how can we prepare for the future other than by stockpiling, building defenses, and preparing to survive a rainy day? Logically the next step is to invest in growth. As with stockpiling, the mandate to promote growth is placed on every level of society, so those at higher levels should leave lower levels the means to invest in growth. Most famously, Mozi was a big proponent, in his context, of population growth. But growth really takes many forms, not just having large families. Mozi also extols economic development.

20-1

When a wise man rules a state, it can be doubled, and if his government continues to extend to the whole empire, the empire can be doubled. This is not to say that parts of the territory are to be taken from the outside, but this doubling consists in eliminating the shortcomings that prevail in the state.

25-1

"... A well-meaning regent is active in the same way for the realm. If the realm is poor, he seeks to make it prosperous, when the population is low to enlarge it, and when the masses are in turmoil to soothe them. Perhaps his strength is not enough, his means are not enough, and his knowledge does not suffice. Then nothing can be done, but at any rate, to help the realm he leaves no force lying broken, no plan untried and no advantage unexploited..."

He extols learning.

13-12

_And so master Mozi says further,_ "If the kings, princes, great lords, scholars and nobles of our day really strive for benevolence and justice in their hearts, if they want to be great scholars, the highest goal is the study of the wise (and, to a lesser extent, study of the advantage of the state, of the families and of the people)..."

And he extols population increase.

20-3

Now, if people all have children starting at the twentieth year, they can create children for twenty to thirty years. Without the citizens getting married especially early, their numbers can be doubled...

All these are ways of investing resources in growth, ensuring a future of not only surviving but thriving. We can also invest by aiding the success of those we judge worthy, such as admired political candidates, meritorious scholars, or good waiters. If there is to be charity beyond contributing to the general welfare by paying taxes and dues, then politically supporting proper use of them, it will be in this phase taking the form of generosity to those who are worthy.

8-5

"In their administration, the sage kings of antiquity saw the excellent properties and benefits of the capable. Even if someone worked in agriculture or in a trade, he was hired if he had skills. He was given a high rank, he was granted ample income, the management of the business was transferred to him, and he was given decisive command authority. Because if the rank is not high, the people have no respect, if the income is not significant, the people have no confidence, and if the power of command is not decisive, the people have no fear. These three things will be given to the fittest..."

That is to say, you can develop those who show potential in virtue or skills. You might dish out soup, but only to those willing to be proselytized to. You might find work for the guy that says "will work for food" but ignore the one that says "give me money, I'm poor."

We invest by exchanging diplomatic gifts with foreigners and courting the favor of spirits can even be considered investment.

9-2

The regulation of the state and family life resulted in the order of the administration of justice, and the filled treasuries meant wealth for thousands. The ruler could provide pure wine and cider and heaped bowls of rice for heaven and spirits. Fur and silk fabrics were available for foreign countries, to maintain friendly relations with the princes of the neighboring states. In the homeland, they fed the hungry, procured the recovery of the exhausted, nourished many thousands, and showed themselves inclined to the fittest of the empire.

Businesses invest by purchasing equipment or hiring workers. Personal investment in a broader sense can also mean making our lives easier so that we can not only function but thrive. We invest by having a little more to eat (but still a moderate amount), by having warmer clothing, by buying a book or paying tuition.

Freedom happens in the investment phase, but all this investment should be geared toward growth. The same principles apply to it as apply to picking a line of work. You do what you will do well. A farmer can use a better tractor rather than a broken down one. For him getting a new tractor is an investment. A lawyer doesn't need a tractor, for her it would be a poor choice of investment because she can't use it effectively. But she can use a better law library, which a farmer would find useless (unless his daughter wanted to study...). So investment should be calculated to get the most capability enhancement for the buck. Growth makes it possible to produce more in the future, to become even more secure, even more capable of effective universal love through contributing more to society generally. It is consequential to put a dollar into savings toward a tractor rather to than to give it to a wino; but it's generally better to give it to the wino than to get some wine yourself.

This whole system makes universal love practical rather than ridiculously impossible because it puts global thinking and local acting into effect. You don't have to be the slave of everyone who asks, you don't have to give away all your earthly possessions, you can run a functioning business, yet everybody gets taken care of (in theory), and there's long term security. Any failings are failings of execution. If humanity isn't fully organized, paying dues won't serve the whole world. If the ruler isn't benevolent, paying taxes won't serve the whole nation. But these are organizational and political problems.

And investment is not just of wealth or resources, it is of time. Time should be spent the same way as money. First you ensure you and your people have all they need. They need to sleep, shower, eat and get a little exercise. Then you ensure you and your people pay dues, everyone does the chores that the demands of higher authorities require to be done. For most adults that means working at some kind of job, but it can also mean mowing your lawn and getting your car inspected; children do homework. Then you ensure your people have a secure future, which in terms of time means taking time out to take stock and plan. Finally, and before the wild party that never happens, you invest any available remaining time into growth, you put it toward an even more productive future the best way you know how.

Feed Underlings

First provide for the needs of your underlings (self, subordinates, family). Prioritizing this is the only thing that could possibly make sense. To be righteous you must take care of those under you. Mozi talks constantly of being sensitive to the needs of one's subordinates.

13-1

_Master Mozi said:_ "It is up to the wise to examine what makes the state, the families and the people well governed, and to execute it, and also to examine avoidance of confusion and disorder in the state, the families and the people. But what is it which governs them? When the rulers get to know the circumstances of their subordinates, then there is order; if they do not get to know them, then there is confusion..."

Any superior who wants you to pay taxes or dues before feeding your people isn't worth serving. This is consonant with starting nearby simply from practicality. Your underlings, like yourself, are the tool of everything you do, without necessities nothing will be possible. But all that people are necessarily entitled to in this phase is basic necessities.

Rights and responsibilities are two sides of a coin. Who has a responsibility of providing people those basic necessities? It is a shared responsibility of everyone who has authority over them. You have that responsibility to feed yourself, your boss has a responsibility to ensure you and all her other subordinates make enough to eat, the president of the company has a responsibility to ensure you and all the other company employees are paid a living wage, the state has a responsibility to ensure everyone in the state is fed and the federal government has a responsibility to ensure everyone in the country is fed. If there were a higher human authority it would be responsible for the entire world. Further, each level can appeal to the level higher for help. If you can't feed yourself you should first go to your boss. If your boss can't help, appeal to the company. If the company can't help, appeal to the state. Similarly, if you appeal to your boss and your boss can't help, your boss should appeal to the company on your behalf. And so forth. This way information about the needs of the people filters up to the top. Mozi says this is one of the first things every leader needs to establish.

11-2

"... Once officials and elders were established, the son of Heaven made his principles of government known to the population of the realm, saying: _'Whenever you learn of anything good or bad, report it to those above you...'..._ "

Why is this responsibility limited to those with authority over you? It is because responsibility and authority go hand in hand. You can't be held responsible for someone you have no authority over. If they don't want to do what it takes to get fed, then you can't command them to do it. If someone spends every dime on an addictive drug and doesn't have money to eat, you have no responsibility to give them food money that they would spend on more junk because you have no power to command them to seek treatment. It would be unfair to lay that responsibility on you. You might want to prove your excellence by taking someone on as a responsibility, but that's a different thing. Universal love doesn't _require_ it. Universal love merely requires that you support your subordinates. So what must you do for the needy who aren't your people? You refer them to the appropriate person to care for them. That information, like the teachings of Mozi, is infinitely reproducible.

So, what is it to "feed" your people? That varies from time to time, from place to place, and from person to person. The general guideline is to give people what they actually need, as opposed to what they merely want. Everything you do for _yourself_ in the "feed underlings" phase is just as minimal as what you do for everyone else under your responsibility.

21-3

"...When Yao reigned in the realm, he pacified Jiaoze, in the south; he subdued Youdu in the north and reached the east and west until sunrise and sunset. All joined his reign. Even though it tasted very good, he never took millet and rice at the same time and never ate meat soup along with meat. He ate from a clay bowl, drank from an earthen pot and served himself using a ladle..."

Need is defined by what they require to perform their best function. If you are unemployed the best function for you to perform is finding yourself new employment. For that you need access to a telephone so you can look for work, but you don't necessarily need gloves. If you have a job doing manual labor, you need gloves so you can continue working without tearing up your hands--but you don't necessarily need a telephone. Everybody needs food so they can stay alive so they can contribute to society as best they can, being what they are now. Need does not include growth requirements, it is based on using your current self, not developing your potential. An exception is children, whose best current function is to develop their potential during the time period when they are biologically primed for it. The work of children is being educated, and their need is based on what they require to function as students, what they need to grow. Mozi mentioned the importance of children having someone take care of them while they grow.

15-9

"... Heaven could not help approaching King Wen with kindness. Therefore, old people without children found a place where they could live out their lives, the abandoned, lonely and isolated mingled with company, and children who had lost father and mother in their youth found assistance under whose protection they could grow up..."

At various places in the Mozi we are asked to (1) sacrifice all luxuries and (2) give to charity. But what if the person you give charity to is broke because they spent it all on luxuries? This is essentially no different than wasting resources on luxuries yourself. The solution to this contradiction is that we should focus our giving on the worthy, and to the extent of worthiness. All have potential, are worthy of development, so where possible charity can take the form of promoting development.

Universal love tells us everyone is a friend, so it's problematic when Mozi tells us to help the needy whenever we encounter them.

16-5

...The philosopher of accord does not speak that way, and also acts differently. He says, _'I have heard that in order to become a distinguished scholar in the realm, one must, under all circumstances, equate the person of his friend to himself and look upon the other's relatives as his own; only then can one claim to be an outstanding scholar in the realm.'_ As a result, when he sees his hungry friend at the crossroad, he feeds him; he dresses him when he freezes, he cares for him when he gets sick, and he cares for his funeral if he should die. Such are the words and such the deeds of the philosopher of accord."

Since we care inclusively, or practice common decency, we very much want to do just this. We want to treat every need we happen see as our own need. But Mozi doesn't mention the whole story. One way we can do this without becoming deprived ourselves, is to contribute to collective charity. But also we can feed every hungry "friend" we encounter, just as we feed ourselves, until we run out, but this assistance doesn't necessarily have to come without strings attached. And selection for employment is by merit.

9-1

"...For this reason, the holy kings of antiquity honored and preferred the fittest and gave the capable employment...The incompetent were pressed down and pushed aside, they became poor and meaningless, and they were used as servants and workers. That is why the citizens strove for awards and feared penalties, and they competed to gain efficiency..."

One aspect of such merit is cooperation. Assistance doesn't have to be unconditional, and conditions can be more demanding if you are more strapped.

The distinction between function needs and growth needs also applies to a proposition I call the "duty to employ." If you don't have power over someone you don't have responsibility to them. The necessity of prioritizing local action relieves us of responsibilities beyond our power. If someone is needy you shouldn't be asked to sacrifice your other interests and goals for them unless you have the power to ensure they aren't making themselves needy through irresponsibility. Anyone truly needy will be willing to give up some liberty. (A corollary is that they have to have liberty to give up, or else using desperation as a need detector won't work.)

You have a right to attach stipulations to your charity. So does that make us responsible to find a use for everyone who comes to us offering to work for food? Based on a general understanding of Mohist thinking, I would say that we don't _owe_ such a thing, but that it is extra credit, it increases one's own worthiness (a corollary being that those who are highest in society, thus presumably most worthy, will have a greater duty to hire). Taking on underlings is part of the growth phase, not part of the caring for underlings phase. And there's nothing wrong with making merit judgments between different possible courses of action in the growth phase. Otherwise you are acting haphazardly. In the case of someone coming to your door begging, you are rewarding someone for coming to your door rather than going to the homeless shelter. (The homeless shelter should be state supported, but since it's not, supporting it might be part of paying moral dues, and remonstrating with the state to contribute more could be another part.)

Pay Dues

After your underlings have all they need (though not necessarily all they want) provide requested assistance to your superiors (boss, government, spirits and Heaven). In theory this is the best way to practice universal love, since by supporting your superiors (and thence all their superiors) you support a world benefiting plan. But that's only true if your "superiors" are actually wise and moral.

"I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned--they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

\--Ebeneezer Scrooge

If your superiors are not in fact using their tax receipts (or equivalent) to practice universal love on your behalf, then you should remonstrate with them and perhaps take up their slack to the extent you can. The Mohists were very clear that generosity is a virtue.

44-6

The disposition can be very generous or very stingy; this is true of the exercise of the commonly mentioned virtues: with princes, superiors, elders, respected persons and relatives one is generous, but this generosity with seniors does not require that one be stingy with juniors. One can be generous to relatives or very hard hearted; if the degree of kinship is very close, there can be no great pettiness. If one is benevolent to his parents, one does not boast of his actions, but simply attends to them.

But it should be wise and just.

8-4

"Thus it was said in antiquity that the sage kings decreed, _'For those without righteousness give no wealth....'_..."

Charles Dickens (and 16-5) notwithstanding, to give most wisely, we should delegate our charitable obligations upward rather than giving directly to every open hand. This is not because we want to be ungenerous. It is because we are finite and the possible demands are infinite. If we give money to anyone who asks, just on the basis of asking, soon a line of needy will form and we will quickly qualify to be in it. So you can moderate your charity, but the priority system ensures this will not be an excuse to "invest in" luxuries for ourselves while anyone starves. You may be _able_ to do that, but it won't be moral.

Leaders need to be clear that the resources they have access to are not theirs to use as whim takes them, they are entrusted to them on the assumption that they will be used for necessities of underlings (now at a higher and larger level), used to pay dues to even higher levels, used to secure stockpiles for the larger group, and invested wisely if there is any surplus left after the other priorities. Mozi speaks of the responsibilities of those who control wealth. Work for the general thriving.

10-4

"... So what do you have to do to earn riches and honor and avoid poverty and misery? The way is to acquire excellence. But what is the way to excellence? Those who have power must harness it to help their fellow human beings, those who possess wealth must be won over to devoting it to their fellow human beings, and those who possess wisdom must teach and exhort their fellow human beings to do such things. Then the starving will have enough to eat, the freezing will have clothes and the riots will be pacified. So, if the starving people are fed, the freezing are clothed, and rioters rest, then a peaceful flourishing of all lives is guaranteed."

And he speaks of earned positions not really being rewards for competence, in the sense that a parent would reward a child for learning a task, but access to power merely affording the opportunity to serve.

8-5

"...They are not so gifted because of their efficiency, but in the expectation that they will bring something to be achieved..."

9-3

"...This evidence of grace was not merely given to those concerned because they were officials, but in the expectation that they would accomplish something..."

He also speaks of leaders squandering tax moneys on personal entertainment.

32-1

_Master Mozi said:_ "By promoting the good of the realm and eliminating abuses in it, the virtuous, applying these principles to the realm, only do what is good for the people and refrain from doing anything that does not help them. And in doing so for the realm, they do not think of what appears beautiful to their eyes, sounds good to your ears, tastes good in your mouth and is pleasant to your body. Just for such things, they would never take the materials the people need for their clothes and food."

This admonition is against using taxed funds for personal luxuries, but the general idea of _The Mozi_ is that morally we should use _all_ our funds, even what we earn ourselves, for the public good. Morally, earning and achievement only gets you the liberty to decide _how_ to serve.

I'll put a word here about considering the priorities of lower echelons. If you are above the lowest levels (who have no underlings or have no underlings with underlings of their own) then you must consider the needs of lower level leaders to advance to subsequent stages of priority. That is, before you think about investing you should make sure all the leaders under you have fulfilled the security requirement. Before the king builds a grand canal, every village should have a defensive wall and a full granary stored up against famine. Fill from the bottom at each stage of priority. That's my own thinking. Mozi doesn't clarify it, but he does seem to be dubious of large scale public expenditures taking a priority over the needs of households.

32-1

_Master Mozi said:_ "By promoting the good of the realm and eliminating abuses in it, the virtuous, applying these principles to the realm, only do what is good for the people and refrain from doing anything that does not help them. And in doing so for the realm, they do not think of what appears beautiful to their eyes, sounds good to your ears, tastes good in your mouth and is pleasant to your body. Just for such things, they would never take the materials the people need for their clothes and food."

Save Up

Next build a secure future (save, plan). The Mohist standard is that each echelon of society should stockpile a three year supply of necessities for all underlings.

5-5

"...Wise men measure food to have the greatest value, therefore it is said in the book of the Zhou, _'If a kingdom does not have food for three years, the regime is doomed to fail, and if a family does not have enough to live for three years, then the sons will be lost.'_ This refers to the readiness of the regime."

A similar requirement appears in 71-15, which Forke didn't translate. In addition to grain, it calls for vegetables specifically, lists various natural disasters they are stored against, and has some really quotable phrasing similar to "sweat in peace, or bleed in war."

This requirement is the reason we don't have to overpopulate. If we interpret Mozi to be telling us we must always be fecund, you still don't have to make babies (growth phase) until you have three years supplies put back for them (security phase), which implies that you may save up to be able to afford a baby rather than giving all your savings to UNICEF as ungraded love would require.

Mozi tells us to live frugally, and not indulge in a fancy luxurious lifestyle. The reason is that it is spending without a purpose. But he tells us to stockpile, to take resources and set them aside without using them. How can that be?

In addition to security, stockpiling is a form of economic demand. Set aside the fact that you can rotate your stockpile, simply consuming or donating what you have had stored up for three years at the same time you replace it with new stock. There is a period of unbeneficial consumption when the stockpile is initially being built up. And there is a period of undemanding benefit if the stockpile is ever drawn down, in a famine for example. And stored food can go to waste if it is not properly stored, or if it falls into the wrong hands in a disaster.

Stockpiling up to a certain limit serves a purpose. Mozi sets three years as that limit. Beyond that you are simply removing goods from use. Up to that limit, stockpiles are a good idea because bad times can last that long and properly stored food can keep that long. Being secure against bad times is good for social order, leading to all the knock-on effects of social order. However, regarding stockpiling (as regarding sacrifices) there is some confusion, because in some translations Mozi condemns "hoarding" (in 25-1 and 39-4). If this was really Mozi's intended meaning, we have a contradiction requiring reconciliation.

Hoarding vs Stockpiling

The resolution in both cases is to call for priorities. Stockpiling and sacrifices are things you do with surpluses; these are what you do when the good times are here and your impulse is to make (or purchase) decorations and listen to music. Instead of that, you stockpile until you have three years laid up. Then if you still have surpluses you might make token sacrifices. Hoarding is stockpiling when times are bad. Hoarding is putting back food rather than sharing it with your starving village; it is prioritizing stockpiling over feeding or taxes.

Also consider that we can probably modernize the stockpiling mandate to include cash reserves, not just supplies. Why would we stockpile cash? It's for a "rainy" day which can include medical problems, or uninsured catastrophes, but more likely than not the main advantage we get from having "cash" reserves is related to security. A cash reserve is the modern equivalent of armor and arms and fortifications.

5-4

"If you don't have any cereals in your stores, you can't stand a famine. If the arsenals are not full of weapons, injustice cannot be fought with justice..."

A cash reserve enables you to survive difficulties like medical or legal trouble, unemployment, or a need to skip town. So in the modern context I would think a portion of your three year stockpile could be cash (or other financial instruments) rather than just food, medicine and such.

Promote Growth

Finally, once adequate security is ensured, invest all remaining resources and efforts into growth (invest, study, research, breed, build, proselytize, and practice ritual sacrifice and/or charity).

Once maintenance (of equipment, subordinates, obligations, and stockpiles) is taken care of, the next priority comes under the broad heading of "investment". How anyone might choose to invest will vary depending on situation, talents and proclivities, but investment could include both research and expansion of enterprises: getting smarter and getting bigger.

Why should growth be a goal? We prioritize growth because it is the will of Heaven. Growth is the hallmark of life, and Heaven favors life. And because more people is more meat being burned to feed the spirits (and the community members who may come to the barbeque).

19-3

"...When one attacks the cities of Heaven with the people who belong to Heaven, the people of Heaven are murdered. One shakes and shatters the seats of the spirits, topples the temples of the gods of the land and slaughters the sacrifices destined for them. This is not the way to benefit the highest spheres of Heaven. Do you think you can treat the spirits this way? By killing people, one destroys the worshippers of the spirits and ghosts and eliminates the cult of the ancient rulers. When the people are oppressed and tormented, the population disperses. This is not the way to be able to serve the spirits of the middle region."

But the spirits really represent normally invisible interests (the future, the past, nature, and even alternate worlds) given enhanced salience among us by Heaven, and symbolically burning meat is what you do when you are clueless about what they really want (though developing the _means_ to provide surplus meat affects them more materially.)

49-15

_"...I sacrificed to the spirits and ghosts and held myself to the precepts of the master. First my family became wealthier, and when they were doing well, I sacrificed to the spirits and ghosts with special care. But many of my people died, the animals did not thrive, and I myself was afflicted by diseases. I don't know; is the master's teaching really practical?" Master Mozi replied_ : "It is not like that. What the spirits and ghosts especially expect from the people is that those who hold high positions and obtain great income should give to those who are most noble, and that whoever possesses great riches distributes them among the poor. The spirits and ghosts are anxious for more than taking the millet and eating the lung meat. Now you were in high position and had great income, but you did not have nobility. This is the first cause of misfortune. You do not distribute much of your great wealth as assistance. That was the second reason for your tragedy. You serve the spirits and ghosts, merely by sacrificing to them, and then you wonder where the disease comes from. It's like if someone with a hundred doors only closes one and then asks how the thieves get in. You cannot earn the favor of the miraculous spirits in this way."

The merely prosperous are to selectively give on the basis of moral worthiness, and the _very_ wealthy are to give on the basis of need. So the middle class are to employ, and that means they must invest. Once everyone's current survival is assured, and function maintained, and future survival secured, there has to be more. The Mohist ideal could not possibly be to simply have a world of as many people as possible, each living on meager rations atop a pile of reserves and working nonstop to produce more. But what can be done with surplus wealth other than to support a few more poor people?

25-1

"... A well-meaning regent is active in the same way for the realm. If the realm is poor, he seeks to make it prosperous, when the population is low to enlarge it, and when the masses are in turmoil to soothe them. Perhaps his strength is not enough, his means are not enough, and his knowledge does not suffice. Then nothing can be done, but at any rate, to help the realm he leaves no force lying broken, no plan untried and no advantage unexploited...."

The world benefits when the wise make provision for the world by investing in capital to increase production. What else could wealth be other than reserves of provisions? It is the means to make _more_ provisions. Provisions are only required for three years, luxuries are prohibited, so what else could wealth represent? Wagons, ships, looms, plows, and oxen would be ancient examples. Modern examples would be all kinds of machinery, tools, lab equipment. Shall we include libraries?

47-13

When master Mozi travelled to the south and went to Wei as a messenger, he took many books with him in his car. Xian Dangzi looked at them and wondered very much. "The master," he said, "has stated in his teaching to Gong Shang Guo that it is sufficient to investigate right and wrong. How is it now that the master carries so many books?"

Instead of more canned goods, why not buy a tractor? Or possibly build a factory? The form your investment takes depends on the details of who you are, but everyone can invest in the kind of wealth that makes them more effective at producing more wealth.

The Mozi was written for two main audiences. The direct audience is the equivalent of "public policy" students, young men hoping to enter civil service. The indirect audience is those already holding positions of power in government, who were to be influenced by the advice of Mohist graduates. Because of self similarity, and unity of principles, the same ideas apply to everyone else (including us today, or I wouldn't be writing this book). But since the main audience was primarily involved in government, _The Mozi_ presents things most directly from a government perspective. Thus the kinds of investment it describes are mostly the kinds of investment someone in government might engage in. But there are signs that capital investment was an important part of expenditures. Though it is part of an argument on the ill effects of extended mourning, Mozi had this to say:

25-5

"... If the traders go by it, they cannot build ships and wagons, or make equipment and vessels..."

So maintenance is not the only concern of Mohist doctrine, there is also recognition of the need to make new capital investments.

Finally, once all reasonable investments have been made, any remaining surplus should be donated to worthy causes. This is a moral act to promote the world's order. When people focus too much on their person interests (rather than duties to the whole) the situation spirals out of control.

9-4

"...If someone is put in as a judge, he does not judge as he should, and if he is to distribute the foodstuffs, he does not distribute them in a fair manner. Under these circumstances, the ruler cannot carry out his plans; his undertakings do not succeed..."

This includes donation of efforts to worthy causes. The ancient Mohists are famous for having come to the military aid of small principalities threatened by the aggressions of larger kingdoms.

50-3

_The king of Chu asked for the reason, and master Mozi said:_ "...My students alone, Qin Hua Li and others, three hundred in all, have my defensive instruments already in hand on the city wall of Song and expect the robbers from Chu, so even if I am murdered, he will not achieve his goal."

The king of Chu said, "Well. I don't want to do an attack against Song anymore."

Where would this fit into my proposed priorities list? It is donation to a worthy cause (and probably also employment for erstwhile beggars). If the Mohists had been agents of the Zhou throne they might have felt some global responsibility to aid its underlings, the feudal princes. But instead they helped them purely in an effort to prove worthiness for higher power. They were auditioning. If you aren't the king of the world, the most virtuous man in existence, then fake it till you make it.

26-4

The son of Heaven is typically the richest and most noble man in the world. Those who want to gain such wealth and honor must adapt to the wishes of Heaven and correspond with them.

Sages

One line of growth endeavor is to seek to become a sage, which involves particular devotion. Mozi defines rather harsh requirements for becoming a sage.

47-6

_Master Mozi said:_ "You have to eliminate the six mistakes. In silence you should think, when you speak you should teach, and when you are active, you should bring something about. If you do these three things alternately, you will become a sage. One must eliminate merriment and anger, gusto and grief, infatuation and acrimony and practice only benevolence and justice. Hands, feet, mouth, nose, ears and eyes must be placed in the service of righteousness; then you will surely become a sage."

(Note: I've changed a lot of these words without linguistic basis. I just know that Mozi wasn't talking about the elimination of "love" (in the broad English use of the term) he was talking about personal love. He wasn't banning mild joy, but a deeper gusto. He wasn't banning ill will to dangerous people, just the emotion based acrimony that becomes a reason unto itself.) There are two ways to think about the more stringent devotion required of sages. Some people look at _The Mozi_ and wonder whether Mozi wants everyone to go by these requirements. It would be logical, considering _Upward Identification_.

12-4

"They examined everything precisely to explore the truth. Therefore, the inhabitants of the realm strove to obtain the rewards and accolades of superiors, and they feared their rebuke and punishment. The church elders also applied these administrative principles from the son of Heaven and sought to make the views of their congregations more uniform. As soon as they brought this about, they led the parishioners to seek agreement with the district head and said: _'All the parishioners must be in agreement with the district's head, and should not dare to join with subordinates against him. What the district head thinks is_ _right_ _, you also have to keep to it, and what he declares_ _wrong_ _, you also have to consider wrong. If you are not able to speak well, you can learn it from the district head, and if you do not know how to act rightly, then learn from the proper actions of the district head, because he is the noblest man of the whole district. If all the inhabitants of the district consider him a model, then it is no longer possible to say that the district is not well-ordered.'_ What is it for the district head to govern the district? The district head only summarizes the views of the district to unity, so the district is governed."

If everyone imitates all the values of superiors, and the highest superiors are sages, then everyone will be imitating the endeavor to become sages. But upward conformity doesn't necessarily extend to everything, only to questions of **right** and **wrong**. The manager of a restaurant doesn't necessarily wait tables and the waiters don't necessarily do the books. People are not identical in every way, so it would be inappropriate to imitate what cannot be duplicated. Two people are different heights. Both can stand up. They are identical in verticality. But when they stand up, they are different heights. We can both travel exactly in the direction of true north, but I may just travel to the city limits while you may go to the Arctic Circle. In that case, I am in perfect agreement with you about travel direction, but I still have a different journey. We all go different distances in different aspects, thus we all have unique profiles like the unique shapes of keys. The goal of upward identification is not a clone army. Furthermore, many aspects of life have nothing to do with right and wrong, they are morally neutral. Upward identification only addresses moral development, and extols those who achieve it most.

Mozi's academy trained young men to become officials, and one subject of its teachings was how to become a sage. Thus the implication is that Mozi was teaching these particular people to become sages so they could qualify to advise kings. Sages who advise a ruler wield penultimate authority with wisdom, even if conditions do not allow them to rule directly due to low birth or other circumstances. One thing this tells us is that ruling authority is attainable by many, not simply reserved for the specific finite set of sage kings of ancient Chinese legend and history. In the fact that Mozi, not a king, presumes to teach, he is positing himself as an authority, and by implication a sage. It could be argued that Mozi was merely borrowing the authority of sage kings by citing them, seeing himself as a mere conveyor. This is contradicted by the fact that there are three models, not just one, and by the words of Mozi himself when he says new knowledge can be added to old and mere imitators of the old are not the wisest.

46-17

_Kung-said: "The noble does not create anything new, but only imitates." Master Mozi replied:_ "It is not like that. The very ignoble among the people do not imitate the good of the old times, and they don't do the good of the current times either. The less ignoble do not follow the good of antiquity, but they carry out the good that they themselves have, and wish that the good should come from them themselves. Now, if you imitate, but do not create yourself, it is not much different than if you don't like to follow, but act on your own initiative. I think that if you imitate the good old ways and also bring the good of our time to execution, you are multiplying the good as wished."

Adding the new can change the meaning of the old. And innovators are not less worthy for it.

39-6

Furthermore, the Confucians say that a noble follows after, but does not invent himself. It is to be retorted that in ancient times Yi invented the bow, Yu invented armor, Xi Zhong invented the wagon and Qiao Cui invented the ship. Are today's leather workers, smiths, wagon makers and carpenters all noble? Are Yi, Yu, Xi Zhong, and Qiao Cui but ordinary people? The ones you follow may have introduced new features and should be commoners according to this principle.

People who have attained greater wisdom should have greater authority. Those who have attained the highest wisdom should have the most authority.

27-1

_Master Mozi said,_ "... Fools and ordinary people cannot exert dominion over the noble and wise, but if noble and wise are present, they can reign over the foolish and ordinary people. This proves to me that justice cannot come from simple and ordinary people, but from the noble and wise. That said, we must ask who is truly noble, and who is wise? ..."

Is this anti-democratic? Is not the concept of equal votes based on the idea that everyone is equally wise? The answer is that democracy is for the purpose of determining who is noble and wise. Elections are predicated on the idea that even the foolish and ordinary have enough wisdom and nobility to recognize superior wisdom and nobility when they see it. There is a class of people who have achieved a required set of qualities that qualify them as "sages", and sages have the highest authority of all.

13-3

"Therefore, in the realm, it was desired that the many views be summed up into a single one, and thus the most virtuous was chosen and raised up as the son of Heaven..."

It's an interesting question whether sages can develop even more, thus whether there are degrees of sagacity, and whether this means some sages have more authority than others. It's clear that some sages, despite having reached the threshold of a topmost category of attainment, are imperfect.

7-2

_Master Mozi replied:_ "... The government of the empire by Cheng of Zhou did not equal that of King Wu, the reign of King Wu remained behind that of Tang the Completer, whose government was less good than that of Yao and Shun. So the more music was developed, the more mediocre the government became..."

And others are even less perfect. So I am prone to believe that even sages can continue to develop. If they weren't still growing, in fact, I would tend to doubt that they were sages at all.

But under current conditions those who are willing and able to pursue sagacity are rare. In a society of all sages it would be easier, but it's harder to do when surrounded by the foolish and ignoble. So it takes special talent and commitment. But it is not without its rewards.

44-10

... One can rejoice in the welfare of mankind. "The sage loves, but does not draw any advantage from it," is no statement of master Mozi.

While we imitate our superiors _ethically_ or in _kind_ , we may not be able to imitate them in degree. That's why they're superiors (if they actually are). People have different talents, proclivities, and inclinations. To contribute most to the benefit of the world, people should do the needed job they are best at, and learn the needed skills they are most talented at.

Wanting to do something is part of having an aptitude for it because you'll work more enthusiastically if you like what you are doing, but that's not the whole story. Sometimes people have to learn to like what they are most talented at.

48-16

_A man came to the school of master Mozi. He was strong and well-built and possessed good mental faculties, so the master wanted to persuade him to join him as a disciple._ "If you study with me for a time, I'm going to get you an official position," _he said to him, and he spoke to him with kind words, so that he could win him as a disciple. After one year the unemployed man complained about a job to master Mozi and he replied:_ "Did you hear this story from Lu? There lived five brothers, whose father died. The eldest son was a drinker who did not care about the funeral. Then his four brothers said to him, _'Help us bury our father and we will buy you wine for it,'_ and they were persuasive, and so he buried their father. After the burial, he demanded the wine from his four brothers. But they said: _'We will not give you wine. You buried your father, and we buried our father. Is he just our father? Had you not buried him, you would have become a mockery of the people, so we exhorted you to bury him. Now you have done what is right, and we have done what is right. Was it our duty alone?'_ If you hadn't studied, the world would have laughed at you, so I exhorted you to study."

That's especially true of the quest to become a sage, because _nobody_ really looks upon it with relish. You don't do it because you think it will be fun. If you are ready to develop sagacity, you do it because you know it's needed and you can do it because you don't value fun as highly as you value virtue. Committing to becoming a sage means giving up even the productive, perfectly acceptable fun of doing some job for the intrinsic satisfaction. For instance,  Einstein said he wished he had been a plumber, and  Winston Churchill enjoyed building a brick wall. They had spent their lives doing what they were good at, not necessarily what they enjoyed. Certainly, once you attain sagacity you will derive your satisfaction from your general magnanimity itself, from the joy of helping make the world a better place and benefiting everyone, and from the intrinsic satisfaction of skilled activity. But until you reach that point the self abnegation will feel unnatural and difficult. I would imagine it's like entering cold water. It's shocking at first, and then you adapt. There may be fun, but it shouldn't be your compass.

Disciples

If you self evaluate as having the potential for it then you should embark on the path to becoming a sage and ruler. Everyone should want to get there someday, but we must be honest about our current capabilities. Since everyone identifies upward, every Mohist wants to be a sage, and every Mohist wants to rule. But some have finished the race, some are on the track and others are still on their way to the starting line. Those who are not yet sages, but who are currently working on becoming sages, rather than working on becoming able to start working on becoming sages, are what I call disciples. They are like the students at Mozi's school, not yet sages but consciously committed to becoming sages. Disciples live by a different standard than regular Mohists. It's like the difference between cub scouts (regular Mohist scholars), boy scouts (disciples), and eagle scouts (sages).

I admit that what I'm doing here may be akin to anthropomorphizing an animal. It may be that I am projecting something familiar onto something really very alien. It may be that Mozi's disciples were all members of the  Zi class, with cultural assumptions I can't begin to fathom. The liberty they had by virtue of privilege may be something they had no idea of generalizing. I may be looking at the tip of the iceberg and imagining I know more about what is underwater than I really know. But it doesn't matter, you see, because Mozi was about universalizing. Yes he was, don't deny it. So yes, everybody has the potential to become a ruler, and that idea is _not_ foreign to Mohism.

This notion of being on the sage path is consonant with the whole "think globally, act locally" thing. A similar thought process applies. Your eyes are on the stars but your feet are on the ground. Think sage king, study plumbing. Further, a Mohist can be content to enable others to become sage kings. If there's anything Mozi would agree with it's that it's not all about you.

Being a disciple of Mozi, seeking to become a sage, doesn't necessarily mean grabbing all the glory. You don't necessarily have to have personal status to serve Heaven greatly. You just have to produce big results. If you are holding a position of organizational responsibility, you do need personal status. You have to have authority to do your job. But it's possible to rule from positions of influence other than positions of personal authority. Mozi is an example of that.

Sages don't have to pursue official positions of power. But all Mohists support sages for such positions if they seek them. Those who are most worthy should have power because the results will be the best for all, and sages are the most worthy possible people, serving the will of Heaven most effectively.

9-10

_Therefore, it is said in a statement of the old rulers: if this principle was practiced on a large scale, it did endless good in the world, if in small scale, there were no shortages, and if for a long time, then many thousands rejoiced in its blessings, all their lives without ceasing. In the_ Songs of the Zhou _is said: 'The virtue of the holy is as high as the heavens and as extended as the Earth; their splendor fills the whole world. It is as solid as the earth, towering like the mountains, it does not collapse, it is like the light of the sun, like the shine of the moon, and of the same duration as the universe. It is bright and widely lit, solid, indestructible and everlasting, for the virtue of the wise is such that it fills the whole world.'_

So becoming as sagacious as possible is a worthy goal and the more successful you are in that pursuit the more you should also seek power to apply your wisdom to effective and benevolent leadership for the sake of your values. The stated supreme value of ancient Mohists was in all things to serve Heaven, spirits, and humanity equally.

19-1

_Master Mozi said:_ "What words will describe what is now generally praised in the world as good? We praise that which has utility in the upper sphere of Heaven, in the middle sphere of spirits and in the lower sphere of the people. The idea is that praise is earned by those who bring advantage to the upper sphere of Heaven, the middle sphere of the spirits and the lower sphere of the people. Even the most common and numerous classes of people will say that those who prove themselves useful to Heaven above, the spirits in the middle and the people in the lower space, are therefore to be praised..."

But Heaven's defining personality characteristic is benevolence, concern for humanity, and spirits only act in this world at the behest of Heaven. So essentially service to "the three worlds" comes down to serving the benefit of humanity. Toward such ends, Mohism bluntly calls for total devotion to a life of service.

2-2

In strenuous work, he does more every day, his desire is to continue to progress daily; daily he grows in strength and abundance. This is the way of the noble. He is seen in poverty as one who is justly humble, righteous in wealth, loving with the living, and filled with grief at the sight of death. These four statements must not be untrue and hypocritical, which is why he looks inside himself. Without ever getting exhausted, he expresses his inner feeling in his loving activity, his apprehension in his posture, and his teachings in his utterances. His sensations pour out like a stream through all his limbs, which penetrates to the outer skin. Even if he already has white hair, he still keeps it up. Isn't he like a saint?

But this is not a problem. This is part of the means. It's all very elegant. Live for service and you become wiser and Heaven and people reward you with power so you can better serve Heaven and people, one of whom is you.

44-7

... The love of humanity does not exclude one's own person, for you are among those who are loved, and since this is the case, love extends to one's own person. The usually so-called self-love is love for a person.

It all becomes one big love fest. Life's joy comes from serving those you love and seeing that service bear the fruits of benefit.

15-4

"...Namely, anyone who loves others is to be responded to with love, whoever brings them advantage, with advantage; anyone who hates others, is to be responded to with hatred, and whoever harms them with harm..."

It sounds daunting from the outside, but once you let the process transform you it will seem fulfilling rather than demanding. Mohists seek to rule by benefiting all through competence and virtue: they want to inspire everyone to exclaim "Mohists rule!" Mohists seek to rule in the sense of making wise decisions, arriving at the correct rulings. Mohists seek to rule by measuring and calibrating everything so as to understand it all in proper perspective. Mohists seek to rule by seeking to gain power. But first, Mohists seek to rule by seeking to become worthy to rule.

The purpose of Mohism, though, is not self improvement, but service. Self improvement is an auxiliary means and a side effect. Both service and self improvement are served by frugality and diligence.

No Fun

Nowhere on this priorities list is there ever time or resources for entertainment, waste or extravagance. This doesn't mean that enjoyment, happiness, and pleasure are against Mohism (though a sage can do without them). It just means no effort or resources are to be spent pursuing them for their own sakes. Pleasure and happiness, beyond basic freedom from suffering, have no intrinsic value. A Mohist learns to take joy in productive activities because a Mohist knows that enjoyment will enhance performance. Other than that, Mohists don't play.

21-2

The wise rulers met the provision that consumption should be kept to a minimum. To all traders of the realm, wheelwrights, teamsters, leatherworkers, tanners, potters, smiths, and carpenters fared the instruction to pursue the trade that they understood. 'It is enough to make what the people can use.' The holy kings renounced everything that makes trouble without increasing the usability.

We are being told to imitate sage kings who commanded certain patterns of production. But we are not kings, how does this apply to us? Self similarity works both ways. All consumers are like kings. When we spend money, we command the production of goods. So these strictures are relevant to us. They speak to how we should spend individually, and how we should structure our economies politically.

Does this mean to do the bare minimum and not produce surpluses, for example as a common stockpile? It does not. It means to have the people make things for the use of the people, rather than to demand that they work extra hard to benefit not themselves, or each other, but to support the lifestyles of their higher ups. Mozi is also saying people should do what they are good at, practice their main full time job, rather than be marshaled to help with projects that only please the powerful, vanity projects that are so large they call for people to drop what they normally do and go do something else that has high demands. War, which takes carpenters away to be spearmen, would be the prototype. A modern version of this might also be that people shouldn't have to have side gigs in order to make ends meet. But that doesn't mean you don't work hard. Mozi repeatedly depicted the expectation that everyone work long days.

25-5

...If these rules are complied with and these regulations are complied with, kings, princes and lords not acting in the early audiences may not be replaced in the five offices and six departments, and barns and storage will not be filled. When the local people act on it, they cannot go out in the morning and return home in the evening, cannot plow, sow or plant. If the traders go by it, they cannot build ships and wagons, or make equipment and vessels. When the women follow these customs, they cannot get up early and go to bed late, or spin and weave throughout the day..."

Mozi believed in a very simple economics. He didn't seem to have any idea that reducing demand by reducing waste would harm the economy. He believed that wealth was simply production minus consumption, so less consumption leaves more wealth. But what is more he also seems to be saying here that people shouldn't work any more than is necessary for everyone to have the necessities of a simple lifestyle. That would contradict what he says elsewhere when he promotes the idea that everyone in all walks of life should diligently slave away producing mountains of unused wealth.

37-8

"Why do the country folk go out early to come home late in the evening and use all their power to plow, sow, plant and harvest as much legumes and millet as possible without sagging? They say that energy makes them rich, lack of energy makes them poor, that with energy they have abundant livelihoods, and that without it hunger is imminent. Therefore they are reluctant to surrender to inertia. What is the reason that the women today rise up in the early days and only go to rest at night, and that they are spinning, weaving, producing large amounts of hemp, silk and linen threads, and that they are able to process and sew fabric and silk materials without any sign of fatigue? They are convinced that they can become rich with perseverance and will be poor without it..."

The Mozi is full of such seeming self contradictions, and when we find the only possible way to resolve the contradiction we find that we have learned something new that Mozi didn't have to explain. One resolution I propose to this contradiction is that Mozi felt people should feel _morally_ compelled to produce diligently, but that this should not be compelled, or driven by excessive state confiscation of goods or conscription of labor.

A more sophisticated general solution, one incorporating solutions to many such dilemmas into one simple plan, is the four step Priority of Expenditure list I have distilled from requirements of _The Mozi_. The second item, taxation (or private equivalent such as dues) should only demand enough to fund services to the people, with overhead being kept to a minimum. When you collect grain from surplus areas to feed famine areas, don't skim a bunch off the top to have yourself a feast. But this call for moderation in use also morally applies to the other steps of the priority of expenditure list. When the government leaves you wealth you are not to squander it, you are to live frugally, save, and invest.

By including demands for large but finite stockpiling and unlimited growth investment, Mozi was countering the depressive economic tendencies of diligence and frugality. In a world of Mohists, demand would not be a problem. So everybody would be sitting in huge amounts of wealth. You might think that would be a time to party, but you would be wrong.

No Fun Ever

No matter how good things get, surplus resources are better spent on ensuring a better future. We all learn delayed gratification. It's a part of growing up, a component of maturity. So you might think that perhaps the frugality and diligence Mozi calls for can be let up on once times are good enough. We can earn the prize and take our reward. But Mozi tells us that security comes about because of diligence and frugality, and it will go away if diligence and frugality stop, so diligence and frugality are to continue forever.

48-8

_Gong said: "If a state is in confusion, one puts it in order, but if it is already well arranged, then one turns to the rites and the music. If the state is in an orderly state, then it is functioning well, and once the state has become rich, one can focus on rites and music." Master Mozi retorted:_ "If a state is in confusion, one seeks to arrange it, and thus order comes. However, if the measures are bad, the order will also collapse. The wealth of a state is the result of work. If this is not good, the wealth will be lost. Therefore, there is a need for an incessant drive to succeed, even if orderly conditions prevail. Now you say that if order reigns, you should dedicate yourself to rites and music, but if the state is in turmoil you work to create order. That's like starting to dig a well when one is thirsty, or only asking for a doctor when death is at the door. The corrupt kings of the three ancient dynasties of Jie, Zhou, You, and Li reveled in the sounds of music and did not care about their people. They depopulated their countries, and for punishment they were executed shamefully themselves, all as a result of such principles."

You are never wealthy enough to waste money. You are never strong enough to stop exercising. You are never smart enough to stop learning.

"Feeding" has a natural limit; it's what the person needs for maintenance: nutrition, clothing, shelter. "Dues" has a natural limit; it's what superiors demand. "Security" has a natural limit; it's a three year stockpile. But "Investing" has no natural limit. An infinite amount of time and resources can be devoted to improving future productivity, to promoting growth. So if hedonistic pursuits have any place on the list of priorities it is at the end, after investment. And investment is never completed, so there will never be time or money for purely hedonistic pursuits. Anything you do that's enjoyable is engaged in for other reasons, not for the enjoyment. It doesn't exist for its own sake.

32-2

The reason that the master Mozi condemns music is not that the sound of the great bells, the sonorous timpani, the harps, guitars, flutes and oboes did not appeal to him, or that the ornaments of the figures and the colors of the colored embroidery are not beautifully regarded, or that the roast of oxen and pigs are not excellent tasting, or that staying on high terraces, in magnificent pavilions and hermitages would not be a pleasant rest. The body knows well what pleasing to him, the mouth, what tastes good to him, what delights the eye, and what pleases the ear, but if one goes back to antiquity, these do not fulfill the duties prescribed by the wise rulers, and if one grasps after their presence in the senses, that does not promote the well-being of the people...

Everybody can understand being frugal when there are shortages.

5-2

"...If there is a tribulation or famine in the land, the prince loses three-fifths of his ration, the master of ceremonies does without his musical instruments. The students no longer go to school. In the audience at court, clothing is not replaced. Guests of the princes and envoys from neighboring countries receive breakfast and supper, but not plentiful. Extra team horses are abolished. Ways are not maintained. Livestock are not fed with grain. Servants and concubines wear no finery. All these are signs of extreme lack."

But Mozi tells us the frugality is to last _forever_.

48-8

_...Master Mozi retorted:_ "If a state is in confusion, one seeks to arrange it, and thus order comes. However, if the measures are bad, the order will also collapse. The wealth of a state is the result of work. If this is not good, the wealth will be lost. Therefore, there is a need for an incessant drive to succeed, even if orderly conditions prevail...."

We are to be frugal and diligent even when we can afford not to be because if we stop being frugal and diligent we will stop being rich, and thus potentially secure, productive, and generous.

Eternal frugality is also understandable from a standpoint of benevolence. There is a big world out there. Even though we have plenty of mashed potatoes, there are starving children in China, or Ethiopia, or the famine spot of the day. Those children go to bed hungry. So eat your mashed potatoes and don't waste them. This admonition actually makes sense because it all comes around. When you are frugal, you may not be sending a meal around the world, but the impact spreads there like a series of dominoes.

You are not the emperor, charged with all-the-world. Why should you care about this? You should care about benefiting the world because you should practice universal love. You should care about benefiting the world because you are to identify upward, and care about what a good emperor would care about. Or go beyond that, and care about what Heaven cares about but has delegated to the emperor (if any) who is clearly slacking.

How can you party when there are starving children? So until everyone in the world has all they need, you should be frugal. And then keep it up because that will sustain the prosperity.

How much is necessary? It depends. Mozi told of the sage kings being so abstemious that despite ruling vast domains they ate incredibly simple meals.

21-3

"...When Yao reigned in the realm, he pacified Jiaoze, in the south; he subdued Youdu in the north and reached the east and west until sunrise and sunset. All joined his reign. Even though it tasted very good, he never took millet and rice at the same time and never ate meat soup along with meat. He ate from a clay bowl, drank from an earthen pot and served himself using a ladle. Bowing and scraping, and the like formalities were not practiced by the wise kings."

Those were sage kings. We are not all expected to be sage kings, a little culinary complexity is a minor expense nowadays. But moderation is still the order of the day.

47-10

_Master Mozi said:_ "The scholars of our time use themselves with much less care than a merchant uses bales of merchandise. If a merchant has such a bale, he does not dare to tie it up untidily before he sells it, and he always takes care to purchase the best ones. Today's scholar does not do so with his body. He gives himself to all the desires that come to his mind. As a result, he incurs penalties in the worst case, or at least disgrace and shame. So the scholars treat their own persons with less consideration than a merchant has for a bale commodity."

I'm not saying that I exemplify this. I'm partial to some Chinese buffet myself. I'm not being exemplary, but I'm trying to determine what I should be doing, alongside everyone else. Assuming everybody in the world could be gotten to the investment phase of priorities, the occasional hearty meal would not detract too much from social stability. But we aren't there yet, so I've been sinning.

Purpose Based Moderation

There's an optimal amount of everything, which for luxuries is vanishingly small. Mozi condemns luxuries in chapters titled _Moderation in Use_ , but this attitude permeates _The Mozi_. He argues against elaborate funerals not by outright condemning all funerals, as he does music, but by prescribing what he calls moderation. Where the Confucians prescribed a three year mourning period Mozi prescribes something simpler. In some cases he mentions immediate return to work.

25-10

"The provisions adopted by the old wise rulers for funerals stipulated...After the dead were buried, the survivors did not weep and mourn long, but went back to their business of doing what they understand and benefitting mutually."

25-16

_Master Mozi has set the following rule for funerals:_ "... A burial mound is enough to cover the area. That's it. Once enough has been cried, people return to their activities, such as producing clothing and food or assisting victims. ..."

And other times he prescribes three months of mourning,

48-10

_Gong Mengzi spoke to master Mozi: "If you think the three year mourning duration is wrong, then your three months is also wrong." Master Mozi replied,_ "If you want to refute the three month mourning period with three years of grief, it is as if a naked person calls short skirts unreasonable."

At any rate what Mozi calls for is both variable and represented as moderate. Moderation is tied to some natural limiting factor. Since the number of relatives can be huge, Mozi is concerned that mourning periods for all of them would leave everyone in mourning all the time, so he probably means the three month periods for only the very nearest relatives, who are finite in number. Parents and perhaps spouses (if monogamous) would be the only ones mourned for three months, all others would get a nice funeral cry and back to work.

Similarly Mozi condemns music entirely (32-12), admits that a little doesn't count (7-3), or doesn't call for firing the band leader until there's a famine (5-2). Is this just inconsistency, or is there a reason for the variation? The reason is that moderation is variable. It is not a compromise between any two arbitrarily chosen "extremes". Moderation is variable, but not arbitrarily free. There is an actual guide to direct its variation. Moderation is set by purpose.

For instance, it is in light of moderation that Mozi establishes the sexual mores of Mohism. He recognizes the situation that people have the sex drives they have, and they serve at least one purpose. Reproduction is one of those purposes, but relief can be another. Mozi points out that even the sage kings engaged in sex recreationally.

6-7

"...These are, in fact, cosmic forces, in which the sages of ancient times could not change anything, because even the greatest sages of the distant antiquity had their sex life, which did not in any way affect their life-changing advice, so that the people had no reason to complain..."

But the final word on this is to set moderation as the byword. If sex becomes an end in itself then it is no longer serving a purpose. The drive is a reality nature has given us, something we should deal with, but it is not to become a luxurious indulgence or things will get out of balance.

6-8

"In these five things, the wise are frugal and moderate, the common people, however, are extravagant and immoderate. Thrift and moderation bring about prosperity, while debauchery and intemperance bring ruin, so you have to be moderate in these five things. When man and woman practice moderation, heaven and earth are in harmony. When wind and rain are moderate, the five crops thrive. And if one is moderate in clothing, the body feels comfortable."

Music is another example of this. When a state is wealthy and traditional, set in its ways, Mozi doesn't ask them to give up the musical components of their state ceremonies until the situation is dire.

5-2

"...If there is a tribulation or famine in the land, the prince loses three-fifths of his ration, the master of ceremonies does without his musical instruments. The students no longer go to school. In the audience at court, clothing is not replaced. Guests of the princes and envoys from neighboring countries receive breakfast and supper, but not plentiful. Extra team horses are abolished. Ways are not maintained. Livestock are not fed with grain. Servants and concubines wear no finery. All these are signs of extreme lack."

He just had other priorities. The music was serving enough of a state purpose that a music master was employed, so in that case a moderate amount was to keep the band until famine struck. When a nation is just being formed by its founding fathers, a bit of music serves some purpose in distracting from the ills and pains of primitive life for a time, and as the dynasties decay the need for analgesic increases until it becomes a problem itself because it distracts from thought.

7-3

_...Master Mozi replied_ : "According to the ordinances, the holy kings wanted to reduce what's too much. There is a purpose to food, and eating is because you know hunger, but wisdom is not used. Now the holy kings probably had music, but as little as possible; that's as if they had none."

In each phase of that progression, the moderate amount of music was different because a different purpose was being served. When a nation is so enamored by constant elaborate musical entertainments that they interfere with everyone's work, Mozi prescribes a cold turkey approach.

32-12

_...Therefore, master Mozi said:_ "Currently, if the scholars and nobles of the realm are to be earnestly promoting its welfare, and want to eliminate all its grievances, so they can do no different than forbid and prevent music wherever it is highly valued."

The music is serving no useful purpose, and a moderate amount of it is exactly none at all. If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. And I dare say, from an objective viewpoint, if music is your forbidden fruit, backsliding is survivable.

It would be easy to justify a change to the prohibition of music in modern times. After all, the author of paragraph 32-10 explains that the purpose of the ban is that music and work cannot be done at the same time.

32-10

...While scholars and nobles take pleasure in music, they cannot move a muscle, nor apply any of their mental faculties to administer their offices, or to levy taxes outside at gates, markets, mountains, forests, lakes and dikes to fill reservoirs and treasuries. As a result, reservoir and treasury are not filled. But while peasants are being amused by the music, they cannot leave early in the morning and come home late, and do not plow, sow, plant, or harvest crops in quantity, therefore production is insufficient...

None of this is true any longer, nobody has to go listen to live music languishing on a couch. You can have some light recorded music on in the background while driving the tractor or cleaning the kitchen. But we have modern analogs, extravagant productions that actually immobilize us during consumption. Movies and TV and video games and professional sports come to mind. But I think respecting this ancient prohibition is a good symbol of solidarity with Mozi.

For modern terms I think the standard should be that indulgence in music is a sign of weakness and unfitness for leadership, not a high crime. A Mohist can indulge in music and still be a Mohist. After all, how does Mozi know he likes it if he's never heard it? But resisting the siren call is a display of discipline. A Mohist who needs music is inferior to one who can do without it, and to the extent of that indulgence. The same goes for other vices, which really take away food from the mouths of starving children, in accordance with cost of resources and effort, unless they have good justification.

32-3

Therefore, the people brought forth their treasures and gave them up for it without grumbling and discontent. Why? Because that was enough benefit for the people. If the musical instruments benefited the people in a similar way, I would not mind.

But the benefit must do more than exceed the literal cost; it must also exceed the symbolic cost. Minimizing even this simple vice is a symbolic act of devotion. So many faiths use music for ritual. Let the lack of it be ours, and let it represent the other things we put off, at least until all the world can afford the same.

Jading

While they seem to benefit greatly at first, self indulgences become progressively more useless anyway, as you get jaded. So there are more reasons to be a cheap workaholic. Mozi says that frugality and diligence increase production and reduce consumption, thus benefiting the world, and leading to the blessings of Heaven. He also suggests that indulgence directly has negative spiritual effects. It's not just that Heaven will punish for the indirect harm it is doing to the world. Some kinds of indulgence are actually considered witchcraft, presumably because they attract bad spirits.

32-11

How do we know that this is the case? In a book of the former rulers, the book of Tang, it is said: "If there is constant dancing in the palaces, it is considered ceremonial witchcraft...God does not agree with it, and sends down a lot of mischief, so the families are smashed." The reason why the nine provinces are destroyed is only that they have indulged too much in abundance and music.

And on top of that it doesn't even work. You stop enjoying it anyway. You need more and more until it becomes harmful and financially ruinous.

47-14

_Master Mozi spoke to Gong Liang Huanzi:_ "Wei is a small state located between Qi and Jin, like the home of a poor family between the houses of the rich. A poor family, imitating the luxury of rich houses in clothing and food, is sure to die down soon. The family of Baron Tchien owns several hundred beautifully decorated carriages, several hundred horses fed on beans and millet, and several hundred women, all dressed in embroidered silk robes. I would take the money for the support of the floats and horses and the stuff for the embroidered silk dresses, and would think at least a thousand soldiers could be hired. In the case of distress, I would situate a hundred men in front, and I would make several hundred the rear guard. Wouldn't that be safer than if several hundred women are used in the front and rear? It seems to me that keeping soldiers is more secure."

It's possible to justify some indulgences as productive. After a long hard day, a little music might be relaxing. The relaxation might help you work better the next day. If he were not so polite, Mozi would answer that if you need music to relax, you may not have worked hard enough.

There is always a better and a worse. Always make the better choice, no matter how attached you are to the worse one. It's that simple. Always make the better choice, even if you can afford to make the worse choice. There are reasons to make the worse choice: ignorance, thoughtlessness, or willfulness. Sure, plowing all day may be boring, so you want to listen to something in the cab of the farm equipment. You traditionally listen to country and western music up there because you like it. Why not switch and listen to news, or language tapes, or even a recorded novel. Is there ever a situation when music is the best choice? Presumably there may be such situations, but if _Triple Argument_ is the proper filter for _Condemnation of Music_ (as I think it is), they would be vanishingly rare.

In modern times, a trucker or a farmer might safely indulge in some recorded music while driving a tractor all day. Nobody has to stop working to play the instruments live. The recording can be endlessly replicated. Listening is hands free. But such costs are not the only factor. A moderate amount might be hard to estimate. An ambitious trucker or farmer (aren't we all supposed to be ambitious?) would be listening to something more edifying more often, reserving the music for times when a particular pick up is needed. But the first song will do as much good as the second and third, and each of those will do as much good as the next dozen put together. Carrying on with our music example (there are many others, but music is so seemingly harmless and innocent it serves perfectly) some aficionados listen to fantastic music constantly. They really lose most of the enjoyment from it unless the piece is new or really outstanding. But if music is taken away they feel deprived. On the other hand, someone who seldom listens to music might accidentally hear some in passing and it's almost a religious experience. That's how much you really need.

Music is a crude, direct, emotion hack, nothing more sophisticated. We share it with the primitive and even the mindless. While such hacks have a role, we overestimate the proper size of that role. Giving it up, or trying to, is actually good for you. You get in touch with your actual, undistorted feelings, and must develop alternate means of self motivation. But in the modern situation there is no need to ban it. Indulgence in music, like other forms of pleasure, is merely evidence of lesser merit, lesser worthiness. We can urge people to better themselves by minimizing it.

With most indulgences, the benefit declines with quantity as the costs increase. The benefit depends on purpose, so the curve may change, but however it is shaped, beyond the point where costs exceed benefits the indulgence has negative value. And Mozi tends to think we should err on the side of caution because we tend to delude ourselves about how much we need our addictions. Even harmless indulgence trains the habit of indulgence, it distorts values. Else why would he urge such simplicity of lifestyle even when the costs are inconsequential?

6-4

"...Thus, the people become lush and exuberant and difficult to govern and the prince lavish and extravagant and difficult to counsel. When a lavish and extravagant prince wants to guide a people who tend to luxury and debauchery, riots in the realm are inevitable..."

It makes sense that you would want to learn to enjoy the things you should do anyway. That's a twofer. But people don't do it, for a host of reasons. They believe their useless obsession is an exception. They believe they can't change. They don't know how. All these are among the reasons why we need each other. Proper personal behavior can be greatly aided by interpersonal behavior.

### Chapter 4: Interpersonal Behavior

10-4

"...The way is to acquire excellence. But what is the way to excellence? Those who have power must harness it to help their fellow human beings, those who possess wealth must be won over to devoting it to their fellow human beings, and those who possess wisdom must teach and exhort their fellow human beings to do such things. Then the starving will have enough to eat, the freezing will have clothes and the riots will be pacified. So, if the starving people are fed, the freezing are clothed, and rioters rest, then a peaceful flourishing of all lives is guaranteed."

Purpose Treatment

Interpersonal behavior is based on treating all in accord with the purpose (for Heaven) that they are fit for. Act so as to help make people most useful to society.

10-6

"... Now if the kings, princes, and nobles really want to practice goodness and righteousness, to seek scholars, to walk the path of the wise rulers, and to benefit the families and the people, so that harmony prevails in the kingdom, the people thrive, those near and far live in peace, the sun and the moon give their splendor, ships and carriages come properly, and so that rain and dew moisten the soil for the grain to grow, then our method of preferring the capable must be heeded, because the services of the proficient are beneficial to Heaven, the spirits and humanity and because it is the best basis for state administration."

Mozi's plan for serving the will of Heaven was for everyone to treat others justly, which would produce a meritocracy. Everyone would internalize an ethic of treating others justly, so morally and intellectually superior people would rise to power, while morally and intellectually inferior people would fall from power. But all social movement is not vertical. Worthiness for authority is just a subset of worthiness for roles generally. You don't ask an auto mechanic to repair a computer, and you don't ask a computer technician to repair an automobile. Such task matching is unrelated to levels of authority. Helping people attain the correct level of authority is just one aspect of treating them in accordance to the purpose they are fit for. Another is putting them in the right line of work.

46-3

_Zhi Tu Yu and Xian Zi Shuo asked master Mozi what is the main thing about being righteous. Master Mozi answered:_ "It is like building a wall: those who can build should build; those who can fill up with earth must fill up with earth, and those who can lift do that. Thus the wall comes to stand. Doing the right thing is the same. Whoever can talk and discuss, talks and debates, whoever can explain books, explains books, and whoever can take action, takes action. Thus, the right will be fulfilled."

Mozi goes beyond merely advocating good hiring practices, selecting the best from among the choices available, but advocates actually cultivating a better supply. He's pointing out what seems like common sense, which is that the people will be shaped by incentive systems. If you want to have a certain kind of people, all you have to do is set up incentive systems so that it's clear to all that people of a certain kind get rewarded.

10-1

"...Imagine that there is a prince who wants to govern his country well and declares, _'All scholars in my state, who understand archery and carriage driving, I will reward and honor, and all scholars who do not practice archery and chariot driving, I will punish and put down.'_ Let's ask ourselves, which scholars in that country will rejoice and which will be dismayed? I believe that those who are good archers and charioteers will certainly rejoice, but the others who lack those skills are going to be afraid. Alternatively, imagine a prince who declares to the government of his country, _"All faithful and honest scholars of my kingdom, I will reward and honor, the dishonest and faithless, on the other hand, I will remove from office and humiliate."_ If we ask which of the scholars of that country will greet this standard with pleasure and which will be horrified, I believe the faithful and honest scholars will rejoice, and those who know themselves to be faithless and dishonest will be afraid..."

By emphasizing the value of cultivating scholars, Mozi's statement can also be used as a meta-fact, which is that pointing out meta-facts is a useful skill just like chariot driving. Good scholars are useful for picking useful people and for helping make more useful people and for generating good advice like this good advice about good advice. Just because _The Mozi_ presents simply doesn't mean we have to confine ourselves to that initial simplicity.

Cultivation, rather than mere foraging, requires large picture thinking and long term planning. Fortunately, a hiring process itself can be adequate to provide some evolutional pressure even if rewards for self improvement do not include anything more systematic than good jobs. But actual programs with no other practical purpose than incentivizing self improvement can have value. Examples include institutional awards like the Nobel and the Pulitzer, (or Employee of the Week or a Gold Star for best crayon drawing). These are incentives aimed at no immediate need to fill a slot in the organizational tree. Mere empty pats on the back like these can cultivate excellence more generally with great long term results. That's because normal people are primed, happy to receive any kind of clue about what to do here in the world. People know the system is necessary; they are all ears, so signal.

16-14

"...To change the habits of a people, a generation suffices, because of striving to satisfy the rulers. Shortage of food, fuel and wearing of sackcloth falls to a people in disorder, and so they understand and satisfy the rulers. Before a generation passes, the people are guided into new pathways. Why? It is because they are seeking to adjust to the top. If everyone now loved and promoted each other, they would not only have untold benefits, but it would also be very easy. In doing so, we do not think about why the ruler wants it..."

Evaluating Worthiness

For the most part, meritocracy means treating people in accordance with their observed (rather than inferred) status worthiness, which is a composite of virtue and competence.

8-2

"...if in a state there are many efficient and good officials, then the administration of the realm and the families prospers; if on the other hand their number is only small, the administration degenerates. Therefore it is in the interest of the great ones to increase the number of those who are worthy."

By virtue of self similarity (a state is like a family) everyone should be just as judgmental as a king.

10-2

"...If today the kings, princes and great lords have a piece of livestock, such as a cow or a sheep, and cannot slaughter it themselves, they look for a good butcher, and if they have a piece of fabric that they cannot cut, they look for a good tailor. In these cases, the kings, princes and lords probably consider their blood relatives and people who are without their merit and noble or elegant, but they know very well that they do not understand these things and therefore do not use them for such tasks. Why? Because they fear they could ruin those objects. In this case, the kings, princes and lords understand the principle of preferring the proficient and will only use the capable. If the kings, princes and great lords have a sick horse that they cannot cure themselves, they seek a good veterinarian, and if they have a brittle bow which they cannot stretch, they seek a good bowyer..."

After all, in the utopian Moral State at least, we take our principles from on high.

12-5

...If the sovereign holds something to be right, you must do the same, and what he considers to be wrong, you must also see it that way. If you are not practiced in talking, you can take the excellent speeches of the prince as your pattern, and if you are not able to accomplish good things, then learn from the lord of the land how to do good deeds. The lord of the land is the most distinguished man of his country, and how can one say that the country is poorly managed, provided that all its inhabitants see their role model in the prince?...

And we evaluate our superiors (carefully) as well as our subordinates.

48-1

_"..._ When a great person inflicts great injustice on the state or the family, and someone appears who reproaches him, he is called irreverent. If, on the other hand, he raises ideas by means of the great man's entourage, it is called giving advice. That is why the noble in such a case is uncertain. If the great one is leading the government in such a way that the state will get into trouble just as surely as a machine is set in motion by shock, then a noble must at all costs remonstrate against it. That is only a blessing to the superior..."

If we can judge the merit of all the people around us, then presumably we can also judge whole societies.

25-15

"...West of Qin was the Itchu Empire. When a relative died there, they piled wood and sticks together and burned the corpse. When the smoke went up, it was said that he was ascending far away. In this way one could become a reverent son. Here, the rulers saw to a government policy and the people had a similar custom, which they practiced consistently, and did not want to renounce. But was it really benevolence and justice? One calls this contentment in old habits, an equating of custom with morality..."

This would include one's own.

25-15

...If we look at behavior in those three empires, then we must describe them as unfeeling, but that of the nobles of China as exaggerated. One goes way too far, the other doesn't go far enough...

That is logical because we similarly judge ourselves.

2-1

...The noble also examines the obvious and for him this is self cultivation. If his personality is uncultivated, he will perish, therefore he turns inward to himself. He is dissatisfied with himself, examining himself and improving himself...

Self similarity would extend that self criticism also to a larger scale. So, Mohist meritocracy requires that everyone personally judge the worthiness of all people and institutions. But Mozi also seems to call for supporting the judgments of the existing social structure.

26-3

"Furthermore, justice is the basis of government. The government does not go from bottom to top, but from top to bottom. That is why the ordinary people, with all that depends on their jobs, must not be independently autonomous in the government, for they are governed by the officials. For their part, when they apply their skills, officials should not be allowed to rule independently, because the ministers and high dignitaries are superior to them. Even the ministers and high dignitaries, when they fulfill their profession with all diligence, do not lead the government just as they see fit, because they are led by the three imperial ministers and the feudal princes. The three imperial ministers and the feudal princes, in managing the administration, don't have unlimited authority, for the son of Heaven is above them. Even the son of Heaven cannot rule freely, for he is governed by Heaven itself..."

This could theoretically lead to contradiction. In evaluating people, who do you believe: yourself or the hierarchy? Why is the boss the boss? It is because of status in a "society". And why is any particular society the one that counts? It is because of your judgment of that society as worthy.

We should take part in organized human life. That's the best way to practice universal love. Be a loyal citizen, a good employee, a faithful worshipper. Participation in organization allows our actions to actually have a global impact. Organizations will differ in the efficiency with which they convey our impacts globally, and in how they synergize with other organizations. We should evaluate organizations for worthiness for their intended purpose (on the basis of virtue and efficiency), but once we accept the authority of an organization we should give its authority delegations the benefit of the doubt until we decide to reject the authority of the organization as a whole.

However, there's a middle ground, when we can suspect a superior of malfeasance to the organization without rejecting the organization itself. Presumably the otherwise mostly respected organization has made an error. That's why there are procedures of proper organizational behavior. If you suspect a superior of malfeasance, either your judgment is flawed, in which case taking it to a higher and wiser superior will clarify things for you, or else your closer superior has been erroneously rated too highly by the organization and it is your duty to report it. In theory you could come to also suspect the higher superior and continue the process, as outlined elsewhere. Love it or leave it. But you can critique.

The point is that yes, you receive values from organizations you participate in, but you also evaluate the very people conveying those values to you. Also, the evaluation process is more than estimating worthiness for authority. That is really a subset of a more comprehensive kind of evaluation. We really should treat people according to what they are fit to do.

Justice By All

Help promote the worthy, demote the unworthy, and assign people to jobs they are most qualified for.

Analogy is one of the main tools of reasoning used by Mozi. The essence of analogy is that things are comparable, and one major form of comparison is to say that something small and familiar is analogous to something larger.

 .png)

So Mohism includes the concept of self similarity, a fractal like scalability in many things. Various forms of this phrasing are repeated over and over:

26-1

_Master Mozi said:_ "Most scholars and nobles in the realm these days understand small things, but not big... And this is not only true in families, for the same applies to nations..."

And an assumption of self similarity is repeatedly used in Mozi's arguments.

17-2

Killing a person is considered unfair and there is a death penalty on it. If we carry on with this recital, the killing of ten people is ten times injustice and should be punished with 10 death sentences, and the killing of one hundred people is a hundred injustices and deserves a hundred death sentences. The nobles of the realm understand this very well and call it injustice. But if we now come to the large scale injustice, namely the attacking of a state, they do not condemn this anymore; on the contrary they boast and call it righteous.

25-1

_Master Mozi said_ : "If we compare the concern of a virtuous steward of the kingdom with the care of a reverent son for his parents, there is no difference between them..."

Given this standard, that what applies at small scale usually also applies at large scale, isn't it logical that the reverse would also be true? That what applies at large scale can be applied at small scale? That Mozi's advice for rulers can be applied by low level supervisors? That Mozi's meritocratic ideals can be applied not just by kings and high government officials but by ordinary people in every walk of life? Shouldn't everyone be evaluating the worthiness of everyone else for everything all the time? This takes its simplest form in moral judgment.

28-7

"From what do we see that Heaven desires accord among the people? It is from the fact that the virtuous always reward the good and punish the wicked...".

But more than that, just as a ruler evaluates various candidates for promotion to ministerial posts, so a home maker should evaluate the worthiness of various shops-keepers for continued patronage, every worker should evaluate the employer, and every citizen should evaluate the government.

2-3

...If one cannot trust the deeds of a man, he atones with his reputation. The reputation does not form without reason, and fame does not arise by itself. The call follows outstanding achievements. Name and glory must not be false and unreal, that is why one self-examines.

In a school, every teacher should evaluate every student and yes, the students should exchange reviews of the various teachers. In every human interaction, where you might help or hurt someone's success, you should make decisions based on your judgment of that person's worthiness.

9-8

In this the ancient wise kings were very skilful in favoring the proficient and in the use of the capable. They took Heaven as a model. This method makes no distinction between rich and poor, highborn and low, near and distant, relatives and strangers, but it raises and favors the fittest and it pushes down the incompetent and pushes them aside...

If the sage kings behaved this way, then we should all behave this way.

47-4

_Master Mozi said_ : "All the words and deeds that benefit Heaven and the spirits and the people, you must bring to execution, and all the words and deeds that harm Heaven and spirits and the people you must refrain from. The holy kings, Yao, Shun, Yu, Tang, Wen, and Wu accomplished all the words and deeds which were profitable to the three dynasties, and the criminal kings Jie, Zhou, You, and Li, refrained from all the words and deeds which were profitable to the three dynasties."

But this merciless meritocracy cuts both ways. It follows that if we are to be as meritocratic as the sage kings or our own social superiors, then we should also be just as objective and open minded as they. Just as a ruler should consider the entire qualified population for ministerial posts, rather than just well connected candidates, each of us should not place undue weight on the current status and rank of others, assigned from above, but should form our own internal opinions. If the king of the neighboring country is better than your own king, for example, you can hold that monarch in higher esteem and do your best to promote him to the extent of your powers.

35-6

"...The most weak and degenerate, whose limbs did not possess sufficient tension, were left behind. And they said, _'If the rule of King Wen could only come to us! We would then have the same advantages as Wen's subjects.'_ Therefore Heaven and the spirits made him rich, the princes took his side, the people were fond of him, and the most excellent scholars fell in with him..."

Here we have a contradiction. Should you promote the standard set by superiors all the way up the chain, or should you form your own opinion? The answer is yes. Except in the direst circumstances, you should obey orders, as it were, in public, but privately (if possible) you should remonstrate with superiors you have a problem with, and if you still have a problem then you should go over their heads (again in private if possible).

So Mohists practice justness, enacting meritocracy on everyone around them. But the Mohist is not just hypocritical and judgmental. Every Mohist is a leader, so the Mohist is always harder on herself than on others, leading by example.

1-3

The noble man always takes on the heaviest duties and makes life easy for others, while most people make life easy for themselves and difficult for others.

Benevolence and righteousness are the main personal qualities a Mohist seeks to cultivate in self and others. Diligence and frugality are behavioral qualities a Mohist encourages everyone to try and adhere to. Mohists make it their business not only to cultivate these qualities and behaviors in themselves but in others

48-2

"...Those who aspire to the good are few. If you don't talk to people about it, they don't know anything about it... If justice and benevolence are well distributed...the quality of the enlightenment of the people is the greater..."

When we treat people according to their display of such meritorious characteristics, we train them to be better. And that is how we can _practice_ meritocracy on an individual basis. Meritocracy is a goal that guides the Mohist interpersonally. More precisely, meritocracy is a designation of the kind of social structure produced by meritocracy promoting behavior, so when an individual practices such behavior it could perhaps be called "justness." Once everyone begins practicing justice, meritocracy will emerge.

8-6

...Even the high-ranking officials, who were endowed with rich benefices, were put in a respectful fright and did their best, and peasants and craftsmen competed with each other and set their minds to the highest goals...

Once you have meritocracy, the system begins to change. If stability is maintained, so that the improving process continues, the Moral State will emerge. In the Moral State, social superiors really are worthy of loyal support. Mozi's ethic of loyal hierarchical behavior then presumably produces social order, which is good for society. Why should any _individual_ practice such an ethic? Leaders are motivated to persuade others to practice it because they know it will make them more powerful, and it will make the organization run smoothly. There will be social order which will directly benefit the leader personally. But how does the leader persuade others to practice proper organizational behavior? The leader must implement an incentive system, and that's where meritocracy comes in. And meritocracy does more than maintain social order, it's also essential to social thriving. It assigns people to appropriate roles in which they can then specialize and gain excellence to the extent that they are diligent.

Specialization

As a rule, people should specialize, focusing on skills related to one kind of task until sufficient competence is developed to proceed to other pursuits.

Status worthiness, worthiness of rank or standing in a community, is not the only kind of worthiness. Heaven cares about all, so all have worth in some sense. Heaven's care is for the health of whole communities first (ecosystems, civilizations) then the _health_ of parts or individuals, and lastly the freedom of individuals from suffering. All are worthy of benefiting from the love of Heaven in those senses, and thus benevolence involves caring about all such things just as Heaven does.

But in furtherance of Heaven's ends, there is consequential worthiness for various purposes. For one, worthiness can be in terms of participation in a community. One type of such worthiness is the status worthiness I've mentioned, which requires ethical proclivities as well as functional abilities. Other kinds of worthiness include fitness for a particular job or career. A dangerous criminal might be only worthy of imprisonment or execution. An animal might be most worthy of becoming meat, depending on situation.

Any entity that understands has the potential to become a person. Any person theoretically has the potential to become a Mohist. Any Mohist has the potential to become a sage. Thus an animal might be worthy to become a pet. A child might be worthy of education. And a Mohist might be worthy of mentoring toward sagacity. However, people, and other living entities, often have inbuilt limitations. Even a sage cannot love as universally as Heaven. Every Mohist does not have the talent to become a sage. Every person does not have the temperament to become a Mohist. Every animal cannot become a person. But even limited beings have value and worthiness as parts of a community, from the way they contribute to it. As such, all unnecessary suffering is against the will of Heaven. And the worthy are dedicated to eliminating the necessity of suffering-- but not as a priority. Our priority should always be producing good consequences, and we do that by working efficiently. And working efficiently requires focus and specialization.

48-21

_Some students shared with master Mozi that they would like to learn archery. Master Mozi gave this answer:_ "This cannot be done. A sage estimates how far his power reaches and only then does he act. A soldier is not in a position to both fight and also assist anyone. You are not soldiers, so how could you complete your studies and at the same time master archery?"

Mozi chides some of his students for wanting to practice archery. The students are losing focus, wasting time on something that doesn't contribute to their purpose. It's not part of their major, which is apparently public administration. The implication is that specialization leads to relevant competence. If one of those students graduated and became and state official, tasked with supervising a force of archers, then he might need to learn archery so he could have a better feel for the job. But even then his purpose in studying archery is to gain an understanding of the practice of archery from the perspective of an official, not from the perspective of an archer. He doesn't need to become the best archer in the world, he just needs to do it enough to know that the archers may need forearm guards. Spending time at school trying to develop great proficiency in archery, just on speculation of possibly being assigned to tasks involving archers someday would have been wasteful. It is a skill, but it is not the relevant skill, like a puzzle piece in the box that has no place in the completed puzzle, or a part provided for assembling a machine that plays no role in the functioning of the machine. So we need to specialize, but in addition to organizing with others, we need to be able to build competence to adapt when our specialization doesn't apply. Wisdom makes competence acquisition more efficient. Moral development synergizes with wisdom, and is always applicable.

Benevolence and Righteousness

Virtue is comprised of benevolence (proper personal and interpersonal behavior) and righteousness (proper organizational and political behavior). Or that's how Mozi uses them. The actual words are "ren)" and "yi)". Maybe I'm not getting what those words mean in Chinese, or meant in ancient China. But Mozi was an innovator, and to assume you don't understand him because you don't take the words he used in a standard manner is like saying you don't get Maxwell because you don't interpret his use of the word "field" in the most common meaning of the day.

What Mozi calls "righteousness" is like "honor". It's supporting the assumed social contract by compliance and by enforcement. It is to be remembered, however, that Mozi redefines the social contract when he makes his prescriptions for ideal social behavior. Mozi redefines the social contract by indicting his contemporary society compared to superior (idealized) historical high points. What Mozi calls "benevolence" is simply good will, wanting to be of benefit. Mei translates it as "magnanimity," presumably in an effort to give it a frisson of condescension. Magnanimity is shaking your opponent's hand after you beat them in a tennis match, or feeding prisoners of war after you win a battle. I think Mozi means ren to _include_ that meaning, but it is much broader. Benevolence is also good will toward superiors, and toward spirits and even Heaven. It is the desire to create thriving, whereas righteousness is the habit of keeping the peace by working with expectations as they are, _wherever they_ _are_ _working_.

26-2

"But what does Heaven want and what does it hate? Heaven desires justice and hates wrongs. Therefore, when I lead the people to act righteously, I do what Heaven desires..."

Righteousness is compliance with received moral standards. A yi is both a moral principle and the behavior of following that moral principle. The same word stands for an ethic, ethics, and ethicality. Further, it is ethos specific. One thing is consistent, and that is that all forms of yi flow down from superior to subordinate. Presumably Heaven is an inexhaustible source of yi and everyone else can only receive and transmit it.

27-1

"...This proves to me that justice cannot come from simple and ordinary people, but from the noble and wise. That said, we must ask who is truly noble, and who is wise? Heaven is uniquely noble. And Heaven is wise. Thus, justice in reality has its origin in Heaven."

Moral guidance starts with Heaven and flows down through the ranks to each individual. That which is in conformity with Heaven is "just" in the sense that a paragraph can be "justified" to the right margin. On the way down from Heaven, yi is customized, so that we each have yi that are different in detail, but which agree with all our superiors in broad outline. If we change our personal yi, or our lateral location in the hierarchy then we risk error. We risk our behavior conflicting with our place. So righteousness (along with the necessity to let meritocracy operate long enough to produce the Moral State) is a reason to stay in our current social setting, resisting sudden changes in the status quo unless there's some reason to change, some way in which staying would be worse than moving, such as if the current situation somewhere were in unsalvageable decay. While part of a society, righteousness is following and promulgating legitimate standards. Righteousness is also why we practice meritocracy, enacting justice so that the peace is preserved and society continues to function.

8-4

"...As soon as this message reached the officials in the distant areas and outer zones, and the nobles in the palace, the people in the capital and the entire population within the four borders had been informed of it, a relaxed emulation of righteousness passed between all. What was the reason? Superiors had only one thing in mind when using the subjects, and they pursued only one purpose in serving superiors..."

Righteousness can even be innovative, improving the current situation, building on it so it is even more effective and stable.

26-2

"...Those possessing justice remain alive on earth, the unjust get what they have coming, the righteous become rich, the unjust become poor; the righteous live in harmonious relationships, the unjust in turmoil and unrest..."

And righteousness also has beneficial effects, overlapping with benevolence.

16-2

_...Master Mozi spoke so as to put forth accord instead of schism. But how can accord occur instead of schism? It is to be retorted:_ "...let's go back to the source and explore where all those benefits flow from. Where do they come from? Is it from the hatred and harm of others? This question is decisively negated and it must be conceded that they seem to grow from the love and encouragement of fellow human beings. Is love and promotion in the world schism or accord? It is certainly accord. So the greatest benefit to the realm is indeed the application of accord." _Accordingly, master Mozi said that accord is righteous..._

Benevolent acts can be done independently of social structures, but are especially effective in synergy with them. Such benevolent righteousness is when the subordinate does a good job from love of the company or admiration for the boss. It is when the boss takes special care of the employees and tries to be sensitive to their needs.

13-11

_Therefore, master Mozi says:_ "To obtain consent from the people, one must love them and must not hate them. If it cannot be moved and you say it has to be, then you hate it. If one manages them with love, by awakening their trust, offering wealth and awards and backing it up with penalties, then it will be impossible to lose their cooperation, even if one intends to refuse it."

While benevolence and righteousness can exist independently, and are thus separate concepts, benevolence tends to have system supporting results and systems readily lend themselves to benevolent outcomes. The two really synergize.

A leader can achieve organizational goals, such as order and growth, by wise hiring and promotion practices. This seems obvious to us now, but probably because Mozi introduced the concept in ancient China and it spread to the rest of the world, or because people like Mozi in other cultures introduced it at some point. Prior to this, those in power typically followed human instinct, favoring people on the basis of likeability or kinship rather than deeper qualities.

10-5

"However, today's kings, princes and lords pile up riches and honors upon their blood relatives, cater to the undeservedly rich, and enrich undeserving people of merely elegant expression..."

Those who actually gain power do so precisely by hiring competent and trustworthy subordinates. Worthiness (for authority) requires skill and technical competence in the relevant field, but also moral virtue, which wraps up a number of contributing concepts like loyalty and benevolence. The point is that power is _earned_ by hiring people who can and will do the job, and it is _expended_ by hiring people on the basis of other qualities. And Mozi's attitude is to never indulge just because you can afford to, because that's how you come to not be able to afford anything. (48-8) Even more to the point, aristocratic families are set up to designate the next title holder (baron or king or whatever) on the basis of familial kinship to the former title holder (first born son, under primogeniture). Title holders so selected will be less likely to in turn hire others for the right reasons, so the problem compounds itself until somebody like Mozi comes in and explains basics.

I'll point out here that selecting a leader based on ability to take power by force, as in a rebellion or usurpation, is hardly selection on the basis of worthiness as Mozi defines it.

12-10

"...If the superiors are only appointed to exercise the desires of the people and serve as leaders of the people, they will say, _'If one is worthy of the reward, we shall reward him.'..."_

Mozi is talking about the qualities necessary for sustaining a regime in the long term, and he makes the point that good moral character is important, not just personal loyalty but a disposition to kindness and fairness. Mozi is saying that God made the world such that there are practical reasons to be good, but only if people can be made to see the picture on a large enough scale to discern the trend. As a bonus, learning to see the practical value of righteousness and benevolence can in turn lead into a kind of scientific thinking, because Mozi proves his points by using historical examples as evidence.

Hierarchies of Our Lives

Based on our judgment of worthiness (and making sure to think globally and act locally) we select hierarchies to support and practice correct organizational behavior within those hierarchies. The social part of the Mohist way of life involves participation in a hierarchical social structure. For Mozi, such a structure is a solution to many problems. In his world, it was a given that people would be enmeshed in hierarchical structures. The popular conception of the entire world was that it was one huge hierarchy with the Chinese emperor at the pinnacle. This structure was a result of feudalism. In the past, China had been rapidly "conquered" by legendary figures wielding overwhelming new technologies. The magnitude and rapidity of this conquest presented a nightmarish management problem. So authority was farmed out to local suzerains. The suzerains copied this pattern, farming out authority to even lower subordinates. Such a top down origin story could occur in China because it was isolated from other civilizations, yet such fertile ground for civilization, with so few impediments to long distance travel. It was ripe for rapid transformation from a patchwork of squabbling villages into an empire overnight. A few remarkable people introduced new technologies and took over everything very quickly. But then they had to rule.

11-2

"...Now that the son of heaven and the three ministers were employed, it was not yet possible, due to the great extent of the empire, to know accurately and in detail the various opinions on right and wrong, good and evil that were held to in the distant states and in different areas. As a result, thousands of states were established and princes and regents appointed over them. When princes and regents were appointed and their personal strength proved insufficient, the most cunning were chosen from within the state and made senior officials and elders. Once officials and elders were established, the son of Heaven made his principles of government known to the population of the realm..."

A more usual pattern is that small bands gather into larger clusters, which form leagues, then tribes, then nations. Mozi also relates the bottom up origin story for civilization, similar to the way The Bible has more than one origin story for Adam and Eve.

11-3

"The community elder was the most virtuous man of the community. He gave the community his government principles and said: _'If you are good or not good, it is reported to the district leader...'..._ The district head merely sums up the views of the district into unity, so the district is well organized. The district head was the most virtuous man of the district. The latter announced his administrative maxims to the district residents by declaring: _'If you have anything good or bad, you must inform the ruler. What the prince thinks is right, must be recognized by all ...'..._ "

The point is that people in ancient China were already in social structures. For most people, already having a place in society could just be assumed and Mozi could then proceed to talk about how to behave within those structures without having to worry too much about how they got there.

There had never before been a need to think about _how_ people become part of any organization. But Mozi's time was one of great upheaval. Nations were being conquered, refugees were fleeing and finding new places in the world. Practitioners of trades were banding together into guilds, armies were being assembled, sects of worshippers and schools of philosophers were being founded. New bureaucracies were being staffed. People found themselves with more than the feudal hierarchy to think about. But Mozi only talks about behavior in the feudal hierarchy, harkening back to the good old days when it was simple. He does this for several reasons, but mainly it was just a simpler example to use. He assumed we would be able to use analogy and extend it to a more complex arrangement. But at the same time, it was important that everything be interlinked, all organizations part of one network, so that there could be a system of appeals ultimately terminating in Heaven.

26-3

"...The government of the son of Heaven extends to the three ministers, the princes, officials and citizens. This is already well known to the scholars and nobles of the realm, but that Heaven exerts its lordship over the son of Heaven is something people have not understood properly..."

With this simple hierarchy, I don't think Mozi is proposing that all other hierarchies be abolished. I think he wants them to be considered specialized branches and extensions of the overall system.

China had a four professions system. Farmers were firmly involved in the old feudal model. They had landlords who received shares of the crop in tribute. Craft workers in ancient China mostly worked for noble patrons, since only nobles could afford their wares, but were also in professional guilds. Merchants were similarly dependent on the feudal structure, though less so since they were more mobile, and likely organized into commercial enterprises. Women, excluded from the professions, were connected to the feudal order through their husbands but probably had informal social structures of their own. Soldiers, beneath the four professions, were definitely organized into hierarchical organizations beholden to the nobles and commanded by appointed officers. Everybody was tied to the system by economic and legal dependency, but the ruling scholar/gentry class, on the other hand, only had family structures to tie them to the feudal order. They were gentry largely because they were minor relations of nobles. But Mozi saw the problem with family ties being a source of social position.

Families normally don't operate on merit; they operate on need or privilege. Foolish children make unreasonable demands, catered to by soft headed parents. Regressive dotard patriarchs rule unfairly and inflexibly. But the people were committed to the traditional and instinctive system, or else to the new systematization of it by Confucius (nothing sells better than the familiar with an exotic patina). One possible solution would have been the same as Mozi's solution to bad government: apply good organizational principles on the immediate scale and the whole system will straighten itself out. If every family becomes a little hierarchy just like the state government, in which subordinates owe loyal service, and superiors owe noblesse oblige, then families, might become functional chains of command.

In that case families could have a place in the world through the defined place of the family head within the system. The problem is that such a plan would impinge on meritocratic principles of vertical mobility by involuntarily binding people together into fixed roles. Elder brothers, for example, don't get demoted for incompetence or lack of virtue. So families were a problem, but they were a popular and traditional problem, so in his definition of filial duty, Mozi emphasized the duty to support parents materially.

25-1

_"..._ In what way does a good son now care for his parents? When his parents are poor, he strives to make them rich; when there are few inhabitants, to multiply them; and when the crowds are in turmoil to calm them down..."

But he mostly abrogated the duty to defer to them.

4-2

"But what should they use as a model for their government? If, for instance, they all take their parents as models, there are many in the world, but only very few among them are virtuous, so if they all took their parents as models, they would raise the lack of virtue to the norm, and the lack of virtue must not serve as a standard..."

After all, if a farmer's son becomes a government minister, do we want the old farmer to have the same kind of authority over the successful young man as does the prince he serves?

The unearned rewards prevailing in family and clan structures were leading to a disconnection between behavior and consequences. In contrast, Mozi wanted to organize the scholar gentry as a meritocratic bureaucracy of government officials, and give them an ethic of responsibility and service. For him, the path to being a moral person is a simple two step process. First, join some individually appropriate part of the interlinked world hierarchy. Then, behave appropriately within that organization.

Now conditions have changed since Mozi's time, and most people live far from China anyway. Like the knight-errant scholars of Mozi's world we aren't stuck in hierarchies we never chose. We have the ability to pick and choose what organizations we become a part of, what jobs we take, what roles we serve in, what lords or institutions we swear loyalty to. But we don't have the option of independence from the system of the world.

We can't choose to secede from the world, but we can choose where to be a part of it. We may be able to choose where to work, what clubs, religious organizations, or political parties to join. We may be able to move where we want, to become citizens of communities of our own choice. When we make these choices we should keep meritocracy in mind. We should judge the organizations we consider joining, just as they will judge us. You are going to benefit the organization with your efforts. What kind of organization deserves to be benefitted? What kind of organization can you synergize best with to do the most good for the world?

Status Quo

In practice, it is usually most efficient to accept the hierarchies one finds oneself in unless there is some good reason to change. Wherever you are, make that work. This is not the smart thing to tell my audience. I want to persuade people to become Mohists. Those who are of a mind to commit to some alien "new" ideology don't want to be told this sort of thing. They are in the mood to strike out for new territory. But I have to tell you. You can add Mohism to your life, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Try to stick with your life as it is and make it work.

You don't start with a blank slate. You are a citizen of a country and local community, a member of a family, and often enough in life you are hopefully employed by someone or studying somewhere. You are most adapted to your original situation, thus you are best able to serve it or serve through it. There are costs and inefficiencies in switching. If the additional benefit (to the world) of your changing hierarchies is greater than the cost, then do it. If not, then don't. And usually the status quo is not that much worse than any of the alternatives.

We know this principle to be true because when Mozi assigned his disciples to positions throughout ancient China, he expected them to explain themselves if they quit the job.

47-15

Master Mozi had referred a man to a position in Wei. He went there, but quickly returned. Master Mozi asked him about the reason for his return...

We know this because Mozi seems to have stayed a resident of the state of Lu all his life, though he traveled widely and took jobs out of town. He committed to one career path, which admittedly morphed over time, but he found his niche and developed it. We know this because Mozi spoke of people as belonging to (and rising in) various professions, jobs they had skill in, rather than simply jumping from job to job haphazardly. We know this because Mozi advised assigning people jobs they were comfortable with and skilled at.

68-2

...In the defense of the city, people are related to their abilities, especially skilled craftsmen and laborers; butchers and cooks are employed in the kitchens...

We know this because Mozi expected people to fulfill filial duties to the same family throughout their lives.

35-8

"In these circumstances, the people will not be reverent in their families and kind to their relatives, nor deferential and respectful of elder community comrades outside the house. At home, they will not take care of any regulations or concern themselves with how the rules are recognized, either within the family or in dealings with outsiders..."

Mozi accepted students from many walks of life. They just had to be smart and fit.

48-16

_A man came to the school of master Mozi. He was strong and well-built and possessed good mental faculties, so the master wanted to persuade him to join him as a disciple._ "If you study with me for a time, I'm going to get you an official position," _he said to him..._

Certainly, Mozi recognized the need to switch places when the occasion calls for it, but the occasion has to call for it, such as great trouble or great opportunity.

28-1

We recognize something similar when someone is a part of another's household. If someone is part of such a house, and he is evicted, there are still other houses to which he can escape. But in such a case, the father will warn his sons, and the elder brothers will warn the younger and tell them that they must beware and take heed when they are part of another's household. Similarly, how could one live in some other state if he is not guarded and cautious? Suppose that someone is exiled to a foreign state and commits a crime there, perhaps a third state could grant him a refuge. Nevertheless, a father will warn a son, and an elder brother will warn a younger one, both asking him to beware and be on his guard, because for someone who is living in a foreign country, the utmost caution is necessary.

Regardless, we can assume that any Mohist is part of a hierarchy, and that hierarchy is connected to the world hierarchy.

### Chapter 5: Organizational Behavior

26-3

"Furthermore, justice is the basis of government. The government does not go from bottom to top, but from top to bottom. That is why the ordinary people, with all that depends on their jobs, must not be independently autonomous in the government, for they are governed by the officials. For their part, when they apply their skills, officials should not be allowed to rule independently, because the ministers and high dignitaries are superior to them. Even the ministers and high dignitaries, when they fulfill their profession with all diligence, do not lead the government just as they see fit, because they are led by the three imperial ministers and the feudal princes. The three imperial ministers and the feudal princes, in managing the administration, don't have unlimited authority, for the son of Heaven is above them...."

Vertical Responsibility

Organizational behavior is based on properly enforcing standards both up and down and properly receiving standards from above and below. This is just a version of treating people according to worthiness, but basing initial assumptions of worthiness on official status. You judge ostensible peers in accordance with your judgment of their worthiness and treat them accordingly. Similarly, you judge social superiors and inferiors in accordance with your their ostensible worthiness and treat them accordingly until you observe otherwise.

Mohist doctrine calls for us to render all due respect to legitimate authority, and it offers (or consists of) guidelines on how a hierarchical system of authority can work without becoming tyranny. Inferiors are expected to report about superiors to higher superiors.

11-2

... _Whenever you learn of anything good or bad, report it to those above you...If superiors are in error, then it could be appropriate to raise ideas in the right way..._

And superiors are expected to be sensitive to inferiors.

13-1

_"..._ When the rulers get to know the circumstances of their subordinates, then there is order; if they do not get to know them, then there is confusion..."

But those in lower position are not to correct superiors. If you are in a subordinate position you may remonstrate.

12-3

... _If superiors have any errors, you can raise your suggestions of a more proper way..._

But the superior is presumed to have, or owe, superior judgment by virtue of being a superior.

27-1

"...Justice does not come from foolish and ordinary people, but from the noble and wise..."

Mozi admits that sometimes people can be unworthy of their status.

31-17

"...Those who do not believe in this may consider how Jie, king of Xia, was dignified as the son of Heaven and possessed the kingdom, but he vilified Heaven, insulted the spirits, and brought the inhabitants of the realm unhappiness and death..."

But our resource when we suspect an unworthy superior is not to give final credence to our own judgment on the matter, but to report the facts of the case, along with our suspicions, to a yet higher authority.

11-2

...Whenever you learn of anything good or bad, report it to those above you. What superiors believe to be right, you must also consider true, and whatever they declare wrong you must also consider false...

Setting aside the question of what you do when the entire chain of command is corrupt, this is actually the only way any hierarchy can work. It sounds authoritarian, but if subordinates constantly second guess orders _any_ system falls apart. Then status has no meaning and rewards and punishments related to it have no power.

5-1

...The highest officials are unfit for civil service. Rewards are no joy and punishments do not bring respect...

Mozi's system also restricts speech in certain ways: if you are a leader, you are not to contradict your superiors in front of your subordinates.

12-4

...All the parishioners must be in agreement with the district's head, and should not dare to join with subordinates against him...

This refrain of not joining with underlings doesn't mean not to advocate for their interests or needs. It just means no rabble rousing, no leading of rebellions or sabotaging of the system itself. Your authority is not yours, it flows from your superior, and if your superior has no authority then you don't either. Provided that authority exists at all, is that so unreasonable? If you want a better world, you want to change the people running the system, or how they operate, but you don't want the system so broken in the process that you can't use it to run the world better. The prohibition is against leaders, if they want to remain leaders, militating against their superiors instead of conveying and tailoring orders to accomplish organizational goals. This doesn't prevent protesting to superiors, consulting with peers, or talking with inferiors. It just means that if the system bestows power on you then you are to be careful about how you talk to your subordinates. If you don't like it, resign your position. Privates can whine among themselves all they want.

You might protest that _The Mozi_ also mandates identifying upward and repeating the good words of your superiors.

11-3

...What the district head thinks is right, you must all observe it, and what seems wrong to him, you must all consider it false. If someone does not understand the right way to speak, you can learn the right speech from the district head...

This just calls for unity of public opinion about standards of right and wrong. The penalty might be administrative disfavor, not necessarily criminal punishment. Further, you can echelon shop. If you think someone in the chain of command is sounding crazy, you can climb the chain of command until you find somebody that backs you up or until you realize the whole organization is crazy and decide you want no part of it.

11-3

"...The district head was the most virtuous man of the district. The latter announced his administrative maxims to the district residents by declaring: _'If you have good or bad, you must inform the sovereign. ....'_ How can we still speak of misrule in such a country?"

Good luck with any success in life if you don't do these things. Maybe you can run an independent business and badmouth the city all the time, but you won't be working for anybody on a regular basis. Alternatively you could be a homemaker or a student, or a retiree (like me) and not have to play nice with any boss. Ah, the virtues of the unemployed, never afraid of getting fired.

If the system stomps you for criticizing it, it's inadvisable to destructively criticize it. If the system doesn't stomp you for criticizing it, it's wrong to destructively criticize it. Either way destructive criticism is a bad idea. If the system allows constructive criticism then it can be improved by going through channels. If it doesn't then mere open criticism won't work anyway.

12-8

"...This means that only those who can use their mouths well will produce good words, and that those who are not good with their mouths can become slanderous rebels and bandits. It is not as if the mouth can be something bad in itself, the use of it can be bad, which means that the slanderers concerned can become rebels and bandits..."

Furthermore, the Mohist system is supposed to work largely on the basis of moral pressure and administrative power, rather than relying on criminal punishment. Carrot and stick have their places, to bring ethical outliers into line with the majority, but if hearts and minds haven't been won, government by carrot and stick won't work.

12-10

"...But if the superiors and the subordinates are not of like mind, then those that the superiors punish will be praised by the crowd..."

Your motivation to cooperate isn't necessarily because of some statute, but often just because you want to get ahead. Ideally, it goes beyond that, and everyone cooperates because they all have the same values, independently of reward or punishment. Ideally, the Moral State is really a Moral State, led by those who truly represent the common will.

13-3

"Therefore, in the realm, it was desired that the many views be summed up into a single one, and thus the most virtuous was chosen and raised up as the son of Heaven..."

Mozi uses the passive voice here. The most virtuous _was_ chosen. There's some question among some as to who chose these original emperors according to the narrative. It's pretty clear, though.

12-9

"...According to this saying, in ancient times God and the spirits established realms and territories and employed officials for them..."

Even if Mozi's source for this idea ("a book of the former rulers, a legacy of ancient times") cannot be trusted, if the original emperor was chosen by Heaven, then benevolent Heaven would have picked someone likely to benefit the people, thus someone with values similar to the people. If he was chosen by the people, that means that a common concept of virtue already existed, and that one point of commonality was used to select someone to take on the task of building a broader set of consensus opinions. Either way, the son of Heaven was really chosen on the basis of the will of the people. As for this being a "divine right" theory, even America alludes to some sovereign transcending basis for its foundational legitimacy.

_When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the_ Laws of Nature _and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation._

\--Thomas Jefferson

To call this "authoritarianism" is to do it a great injustice. Mozi is simply establishing a doctrine about establishment of doctrines. The problem we are seeing is in the ancient Chinese unity between the branches of government. We have no problem with our judiciary practicing exactly the unity of opinion that Mozi is calling for, though we would bridle if the executive called for it from anyone other than government employees. The techniques of government design have become more sophisticated, but that doesn't mean Mozi's ideas aren't valid, just that they need to be applied intelligently.

Mohism certainly calls for tyranny of the majority, but even the unity of principles it calls for is mainly concerned with _moral_ principles. As with "authority having authority" being a precondition for any sort of social order, unity of principles is not some exotic imposition but simple common agreement on mores, a universal element of all societies. All that Mozi is doing is describing moral unity and suggesting we practice it deliberately.

Upward Identification

We apply and promulgate standards received from above, favoring those from higher up.

39-7

Those who have no reason follow those who can give them reasons, and those who know nothing, follow those who know something.

This is one of the core doctrines of Mohism, and the chapters on it are the main source for understanding Mozi's ideal hierarchical utopia. That hierarchical concept of society is in turn how the conflicts between global thinking and local acting are resolved. You play your role locally and the organization you support has impact globally. It works because status in the hierarchy is a main incentive for desirable behavior. It's a lynchpin. But it's horrifying.

Mozi says that the main tool of leaders is to ensure everyone has the same "principles". I put principles in quotes because the actual Chinese character used is "yi", normally translated as "righteousness" and it is related to "preconception". I'd be tempted to call it "precepts" except the same character is used so often to mean "righteousness" or "concept of righteousness".

義

But I am given to believe that Chinese is highly contextual. More modern translators give this character, in this context, as "principles". Forke translates it as "ansicht", and I translate that as "outlook" or "opinion".

11-1

Der Meister Mozi sagte: Als in alter Zeit die Menschen geschaffen wurden, hatten sie noch keine Rechtspflege und keine Regierung, denn, wenn sie sprachen, hatten sie alle verschiedene Ansichten.

_Master Mozi said:_ "When people were created in ancient times, they had no laws and no government, because when they spoke, they all had different opinions..."

Forcing everyone to have the same opinions seems pretty totalitarian. "Principles" is a little better, like everybody has to accept the same moral ideals. Everybody had different ideas about right and wrong and bringing everyone together might be a good idea.

Consider three principles that are about principles. _Uniform standards or models (_fa) _)_ apply to everyone. This has many benefits, one of which is fairness that in turn improves morale. _Universalism_ , is to be practiced rather than favoritism. This intrinsically leads to standardization and harmony. And ideally, these standards are to be received from the leaders of a meritocratic _hierarchy_. If position in the hierarchy is indeed based on merit (as Mozi admits it seldom has been in practice), then this ensures that precepts will be coming from the best and will thus be the best precepts possible. Whatever--like I said, geniuses use old words in new meanings. We just have to catch on.

Mozi describes an ideal arrangement and suggests we will create it by acting as though it already exists, even though we know that it does not. In an ideal arrangement, following social superiors is right because social superiors have been selected for being righteous.

So, how could following social superiors make evil superiors more righteous? They will just use you as a tool to do evil. One possible answer is that you don't follow evil standards of social superiors; instead you pick and choose which precepts you adopt. Only righteous precepts are adopted and passed down the chain of command.

Now this concept may contradict such mandates as this:

11-3

'...What the district head thinks is right, you must all observe it, and what seems wrong to him, you must all consider it false...'

What is right and wrong is received from above. However, this is merely the first of a long line of mandates to receive standards of right and wrong from ever higher superiors. The higher superior takes precedence over the lower superior, and ultimately Heaven and the sage kings take precedence over them all.

13-8

"Now that the kingdom was well-ordered, the son of Heaven still summed up the different views in the kingdom and brought them into line with that of Heaven. That is why we must speak of this uniformity. The son of Heaven, who makes the greatest use of it, can thus govern the kingdom; the feudal princes, who make a moderate use of it, govern their states; and the family heads, who make only a small use of it, can govern their families. So by large scale use the kingdom is well governed and is without recklessness, by smaller scale use a state and a family are well arranged, without deviating from the right path. That is the meaning of that principle."

Unrighteous precepts are criticized, reported to higher up the chain of command, and ultimately resisted by less than enthusiastic support and compliant resistance such as work to rule and following of only the highest _righteous_ superior. Ultimately it may be necessary to ignore unrighteous commands if they have been reported up the chain of command without action. In essence, we are in fact judging our superiors according to our own understanding of righteousness. That understanding in turn comes from higher above and ultimately from the fixed stars of Heaven and the sages (for moderns this is namely Mozi). We are conditioning _them_ , showing them that righteous behavior gets better results.

How can this be wrong? The sage kings commanded it.

8-4

"Thus it was said in antiquity that the sage kings decreed, _'For those without righteousness give no wealth, for those without righteousness give no audience, for those without righteousness give no nepotism, and with those without righteousness have no close relationships.'_ When the rich and those making up the land heard that, they withdrew and counseled each other..."

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If we enrich, honor and favor the unrighteous--even those of higher social standing--then we are not behaving as the sage kings commanded.

The idea here is not that everyone has to have identical thoughts on every topic. It is that everybody participating in a group or organization is expected to be with the program, a supporter of the group endeavor and core values, even if there may be local differences about implementation. These shared ground rules are identified with the leaders who promulgate them. You loyally identify with your superiors in the hierarchy and support their program by obeying the rules. You don't foment revolution or breakdown of the system, you try to reform and improve it.

When the boss sets a standard, or passes one on from above, you obey it and pass it on to those below. You let your subordinates know that though you are the boss, your own boss is a higher boss with even more authority. That's how hierarchies work. So is there to be no dissent whatever in this ideal Mohist society?

Remonstration

When superiors are in error regarding the standards of their own superiors, we politely remonstrate with them and then appeal to the higher superiors. Hierarchy gets a bad rap, but it's actually a safeguard against bad leaders. In fact, that's one of the things it was designed for. If your boss gives orders that are questionable, you can go to a higher boss and appeal.

13-6

...if you see somebody who loves and promotes the state, you must inform of it, and if you find someone who hates the state and harms it, so you must also make it known. Anyone who makes known about another person who loves and promotes the state is also someone who loves and promotes the state. As soon as the superiors hear about it, they will reward him, and when the people learn it, they will praise him. If someone sees an enemy and damager of the state and does not bring it to the public attention, he himself is a man who hates and damages the state...

But when you appeal to your higher boss, you are not appealing based on your own wishes, but upon the precepts put out by the higher boss. You report to the district manager that the store manager isn't following company policy. You don't complain to the district manager that you aren't getting as many hours as you would like or that you are always getting chewed out for having your hat on crooked. Those are what the store manager is for, and the district manager shouldn't undermine her subordinate leader. You would go to the district manager to complain that the store manager is taking home cartons of ice cream in the trunk of his car.

13-5

_Master Mozi notes:_ "The authorities should make an attempt with the family heads so that each family head adopts a notice and ordinance to the family members, saying, _'If you see someone who loves the family and promotes it, make it known, and if you see someone who hates and damages the family, report that as well.'_ Someone who brings attention to a friend and supporter of the family is thereby also a friend and promoter of the family. As soon as the authorities find out, they will reward him, and if the crowd hears of it, they will praise him. Anyone who does not point out an enemy and damager of the family is just like someone who hates and damages the family...."

This system sounds like it would leave no room for the needs of those lower down the totem pole, but Mozi says leaders should be sensitive to the needs of subordinates.

13-11

_Therefore, master Mozi says:_ "To obtain consent from the people, one must love them and must not hate them. If it cannot be moved and you say it has to be, then you hate it. If one manages them with love, by awakening their trust, offering wealth and awards and backing it up with penalties, then it will be impossible to lose their cooperation, even if one intends to refuse it."

So in addition to policies about not stealing from the store, there might be company policies about the proper way to reprimand employees or the proper way to let someone go (rather than just gradually decreasing their hours to nothing). Furthermore, if your store manager isn't enforcing bad company policies very well then maybe you don't make a big deal about it. You don't want to tell the district manager that you aren't being required to wear shiny leather shoes as company policy calls for. The store manager shouldn't be doing that, but if you aren't ambitious and just want to work in comfortable loafers, you might be quiet about it. The point is, you can level shop. If the lower boss is letting you get away with stuff, be happy with it. If you think the higher boss would be a softer touch (maybe getting on the store manager about more hours for you) then you might raise it to that level. Again, that's if you just want an easier life. If you want to be a go getter, you will not only shine your shoes but you will report the manager who doesn't require the other employees to do so.

But you won't tattle right off the bat without preparation. Complaining to higher ups is called "remonstration" and the first step is to remonstrate with the erroneous boss. Work your way up the chain of command in order. You might take the store manager aside privately and complain that the other employees are not being required to shine their shoes. If the manager doesn't start doing things right, then you can go higher, having checked the block by giving the manager a chance to fix things. And again, you usually do this privately. If you chided the boss in front of the other store employees, that could embarrass the store manager unnecessarily. Normally, the effect of undercutting his authority would do more harm to the company than just letting his errors go. Only in exceptional circumstances is a leader so bad he needs to be publically corrected from below. Doing so is an even more drastic measure than failing to remonstrate with him before going over his head. You take such drastic measures only if it's a time limited emergency when damage must be prevented by immediate action, or when proper channels are blocked.

So what if the district manager is the one who is violating company policy? Is it undermining a boss with her subordinates if you talk to your store manager about going to the regional vice president about it? No, because the prohibition against rabble rousing with underlings against superiors applies only to one's own underlings or peers, it doesn't apply to one's own superiors. Besides, there's no other way it can work. You go through your chain of command if you can. If there's not a problem with your store manager as well, you would suggest that he remonstrate with the district manager just as you would remonstrate with him. If he doesn't want to take the issue up, then you should let him know you are going to do so. Then you should privately remonstrate with the district manager (not at a meeting of store managers, where you would be airing the grievance in front of people who are not in your chain of command). If the district manager doesn't change her ways, you let her know you are going to bypass to the regional vice president.

Ultimately, all remonstration can go up to Heaven.

26-3

"...Even the son of Heaven cannot rule freely, for he is governed by Heaven Itself..."

The company is incorporated in a state, where you might file a lawsuit that you then appeal to the Supreme Court. If you can't accept the Supreme Court's decision, then you go to "sovereign change" procedures, which are not part of normal remonstration. That procedure is covered at the end of this chapter.

What Mozi was proposing seems pretty authoritarian, but not in a simple way. He's not just saying people should be obedient to all authority, or that those in authority can get away with simply ruling by whim and force.

26-7

A government that is consistent with the intentions of Heaven is a just government and one that contravenes them is a government of violence.

One of his assumptions is acceptance that benevolent dictatorship would be the best kind of government that can be realistically expected, except that it is unstable. His solution is to analyze what made past benevolent dictatorships work and to promulgate that as a theory of how to rule.

13-10

What made the wise rulers of antiquity so distinguished in their administration? It was all the advisers who stood by them, all men who were well experienced in acting outwardly. Great was the number of those who supported them in seeing and listening. Therefore, if they pursued a plan with others together, they reached their goal faster. If they did anything, it would proceed faster than for others, and if they were given commendations and awards they could make it known more quickly. These benefits accrued to them because they could work together with reliable people...

Benevolent dictators were benevolent because they knew what the people wanted, and they knew it because they listened to the people: which kind of makes them not dictators.

13-1

_Master Mozi said:_ "It is up to the wise to examine what makes the state, the families and the people well governed, and to execute it, and also to examine avoidance of confusion and disorder in the state, the families and the people. But what is it which governs them? When the rulers get to know the circumstances of their subordinates, then there is order; if they do not get to know them, then there is confusion..."

So why not institutionalize that? Armed with the expectation of sage like rule, future rulers and future people will have a yardstick to compare their own government against. They will know if it's being done right and be able to adjust to make it better instead of operating blindly.

That benevolent kind of rule involves a two way flow of information and expectation. The ruler has a duty to consult the people and the people have a duty to abide by the ruler's judgments. The ruler doesn't just make things up by whim or self interest, the ruler amalgamates the values of the society as a whole and creates a standard that demands the least compromise by the most citizens. Then the ruler makes sure everybody conforms to that standard. Despite the feudal trappings of Mozi's presentation, this is in practice nothing but exactly what representative democracies actually do. They take input from the people generally (via the polling of elections or reports from the secret police), then make laws that address everyone's issues and interests as well as possible. And those laws are in fact binding and have force and authority. You don't long get away with having an opinion that the law is something other than what it is, for it is what it is and everybody should be on the same sheet of music about what it is.

The secret ingredient is that conformity is a double edged sword. This synergizes with the fact that everyone has a superior. If your superior is faithless, you cannot be morally faulted for imitating that faithlessness. Ultimately, if the emperor is faithless to Heaven, then the dukes have a right to be similarly faithless to the emperor. At every other level of the hierarchy, this takes the form of going over the head of the boss and reporting him. Mozi speaks repeatedly against colluding with subordinates against your superiors.

12-3

... If superiors have any errors, you can raise your suggestions of a more proper way. You must try to share the views of your superiors, and must not keep together with people from subordinate circles...

But he advocates colluding with subordinates against their superiors who are your subordinates. The analogy from family life would be grandparents asking grandchildren how their parents are treating them.

12-3

...All those who hear or see something good must report it to their superiors, and if you see something bad, you also have to show it to your superiors...

It's key that this (polling of the rank and file by the higher boss about the lower boss) should not involve undermining the authority of subordinate leaders generally.

9-3

... if the power of command is not decisive, then the people have no fear. Therefore, the ancient holy kings bestowed a high rank and granted abundant income, they also assigned the officers to conduct important business and gave them decisive command...

That assertion is true just because it's necessary logically for the whole hierarchy thing to be meaningful, but also based on a different Mohist principle, exalting the worthy. You punish subordinate leaders not for directly violating the wishes of their subordinates, but for violating _your_ wishes (though poor employee relations can subvert performance).

Suppose your subordinate leader is unacceptably offensive to subordinates. If this is a result of inexperience or error, you might privately counsel the subordinate leader to lighten up. If this is evidence of an emerging character flaw, you might dismiss the leader, but that might send a bad signal if it is done without preparation. One approach is to make a new general pronouncement, one thenceforth banning the undesirable behavior (without naming any names). If it happens again, then you can punish the subordinate leader for disobedience to yourself.

But you should never establish a precedent of punishing leaders for failure to obey their own subordinates.

26-3

...The government does not go from bottom to top, but from top to bottom. That is why the ordinary people, with all that depends on their jobs, must not be independent in the government, for they are governed by the officials. For their part, when they apply their skills, officials should not be allowed to rule independently, because the ministers and high dignitaries are superior to them...

According to Mozi it is good form to listen to your people, but that's not the same as putting the cart before the horse. You are to listen to subordinates regarding arguments about non compliance with higher level standards, not about failure to respond obediently to the whims of the rank and file. Those higher level requirements, though, should always be informed by the love of Heaven for all. All righteous sets of standards involve people getting basic needs met. Those who do not take care of their subordinates (note: _their own_ subordinates) are wrong even if they have not been told to do so. That's a top level universal standard that cannot be modified by lower level leaders.

Downward Elaboration

We can add to standards received from above, but cannot subtract. The company may have a policy that employees must wear hats. The district manager may add that the hats must be blue. The store manager may ask you to wear your blue hat sideways. The store manager cannot let you wear a red hat and the district manger cannot let you go hatless. But if you are on night shift, you can appeal to the store manager to let you wear your hat inside out instead of backwards. It's critical that that new standards generated at the top of a hierarchy should be relatively simple and lacking in detail. This allows lower levels to abide by higher level standards while adapting to local conditions. That in turn will constitute a huge experiment. Sometimes one local variation will prove more successful than another. Then the higher level may want to add it to the higher level standards and enforce it more broadly, overwriting previous lower level standards. For instance if the sideways hats are a popular gimmick that draws in a lot of customers, maybe the district manager will add that to the district standards, and all the other stores in the districts will also have to wear hats sideways.

With caveats for proper dissent, Mozi says we should all concur with our superiors to forge a society based on shared precepts. Such a society will be harmonious and productive. Everyone will benefit. Taking this idea to mean that nobody should do anything original would be wrong. The fact that you don't contradict your superiors doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't have anything original to say. The fact that you follow instructions doesn't mean you don't have any initiative.

49-9

_...Master Mozi replied:_ "Whoever looks up when commanded to look up, and looks down when commanded to look down is like a shadow, and if he rests quietly in place, wherever he is put and responds to every acclamation, he is like an echo. What can the prince do with shadows and echoes? A loyal subordinate searches for your sense; if the superior does wrong, he makes you eliminate it using ideas, and if he himself has something good to propose, he asks his superior and does not dare to communicate it to outsiders. He improves evils and carries out good measures, holds up the idea of unity and does not interfere along with the lower layers, grants the superior glory and honor, while the subordinate receives blame and is reproached. He seeks the well-being and happiness of the superior, while the underlings take on any distress and grief. That's what I understand to be a loyal subordinate."

A good subordinate not only takes the initiative, gives frank but confidential counsel, and avoids becoming a rebel or a spy, but privately reports everything to the superior even while acting as fall guy when necessary.

Also some of what Mozi said sounds like he's saying to report everything to the emperor. You know this is exaggeration, right? You are required only to report to your immediate superior. You have permission to report as high as necessary, but the emperor doesn't want to hear about your sick cow. This is another reason why there needs to be downward elaboration. When your boss tells you to walk across the room he shouldn't have to say "left, right, left, right left." When he tells you to open the door, he shouldn't have to say, "Now, reach out with your hand and grasp the doorknob. Now twist it to the left. Now pull."

Further, a society guided exclusively from the top down would be utterly static, incapable of innovation.

46-17

Kung-said: "The noble does not create anything new, but only imitates."

_Master Mozi replied:_ "It is not like that. The very ignoble among the people do not imitate the good of the old times, and they don't do the good of the current times either. The less ignoble do not follow the good of antiquity, but they carry out the good that they themselves have, and wish that the good should come from them themselves. Now, if you imitate, but do not create yourself, it is not much different than if you don't like to follow, but act on your own initiative. I think that if you imitate the good old ways and also bring the good of our time to execution, you are multiplying the good as wished."

The Principle of Downward Elaboration applies _wherever_ any hierarchy manages to be functional. Robot armies are doomed. The United States government as a whole is built on the notion that the states can add to federal law but not subtract from it, and local ordinances can add to state law, but not subtract from it.

The principle of downward elaboration is also implicit in the second and third models of Mozi's epistemology. If leaders were to simply pass on commands from the top then what would be the value of perceiving local conditions or examining results? Just blindly obey.

When an organization fails to apply the principle of downward elaboration, higher level leaders have to micromanage and lower level leaders are without flexibility. So every real organization that works uses it.

Using the principle of downward elaboration, any leader may add standards to those received from above, provided such additions support the higher standards and don't contradict or abrogate those higher standards. The governor can require that everyone in the state wear a hat and the mayor can add that the hat must have a wide brim, but the mayor cannot require that everyone go hatless.

The principle of downward elaboration permits local adaptations to local conditions. Mozi presents a picture of an ideal hierarchical society in which a wise ruler promulgates standards that are uniformly echoed down through the ranks of a single hierarchy from the king to the people of every village.

12-2

"...After the establishment of the son of Heaven and the three ministers, it was found that in the great expanse of the realm, indeed the peoples inhabiting mountains, forests and distant areas, did not yet agree. For this reason they divided the empire and appointed thousands of princes as rulers, and then made them work to unite the views of their states into a unified one. After the establishment of the local rulers, however, it was observed that they would not be able to carry out this unification if limited to just the things which might come to their ears or those they might encounter face to face, and therefore they chose the most virtuous men of their countries and appointed them as their assistants, generals, and civil servants so that they should all work to unify the public opinion in the state."

That picture is a simplified one, used for the purposes of illustration. In reality different villages, for example, will have need for specialized rules of their own that don't come from above. Also, there will be more than one hierarchy in the world. For example, an individual may belong to one hierarchy as a member of an extended family, another as a member of a professional organization or employee of a business, another as a member of the militia, and another as a subject of the government. As is always the case with multiple bosses, this complicates matters and involves the need for some system of priority resolution. In cases of ambiguity you can use the consequential benefit of the world to make such decisions. If there is conflict, just estimate the consequences of the alternatives and weigh them against each other. But usually the various hierarchies will have already come to jurisdictional accommodations which clearly dictate priorities. That's a sign of a functioning system, so you won't have to make consequentialist guesswork because it's a good bet that support of such a well run system will produce the best consequences. These networks of relationships knit all hierarchies of every stable society into one complex meta-hierarchy. They came about through a history of conflict resolution and compromises that doesn't have to be repeated with every individual decision.

The principle of downward elaboration allows those various hierarchies and branches to exist, to function as specialized extensions of the one hierarchy that is the orderly world. And the idea of such a system allows modern Mohists to understand that Mohism doesn't require us to establish a single perfect world encompassing hierarchy like the one depicted in the Mozi; rather it requires us to act as though we are already in one, to treat all the properly functioning hierarchies of which we are a part just as we would treat Mozi's idealized moral state of the sage kings.

Each hierarchy of which we are a part can be seen as a branch of the single world spanning hierarchy that is crowned by Heaven. Local standards have been generated by the process of downward elaboration. And the passage of time is one way we can be separated from different temporal locales that have different standards just as different spatial locales do.

The principle of downward elaboration is essential to understanding how to apply Mohist principles and while it is never named, it is definitely supported by the text.

13-3

"...However, since the son of Heaven's knowledge of circumstances was not yet sufficient to govern the kingdom alone, a second class of persons was appointed as the three ministers. Even the knowledge of the three ministers was not enough to empower them to stand alone with the son of Heaven, so they shared the kingdom and set up feudal princes. Since their abilities were not sufficient to rule within the borders of each country alone, an additional class was chosen as state ministers and secretaries, and since their abilities alone were not enough to support the prince, additional classes were created such as the district chief and the family elder..."

Mozi literally says that delegation to hierarchy was created so as to divide up an otherwise impossibly large task. To do that you need to be able to adapt to local circumstances without consulting the boss. 49-9 made this explicit when it said the ruler needs thinking and original subordinates, not shadows and echoes. And this attitude doesn't just appear there.

13-10

...Because they could rely on other people, they had such advantages. If at the time of the reign of the ancient wise kings a virtuous man was at a distance of more than a thousand kilometers, then the king could reward him before all his local and community comrades had heard of his existence, and if a sinful man was within a thousand kilometers, the ruler could punish him, even before his local and community comrades had become aware of his existence. Can this only be attributed to the delicacy of the ear and the sharpness of the eye of the king? Could he look over a thousand kilometers with a glimpse and hear at a distance of a thousand kilometers? The wise rulers do not go themselves to see, and do not enter themselves into places to hear, but use the ears and eyes of others who support them in seeing and hearing. Why does it happen that when rebels and bandits make their way in the realm, they cannot get a foothold anywhere? It is because the good are governed in a uniform way.

So a principle of elaboration is based on the words of Mozi and thus elaboration using it is also validly Mohist. At the beginning of each _Identifying Upward_ chapter the nameless and non-historical emperor functions as Mozi's sock puppet. He sets out for us an entire doctrine of how to function as part of any organization that asserts and delegates authority. We may bridle at these ideas, but they are not really radical, just invisible. If there is any form of authority, it has to work this way. Anybody who has a job, especially working for a large organization, is part of a hierarchy that actually applies these exact expectations, though their authority is limited to the workplace and the mandates are velvet gloved. Let me paraphrase from 11-2:

"You are to support and promulgate company policy. You will report all violations of company policy, as well as exceptional work performance, to your superiors. If your immediate superiors are themselves violating company policy, you will report them to a higher superior. Violations will be punished, exceptional performance will be rewarded."

This is not totalitarianism. It is merely abrogation of anarchy. Mozi is asserting that authority does exist and has a valid role to play. But where does authority come from?

Mozi actually approaches the answer to that question from many different approaches. Moral virtue is part of worthiness for promotion to positions of power, and moral virtue originates in Heaven so you could say authority comes from Heaven.

27-2

"...Even the books of the old rulers teach us about Heaven and clarify our doubts. Therein it is said, _'Heaven is uniquely enlightened and wise, but it descends to the earth and comes to the sovereign.'_ This saying indicates that Heaven is nobler and wiser than the son of Heaven. Is there perhaps someone even nobler and wiser than Heaven? Heaven is the noblest and the wisest of all beings, and it is a fact that justice comes from Heaven."

That seems to flirt with the concept of divine right and theocracy, but only because it's an incomplete picture.

27-6

"...Now Heaven loves the whole world and seeks to turn Its gifts to all beings. This could only be denied if, on earth, there was at least the slightest thing that the people could use, without Heaven being its author. But some are only ungrateful to Heaven and do not know that the lack of virtue is disastrous. That is why I say that the nobles only understand small things, but not great."

Heaven in turn cares about the benefit of the people, so that virtue is care for the people. From that point of view, authority comes from the people.

Consensus Precepts

When we add our own standards they should be guided by a consensus of the standards of our subordinates and based on sensitivity to their needs.

11-3

"...What is it that governs the district? The district head merely sums up the views of the district into unity, so the district is well organized. The district head was the most virtuous man of the district. The latter announced his administrative maxims to the district residents by declaring: _'If you have good or bad, you must inform the ruler...'..."_

This doesn't necessarily mean that leaders are puppets of the group. It means that it's easier to bring a group together around one standard if you base the standard on what they already think rather than imposing a personal whim. Perhaps the store manager would have a meeting with the employees, and everybody would brainstorm for a gimmick to bring in more customers. The most popular idea is the sideways hats, so the manager makes it the store policy that employees will wear hats sideways. Some of the employees don't like it, but they have to tolerate it because that's tyranny of the majority. Love it or leave it. Store 91 has lame regular hats, so maybe you would be happier over there. Or, if you think the sideways hats are a violation of company policy, you can take it up with the district manager (after touching bases with the store manager of course).

But it isn't necessary for a leader to actually have a brainstorming session. The idea is that when the leader adds new standards those standards should take the subordinates into account. The manager might just come up with the sideways hats independently and then make them the rule because he knows that will make the store more successful, allowing him to give all the employees more hours, which they will like. That will do. He has taken his subordinates into account.

11-4

"What is the government of the country based on? It is based on the fact that the prince unites the many opinions of the country into a single one. The ruler was the most virtuous man in the country. In giving the people of his country his government principles, he said: _'If you hear of good or bad, it is your duty to make it clear to the son of Heaven....'..."_

Am I purposely misunderstanding my own bad translation? Did Mozi really only mean to say that the ruler consolidates power and forces everyone to toe the line, rather than that he bases his policies on consensus opinion? I think not. Mozi too often emphasizes the importance of superiors making themselves aware of the wishes and needs of subordinates.

13-1

"...But what is it which governs them? When the rulers get to know the circumstances of their subordinates, then there is order; if they do not get to know them, then there is confusion. How do we know? If the rulers know these conditions, then they are well acquainted with the people's merits and errors, and so they reward the virtuous persons they find and punish the wicked..."

Look at 13-1. On the surface it seems to say rulers should look at (1) how well the people are living and (2) how well the people are behaving. But these are related if you realize that #1 is about the people at the bottom and #2 is about subordinate leaders. Ask the people if their immediate supervisors are treating them well and abiding by organizational standards.

13-2

_But what do we have to do to be clear about the conditions among the people? Master Mozi said:_ "It is enough to elevate the unity of opinion as the principle of government..."

Then in 13-2 the author says that the way the leader knows how well the people are being treated (essentially) is by promoting "unity of opinion". This is a strange thing to say. It could be taken as "I'll know how you feel because I'll tell you how to feel".

But I don't think Mozi is saying that at all, because this stream of thought is about the leader gathering information. So it seems incongruous until you realize that there are two ways for opinion to be unified. Subordinates can be influenced by superiors, or superiors can be influenced by subordinates. In this case, Mozi is talking about the latter. The good leader seeks to produce consensus by many means. The leader's precepts are influenced by a survey of the concerns of subordinates, given that the leader has an overview and a plan, and then the opinions of subordinates are brought into line with those precepts by the leader's exertion of authority.

Again, this is how organizations _have to_ work. If this is unacceptable, the only alternative is to not have organizations. And that makes efforts less effective, so everyone has to work harder while getting less effective results. And it's also impossible, because no power vacuum exists for long. Social order is like philosophies. You just have the choice of what kind to have, not whether to have one. A valid objection may be to the unitary nature of the organization Mozi is presenting, which is one simple hierarchy. Of course Chinese society was more complex than that. An individual might be a member of a family, but also a member of a craft guild, but also a citizen of a town. Mozi is simplifying for presentation. Don't worry: in practice you can still have multiple bosses. Society need not put all its eggs in one basket.

This is not just a workplace being depicted, it is a government, so the limits of its scope are not defined here (except perhaps via the words of the sage kings) but there's no reason to assume that its scope is unlimited. In many facets of life, the organizations we are part of do not play a role. The boss probably doesn't come to your house and tell you how to make your bed. Further, even the most liberal governments don't define scope very clearly, but that doesn't mean they are totalitarian. Either progressive or conservative regulation can reach into the very home and regulate almost any aspect of life, in theory. The real limit is not one of jurisdiction, it is one of quantity. At some point too much detailed government becomes counterproductive micromanagement. Other than a chaos of contradictory standards, oppression is most often found not in where the regulation is, but in how much there is.

12-12

"...Hence, in the songs of praise, The Zhou, a work of the former rulers, says, _'They came to see the king, and they asked for the ordinances.'_ The meaning of these words is that in ancient times the sovereigns and feudal lords appeared in spring and autumn, reporting to the palace of the son of Heaven and receiving the strict instructions of the son of Heaven. Returning to their countries they then managed the administration. What the government imposed on them never treated them with disrespect, and at that time there was no one who dared to confuse the instructions of the son of Heaven..."

To infer that failure to set limits is meant to imply that there are no limits is wrong. The authority in a Mozi approved institution can go _anywhere_.

12-11

"....This put the people of the whole world in terror; they trembled and shook and dared not commit more crimes and vices, for they said, _'The sight and hearing of the son of Heaven is supernatural.'_ The statements of former rulers teach us that there was nothing supernatural about it...."

It just can't go _everywhere_. So in practice it must act only when there's a reason to do so.

12-9

"...They did not act to give them high rank, or to bestow upon them abundant benefices, or to appoint their relatives, aristocrats, or the idle rich, but to make use of the people, and avert disadvantages from them, in order to provide prosperity to the poor and abandoned, and to obtain the elimination of dangers and the suppression of unrest. The wise kings of ancient times acted thusly."

Mozi is not going to impose more than that on leaders because it would be presumptuous and because it would be impose too much rigidity on an idea that is meant to be a useful tool for many different situations rather than a highly specialized one. And that parallels what Mozi wants leaders to do: leave lower level leaders some wiggle room to customize. Yes, everyone identifies upward, but upward only asks so much, with decreasing detail at higher levels. The Chinese empire of Mozi's time was highly fragmented, and each state had its own ways. The Mohists were trying to sell particular elements of administrative style to all of them, not to dictate every detail to these autocratic warlords. The idea was to get everyone to agree on a few general principles. This is a recipe, and the author is telling us to season to taste. That includes the option of putting hot sauce on a salad, or being some form of dictator, but it isn't that necessarily.

The Mohists were selling a suite of policy ideas. Some were for making the organization work better, and some were for making it more benevolent. Part of the doctrine was that the two go together, that good organizations are effective and effective organizations are good.

13-1

"...When the rulers get to know the circumstances of their subordinates, then there is order; if they do not get to know them, then there is confusion..."

But that idea was disbelieved, and consequently only the practical lessons were taken.

10-1

_Master Mozi said:_ "The kings, princes and great lords of the realm all wish the prosperity of their state and their families, an increase in population and rule of law, but they do not understand efficiency in the government of the state, the families and the people and so they neglect the basis for the administration, which consists in favoring the most efficient..."

Meanwhile the moral lessons were ignored.

19-1

"...Many of the princes of the realm avoid wars of aggression and strive for general unity, thus deserving solidarity, and earning therefore the worthiness to be praised as noble, but some won't consider this question further, just like when a blind person uses the words white and black without being able to distinguish these colors. So there is a lack of the right distinction."

And as the theory predicts, regimes met failure to the extent they applied the practical lessons without the moral lessons. But they never seemed to learn that lesson.

The unification of principles could be seen as an entirely top down process. The higher bosses make the rules and the lower bosses pass them on. Sure, the higher ups are supposed to consult the people, but they don't really have to because the authority system takes precedence. The head of government can just declare martial law or suspend the constitution. He just isn't likely to because he's a great guy, because he was picked by other great guys.

There are a couple of problems with that system if it operates alone. One is the single point of failure. If everything flows down from the king then if the king turns evil or goes mad or leaves the empire to his incompetent son, then the whole empire will be in trouble. Mozi deals with this by putting Heaven, essentially God, above the emperor. If things totally turn south, take that as a sign from God and you know what to do.

35-6

_But why do we wish that superiors practice righteousness? If righteous men stand at the top of the empire, then it is well managed. God, spirits, holy mountains, and divine rivers all have their worshippers and venerators, and in return the people are granted their blessings to an abundant extent. In addition, master Mozi noted:_ "In the old days, when Tang was ennobled in Bo, he had, rounding off, about fifty kilometers square. He was connected with his people by mutual love; he helped them, gave to them from his abundance, and led them to worship Heaven above and to serve the spirits. For this, Heaven and the spirits bestowed wealth upon him, the princes sided with him, the people supported him, and the most distinguished scholars agreed with him. Before he reached old age, he had gained dominion over the kingdom and the leadership of the princes. When formerly King Wen was ennobled in Zhou on Qi, he had, rounding off, about fifty kilometers square. He was united with his people by mutual affection, and he showed them many blessings and gave to them from his abundance. Therefore, the neighbors lived peacefully under his scepter, those living far away were attracted by his virtue, for all who heard of him got up and flocked to him. The most weak and degenerate, whose limbs did not possess sufficient tension, were left behind and said, _'If the rule of King Wen could only come to us! We would then have the same advantages as Wen's subjects.'_ Therefore Heaven and the spirits made him rich, the princes took his side, the people were fond of him, and the most excellent scholars fell in with him. Before a generation had passed, he had gained dominion in the kingdom and the leadership of the princes. If I predicted that if a righteous man were at the head of the realm, it would be well-managed, so God, the mountains, rivers and spirits would have their worshippers and venerators and the people would thus partake of their manifold blessings, then I have demonstrated it with these incidents."

When a superior takes it upon herself to rebel in the name of a much higher authority (Heaven for example), a good Mohist has the option of supporting the rebelling lower superior (a duke for example) rather than the mid level superior (the emperor for example) being rebelled against. In the examples, Tang and Wen rebelled against the emperor at the behest of Heaven. The people who supported the rebellion were just following a (chosen and preferred) leader. That rebel leader is in turn morally covered because she is presumably acting at the behest of a yet higher power, and leading subordinates rather than "colluding with" them. And the rebel is also morally covered because of being a better ruler that the people of all levels support over the old regime.

Changing Sovereigns

When the standards of Heaven are being violated and all human authorities have been appealed to without hope of avail, you should appeal even higher for guidance on possibly changing sovereigns. That is to say, you should appeal to Heaven like the sage kings did. The sage kings were usurpers. They were charismatic leaders who founded dynasties because the old dynasties had earned the spite of the people and presumably of Heaven. The narrative Mozi offers is that a major subordinate leader (a duke) bypasses the emperor and speaks directly to God, requesting permission to rebel.

19-6

"Later, when Jie was king of Xia, Heaven made its will known. The Sun and the moon did not appear at the right times, heat and cold were mixed up, the five crops withered, demons howled in the empire, and in more than ten evenings the cranes cried. Tang was in the Piao palace and received the divine mandate transferred from the Xia: _'The virtue of the Xia is in complete decay, which is why I have withdrawn the mandate which Heaven gives them. Go and chastise them, I will give you the necessary strength....The virtue of the Xia is in complete decay, go and attack them; I will give you great strength. I got the order from Heaven.'_ Heaven also instructed an angel of fire to descend and light the city of the Xia at the northwest corner..."

Signs indicate that the mandate of Heaven has been transferred and the usurper founds a new dynasty. Chinese history is a list of usurpations and civil wars because that was the prescribed method of reform. A better system of changing the government is to take advantage of built in electoral processes that allow the citizenry, as theocratic holders of little pieces of corporate sovereignty, to consult Heaven on the succession.

If the emperor is faithless to Heaven, then going over the emperor's head involves serious religious rituals, both before and after.

16-11

_The_ Explanation of Yu _is not the only source of such understanding but the_ Word of Tang _as well, for Tang said, "I, Li, the unworthy, dared to sacrifice a black animal to the supreme ruler of Heaven, so now Heaven has sent a great drought for which I must take personal responsibility. I don't know if I've offended the upper or lower powers. If anyone does anything good, I do not dare to conceal it, or if a crime is committed, to leave the culprit unpunished. Let God examine it in his heart. If a sin is committed anywhere, I take responsibility, and if I am personally guilty, let it not be the burden of the nation." This shows us that, although he possessed the status of emperor and controlled the whole kingdom, Tang was not hesitant to present himself as a sacrifice in order to reconcile God and the spirits. Such was Tang's universal love._

So, the son of God (king of kings) offers himself as sacrifice for the sins of the people.

When the emperor is suspected of unworthiness, a righteous duke will practice some form of divination (reading of dreams or omens can suffice) and determine the will of Heaven regarding actions to be taken. The noble who rebels takes individual responsibility, absolving all his subordinates. They are, after all, only being obedient to their own superior.

15-9

"...When King Wu was 'working the way under' [ceremonially worshipping] on Mount Tai he made the following statement at Mount Tai: _'I the virtuous grandson, king of Zhou, had a great work ahead; and it is done. I have virtuous men and hold them up to the Shang, the Xia, the Mran, the Yui and the Mao to witness my worship. Even if he has close relatives, they are not as good as virtuous men. If injustice is committed in a thousand places, then I am the only one responsible for it alone.'_ These were King Wu's deeds, and I, on my part, practice such all-embracing love."

In theory, if all the dukes are also corrupt and also do not explain satisfactorily to any complaining feudal subordinates why they have not consulted Heaven about the emperor, then the skipping of multiple levels may be necessary by the feudal subordinates. Theoretically this could extend all the way to the lowest ranks, so a peasant, unable to gain audience or unsatisfied with the results, could ask Heaven for permission to rebel.

This system, relying on periodic and violent changes of dynasty to correct faulty emperors, is a weak system, and by promoting meritocracy Mozi actually suggests something slightly better.

8-6

"So in ancient times Yao raised Shun of southern Fuzi, transferred him to the government, and the kingdom had peace. Yü raised up Yi of Yin Fang, handed him the administration, and order prevailed in the nine provinces. Tang raised Yi Yin from his kitchen, left him the administration, and received his plans. King Wen raised Hung Yao and Tai Tian from their nets, transferred the government to them, and the western countries were subjugated..."

The point is that assuming you can ensure that the top member of a hierarchy is actually virtuous, then simply behaving appropriately within that system is the right thing to do. Even if the top of the hierarchy lacks virtue, the best thing to do is support the top virtuous member. For example, a modern American who is a member of the out of power party can still be loyal to the nation as a whole by being loyal to the top ranking member of the party. As long as the party doesn't call for revolution, but merely remonstrates, supporting it rather than the higher leadership of the other party still constitutes participation in the system rather than rejection of it.

But rebellion is not the only way to change sovereigns. In another sense of the phrasing, you can simply move, put yourself under a different sovereign. The Mozi also offers plenty of examples of this. King Wen started as Lord Wen, and he was such a good ruler that people picked up and moved so they could be part of his domain.

35-6

"...He was united with his people by mutual affection, and he showed them many blessings and gave to them from his abundance. Therefore, the neighbors lived peacefully under his scepter, those living far away were attracted by his virtue, for all who heard of him got up and flocked to him..."

Mozi himself moved from kingdom to kingdom freely. This may have not been a right restricted to people of knightly rank.

47-17

_Master Mozi said:_ "By merchandising their goods at markets in all the four heavenly directions, merchants double and quintuple their profits, and, in spite of the difficulties at gates and bridges, and the dangers which robbers threaten them with, they pursue their trade..."

Clearly Mozi felt free travel was a general right.

47-18

"...Going by your words, all traffic in the realm would be stopped. Everyone would have to retreat to themselves, and the realm would be desolate. Your words cannot be obeyed."

In one argument he makes the point that if you are wanted criminally in one kingdom you can find refuge in another.

26-1

"...And this is not only true in families, for the same applies to nations. If a citizen perpetrates any offence against the head of state, he may find refuge in neighboring states, but as soon as his parents and brothers hear of the incident, they will give him serious ideas and tell him that greatest caution is required and he must be on his guard, for who can live in a state where he is wanted by the prince? Even in this case, he finds asylum, but the exhortations are nevertheless made with great urgency..."

And he repeatedly sends disciples out to advise kings, then withdraws them when the kings are not receptive enough to persuasion.

46-13

... Gao Shizi...saw master Mozi and said to him: "The Prince of Wei paid me a high salary for the master's sake and made me a minister. In three audiences I made all my suggestions, but since they were not executed, I took my leave. Probably the Prince of Wei will hold me to be crazy."

_Master Mozi replied_ : "If the farewell was done right, then what does it hurt to be considered crazy? ...Also, I have heard that it is a great glory if one, undeterred by censure, does the right thing. So what harm will it do if the action is well founded?" _..._

So when we find that the hierarchies we have been in have become unacceptable to live with we can take the remonstration process beyond its limit, and change the system, or we can simply move to where we like it better.

Nobody has a moral duty to submit to oppression, but nobody makes arbitrary decisions on their own because everybody has a boss. It doesn't matter how many layers are in the hierarchy, the point is that even the emperor has a boss and that Heaven governs everyone. This is important. The government of the son of Heaven extends to everyone. So by extension, we can conclude the following. Just as the emperor is the direct supervisor of everyone under him, as well as indirectly ruling through delegated authority, so Heaven is the direct supervisor of everyone under Heaven, as well as ruling indirectly through delegated authorities. What this means is that even the lowest peasant can directly consult Heaven about the government. This is very reminiscent of the protestant reformation with its universal priesthood, which essentially led to the conclusion that theocracy can be practiced via democracy.

But delegated authorities must have authority.

8-5

"In their administration, the sage kings of antiquity saw the excellent properties and benefits of the capable. Even if someone worked in agriculture or in a trade, he was hired if he had skills. He was given a high rank, he was granted ample income, the management of the business was transferred to him, and he was given decisive command authority. Because if the rank is not high, the people have no respect, if the income is not significant, the people have no confidence, and if the power of command is not decisive, the people have no fear...

While she should be open to input from underlings of all levels, a manager should not undermine the authority of a subordinate supervisor by allowing underlings to too easily bypass delegated authorities. This leads to the subordinate supervisor becoming essentially useless, and the higher manager supervising everyone directly.

12-7

"...because of this the officials in the empire are not superfluous."

It should be possible to appeal to higher authority, but there should be consequences for doing so frivolously, and the more steps in the chain of command that are needlessly skipped the more serious the consequences should be. This is exemplified by the entire story of Chapter 50, when Mozi petitions the king of Chu. He doesn't just waltz into the throne room; he uses his connections, an acquaintance in the administration, to pull strings to get an audience. He also demonstrated going through channels in a different incident.

47-3

Master Mozi traveled to Chu in the south and applied to King Hui, who apologized for his age and instructed Minister Mu Ho to receive master Mozi. This one took pleasure in Mu Ho, and Mu Ho was exceptionally pleased and said to master Mozi: "Your words are truly excellent, but our prince is a great ruler in the realm and he will perhaps say that it is impossible to execute a commoner's proposals."

A private who wastes the colonel's time complaining about a sergeant should be let off the hook only if the captain could not have handled the problem (if the sergeant really was in the wrong), and should be chastised even more if there was no problem with the sergeant at all. But these are administrative problems and should have administrative consequences rather than serious crimes in need of criminal type punishments.

Mozi wants us to use the chain of command and try to resolve every issue at the lowest possible level. This is implied by the stories in chapters 11, 12, and 13 about the creation of the hierarchy. If leaders must delegate because they are personally limited (12-2) then they should obviously expect those delegated power to be the first people problems are reported to. Nevertheless, he leaves open the possibility that disorder could be so great that a lowly peasant would need to disregard the entire chain of command and skip all the way up to Heaven to complain, presumably, about the emperor. More usually you would complain to your immediate supervisor and a sufficiently unsolvable issue would work its way up to a noble who could remonstrate with the emperor and then bypass to Heaven if the emperor is stubborn.

In modern America, this highest unquestionable level of remonstration would consist of appealing to the Supreme Court, because modern America has separate systems, one for setting ethical standards and being appealed to (the Judiciary) and one for exerting authority (the executive branch, headed by a mere high official who must only be slavishly followed by government employees) and a third for establishing policies sensitive to the will of the people (the legislature). These are still hierarchies but everything about them doesn't apply to all of them. Just like multiple parties or multiple states, fragmentation of hierarchies doesn't mean there's no hierarchy there to behave correctly in. The fact that they are linked means they are all still part of the one system of the world.

### Chapter 6: Political Behavior

12-10

"Today's kings, princes and great lords practice criminal justice and management in a different way. They favor their relatives, fathers, brothers and good friends, with whom they surround themselves and who they make senior officials. The people know that the princes do not really appoint these officials to direct the people. Therefore they join together in secret associations to deny the prince their consent. Thus, superiors and subordinates are not of like mind, and if superiors and subordinates are not of like mind, then rewards and awards are not sufficient to encourage virtue, and penalties and prosecutions do not hold back vice..."

Sovereignty

Political behavior (decision making as a sovereign or participant in sovereignty) is mostly a scaling up of proper personal, interpersonal, and organizational behaviors. A sovereign is a ruler who is directly under God (or nothing, in the absence of God), rather than a mere intermediate leader who holds delegated authority like a feudal baron. In a sense, this makes all sovereign polities theocracies unless they actively resist theism. After all, if only God is above you, you can either listen or not--and either way you have made a decision about theocracy. Mozi divides rulers into two categories, good and bad, pious and godless, implying that If only God is above you, God will speak to you loud and clear, so you will only have the choice of actively choosing to ignore It or not. I think that's a simplification of what is actually a continuum, but the point is a good one. Those who hold sovereign authority should be clear that they are not the highest possible authority or they are dangerous.

Only sovereigns actually rule in the most general sense, and political behavior is about how independent sovereign states are to be ruled: how policies are to be set and how standards are to be enforced. The rest is administration. But sovereignty can be farmed out to suzerains. In any hierarchy, except for one practicing the strictest micromanagement, all leaders at all levels have some degree of power to innovative policy details. In a democracy, the people as a whole are really considered the sovereign. In that case, every citizen has the same theocratic choice as any more absolute sovereign.

Mozi believes leaders should base policy changes largely on the consensus of all their underlings. That's my interpretation. As I have established earlier, what he actually says is that leaders should sum up the opinions of their underlings and promulgate that consensus as a standard. But since leaders are also to promulgate standards received from above, the only portion of policies free to be based on the consensus of a leader's subordinates is those additions unique to the domain of a particular leader. Many of your policies will be dictated from above, you can only customize for your people in ways that are consistent with that. Even then, those consensus based policies don't have to simply be what the people ask for, because leaders may know better ways to arrive at what the people want, better ways to implement policies rather than just taking a poll and enforcing the conclusions verbatim.

One way to unify opinions is to force everyone to have your own opinion, but an easier (and more Mohist) way is to create a unified standard based on what most people already believe. This sounds much like democracy, despite the hierarchical and authoritarian cast in which we can see many of Mozi's organizational ideas. I think Mozi had no firm ideas on details of implementation, because he was trying to enact the same reforms in a diverse variety of states.

Mohism is compatible with a benevolent dictatorship, a tyrannical democracy, or a liberal republic. Any of those methods, done well, can produce harmony between policies and consensus, at least for a time. Does this mean that Mozi doesn't believe in liberty the way he doesn't believe in fancy palaces? I get the feeling that liberty and political participation, for Mozi, would be on the things to do list, they would just be near the bottom of it.

44-11

A wish that you wish when you are restricted by a predicament is not your wish...

They aren't decadent luxuries to be postponed forever. They're "nice to haves" that we can indulge in once we are fully secure. In a city under siege, liberties are severely curtailed and orders must be obeyed unquestioningly. In more ordinary times leaders can have sensing sessions and open door policies. They don't actually cost anything, but they may reduce positive efficiency beneath the maximum--which may be worth it under the right conditions.

Liberty can be postponed, depending on conditions. But, there's a dangerous tendency among the powerful to feel insecure as long as they are less than _all_ powerful, especially if they don't believe in anything _really_ all powerful that they can identify with. If you are going to maintain a strong sovereign hierarchy long term you also have to have some form of God above it or it will turn into a broken and unstable tyranny.

28-7

"...The criminal kings of the three ancient dynasties, Jie, Zhou, You, and Li were filled with hatred for the world and inflicted evil on mankind. They misguided the understanding of their people and led them to revile and insult God, the mountains and rivers and the spirits. Heaven realized that they did not care for those whom It loved, but hated them, and that they had no interest in all that It was supporting. Therefore, It imposed punishments on them and caused the father and son to break up so that the empire crumbled, they lost control of the temples of the gods of the land and were themselves physically harmed..."

You can't take your Mohism cafeteria style and get the same results as the whole recipe. Sovereigns, those at the top of the pyramid, tend to see any other sovereign or sovereignty as a threat if they really don't believe in anything above themselves. Mozi never mentions it, but this is the real reason for all the wars in ancient China. States expanded preemptively, conquering others not because they needed more land but simply so that others would not be able to conquer them. Nations and corporations do this today. Tyrants limit freedoms far beyond the level needed to maintain social order for the benefit of all (which a benevolent leader would be satisfied with) because they see a competing sovereign in anyone with liberty.

While we pick the best to be in charge, people are not so unequal that anyone is merely instrumental for the wants of another person.

44-19

Even if one increases the differences between people and diminishes their equalities, they are still similar in appearance, and therefore they are all called human.

Only truly superior beings are so vastly superior that they are worthy of humans being subordinated to them in their own right.

46-2

_Master Mozi retorted:_ "The intelligence of the spirits and ghosts is to those of the saints in the same relationship as the perceptions of seeing and hearing persons to those who are deaf and blind.

Liberty itself is an example of such a "spirit" to which many people have sacrificed themselves. But no single human, even a sage king like Tang, is so superior to any other.

In the implied ideals of _The Mozi_ , the Moral State with Downward Elaboration, personal liberty in the modern sense isn't an either-or proposition. There's a continuum. Such liberty is the motivating prize for achievement. Since higher levels impose simpler requirements, those of higher rank are constrained only by those simpler requirements, and are thus freer. Nobody is fully free, for even the sovereign is under Heaven. But everyone is subordinated to society and Heaven, not to any individual human. The sovereignty of the individual pertains only in exceptional cases, when the entire state has utterly failed. However, under good conditions, a system can vest sovereignty, "son of Heaven" status, in the people corporately. Each individual is a microcosm of the state.

When things go badly wrong, it may be necessary to consult Heaven, which is above all human authority. Mozi considers it very important to make this point that Heaven is above the Son of Heaven. This point is made repeatedly.

11-4

"...But if the subjects of the empire are all in harmony with the son of Heaven, but not with Heaven, then catastrophes cannot be avoided..."

12-7

"But if the people are only in harmony with the son of Heaven, but are not in tune with Heaven, then natural disasters cannot be avoided..."

26-3

"...Even the son of Heaven cannot rule freely, for he is governed by Heaven Itself...I have never heard that Heaven has prayed for blessings to the son of Heaven. From this I realize that Heaven rules over the son of Heaven."

27-2

Nowadays, the people declare that they might understand how the son of Heaven is to be considered nobler than the feudal lord, and how these would be nobler than the high officials, but they have not known that Heaven is nobler and wiser than the son of Heaven...

28-3

"...The son of Heaven at last has not complete freedom of government, for Heaven governs him."

28-4

"Now the scholars and nobles of the kingdom all know that the son of Heaven rules the kingdom, but they do not understand that Heaven has dominion over the son of Heaven..."

31-17

"...Xia, was dignified as the son of Heaven and possessed the kingdom, but he vilified Heaven, insulted the spirits, and brought the inhabitants of the realm unhappiness and death. That's why Heaven ordered Tang to execute the criminal sentence..."

And we know from 46-12 that Mozi considers the most important point the most repeatable. So by reverse inference, this is _very_ important. We can generalize "Son of Heaven" as "ultimate human authority." If there were world government, the modern equivalent of the Son of Heaven would be the chief executive or highest court of that world government. Since there is not, each sovereign state is directly under Heaven, and once the highest court of a nation has spoken, if you can't accept that decision your next step is to personally consult Heaven. That means you are, at least in this issue, declaring sovereignty.

In _The Mozi_ this is demonstrated in 19-6 when Tang, unsatisfied with the responses of the Xia king to remonstration, consults Heaven directly. This is not to be done lightly, and is best done by those of high standing because then it may actually be effective. When your superiors are in conflict with their own superiors you have a choice of which to follow. If your side loses you may be executed, but at least you will have the plausible moral deniability to claim you were just obeying orders. The author of chapter 1 suggests that while one should not _follow_ subordinates in rebellion, one can use one's subordinates to rise.

1-2

... The oldest rulers left no documentation. Their successors were well documented, as they worked themselves up with the help of their people.

Where does this put Heaven regarding priesthood of the believer and prayers directly to Heaven? Must we use priests to interact with spirits or Heaven? Mohism is based on universalism as opposed to favoritism. By their nature, spirits are supernaturally empowered special interests. We shouldn't favor any spirit more than others any more than we should favor any person more than any other. We love them all as a group. Praying to partial spirits is tantamount to inviting a powerful schismatic force into our world, which should only happen at the command of Heaven. But simply addressing our prayers to Heaven won't prevent our prayers from going to spirits. When we pray with favoritism in our hearts our prayers will go not to Heaven but to the spirit representing that partial interest or aspect of the world. Praying with favoritism is tantamount to idolatry, even if it is addressed to Heaven. So in summary, you can pray to Heaven, but only if you stay strictly on the topic of Heaven's concerns. Spiritual interactions with Heaven are reserved for those who are acting on behalf of the entire world, or whole peoples. Even the ancient sage kings didn't ask much.

49-16

"...In ancient times, the holy kings served the spirits and ghosts and sacrificed to them, and that was all..."

Normally, you should observe Heaven and read the signs, but should never ask for anything or actively divine about personal matters. Heaven has better things to do than do your thinking for you; that's what you're for. And if you can't handle it, use the human chain of command.

39-7

Those who have no reason follow those who can give them reasons, and those who know nothing, follow those who know something.

On what do I base this reasoning? Heaven's concern is a resource. It is finite in that the various needs of spirits and people conflict, and Heaven has to make it all work together as well as possible. Just as you are not to guide your own finite efforts on the benefit of the world, Thinking Globally, so you should be the more careful with Heaven. Schismatic favoritism (concern for your loved ones or home town or God forbid your home team) is wrong even when it is not strictly selfless. Personal love for your loved ones may not be technically "selfish", but it's still partiality rather than universalism.

Self Similarity and Growth

I gleaned the standards of _personal_ behavior from Mozi's advice about _political_ behavior. This extrapolation is justified by the principle of self similarity. Mozi repeatedly speaks of how small scale patterns repeat themselves on larger scales. A family is like a kingdom. A military conquest is like a petty theft. And an atom is like a solar system. All analogies work on the principle that self similarity exists, and analogy is one of Mozi's main tools of reasoning. Hierarchy is such a nested structure expressed in human organization. Recognition of the fractal nature of reality suffuses everything about Mohism.

For example, growth is a value at every level, not just a phase of individual priorities of learning and investment. Along with social order, increased wealth and population are a constant theme throughout _The Mozi_. Growth, known by that word, isn't specified as a Mohist doctrine, but it's involved in so much of Mohism that it's clearly important. Mozi assumes his audience wants it, but he isn't exactly telling them they should want it. He's just saying that since they do want growth, they should use his system because it will produce the results they want.

Those with power want to enlarge what they control. But just because a ruler has persuaded everyone to follow, to promulgate his values and exhibit loyal hierarchical behavior, that doesn't mean he will get a thriving domain. The machine of state may be functioning without a hitch, responding to the ruler exactly as directed, but if it is not being directed well then results will still be sub-optimal. An example might be an automobile. It may be mechanically sound, but if the driver is unskilled it can still be driven into a ditch. So leaders who want growth need advice about cultivating it. Mozi's direct audience was Mohist disciples, but they were expected to go out and persuade powerful leaders. That secondary audience consisted of men who knew they would personally benefit from increased population and greater general wealth in the states they controlled.

Mozi offers meritocracy as a means to increase wealth and population, on the assumption that his audience wants those things. Does this mean Mozi considers those goals important independently of what his audience already wants? After all, Mozi proposes a frugal lifestyle that doesn't require much wealth. One can imagine a perfect Mohist society living simply and pleasing Heaven by sharing love for each other (without forgetting the spirits). While a larger population is a good means to getting things done, what value can we say it has in and of itself?

Mozi makes the case that a larger population means more people to make goods to serve Heaven and spirits by sacrificing to them.

19-3

"...When one attacks the cities of Heaven with the people who belong to Heaven, the people of Heaven are murdered. One shakes and shatters the seats of the spirits, topples the temples of the gods of the land and slaughters the sacrifices destined for them. This is not the way to benefit the highest spheres of Heaven. Do you think you can treat the spirits this way? By killing people, one destroys the worshippers of the spirits and ghosts and eliminates the cult of the ancient rulers. When the people are oppressed and tormented, the population disperses. This is not the way to be able to serve the spirits of the middle region..."

A larger population has spiritual importance. That is to say, it's important to Heaven for reasons unknown. It's a mystery my child. I can guess that a population growth in ancient China was important because it was necessary for China to play its many important roles much later. But within the ancient Mohist ideology, the will of Heaven is service to the three worlds: Heaven, spirits, and mankind. While benevolence to human beings is involved in serving the other two, so that service to humanity is almost synonymous with service to the will of Heaven, there is actually more to it. Part of the value of humanity to Heaven and spirits is that humans offer them ritual sacrifices. So more people growing more grain is more food for the gods. So expand the agricultural base--because the spirits like it.

What this boils down to is mystery, and Mozi admits that he doesn't know exactly why sacrifices have purpose.

31-19

"...If there were really no ghosts, only the substances related to wine, cider, rice and millet would have been wasted. If you waste something yourself, you deliberately pour it into sewers and ditches and let it go. In this case, however, the relatives and comrades from outside in the village and community, take part in food and drink, as they have been prepared from the sacrificial victim, even if there should be no ghosts, then the merry gathering is a success, which makes it possible to acquire the friendship of your local community comrades."

But he insists that they do have a purpose.

49-16

_A worshipper in Lu sacrificed a piglet to the spirits and ghosts, and prayed for a hundred blessings. When master Mozi heard about it, he said:_ "This is not possible. If you give meagerly to your fellow human beings, but you expect rich gifts in return, then everyone will be afraid of your gifts...."

After all, the sage kings did it, the people do it, and it produces beneficial policy results. Sacrifices were an external variable introduced to the equation, an unknown, but nevertheless an unknown that implied things about the rest of the equation. And one of the important effects of this mysterious requirement was that it meant economic growth was assumed to be a good result independently of any other particular purpose it may serve. For Mozi, growth was an end in itself because the spirits wanted it. It also happened to make the state more powerful relative to other states. And from our point of view in the future we can see that it was important because it made China such a prominent contributor to world civilization. We only know about Mozi and his entire world because China adopted a cultural devotion to economic growth, making more people to raise more agricultural products. To burn.

And make no mistake, the real value here is economic growth. Population growth is just a means to that end. In ancient China, humans were the primary form of capital. Increasing productivity through improving machinery was not a large factor because not much machinery was in use, though what was available earned Mozi's admiration.

6-6

"In the oldest times, the people could not build ships or wagons. They did not move heavy loads anywhere and did not travel far. Therefore wise leaders came up and built ships and wagons to make it comfortable for the people. Ships and wagons were built firmly and permanently, but at the same time also light and agile, so that they could carry heavy loads and drive far. With the consumption of relatively little material, one achieved the maximum efficiency. Therefore the people were very happy because it was advantageous. Even without urgent orders they made use of them. The people were not particularly strained, and the rulers had sufficient benefit. So the people happily fell under them...."

Increasing production through expanding resource exploitation was also an option but it was intimately connected, under then prevailing conditions, to increasing population.

18-2

"...In a state that can support multitudes of chariots, there is still much undeveloped real estate, and you have access to it without conquest; there is completely unspoiled wilderness in many places, and you can develop it without fighting. Thus, land is abundant, but the subject population is insufficient..."

So increasing population was the same as increasing wealth production; economic growth required population growth. And economic growth was vitally important to the whole Mohist system not just because it was important to the rulers who were targets of the proselytizing, but because it was important to the Mohist system actually being able to function sustainably. One element of the Mohist system was intentional reduction of per capita consumer demand, which will lead to an economic depression unless countered by growth. So growth was important to the Mohists for many practical reasons. In adopting Mohism today we can take the implied value of _population_ growth with a grain of salt. What we should take away as a still relevant value is the emphasis on _economic_ growth. And that growth ideally takes the form of more intensely developing what you already have rather than just grabbing more.

18-2

"...this precious population is being eradicated and political capital is being expended and endangered just to conquer empty cities. One pays dearly of what is lacking, in exchange for what is plentiful. Such rule is not in the interests of the state."

A knock on effect is that sexism is no longer of any value, since sexism is really just an aid to increasing population growth.

Justice and social order were more integral to the Mohist system itself, and in the eyes of Mozi they were two sides of the same coin. Good administration prevents disorder and disorder prevents good administration. And this good government is in turn essential for economic growth. What it comes to is that Mozi pitches his whole philosophy as a practical method of achieving desirable ends. "Yo, king. You want your country to run like a top? Try this..."

This value of growth at the state level is identical to the value of growth at the individual level. As the state wants to get richer, the individual wants to get richer. As the state wants to get smarter and stronger, and more secure, so the individual wants to get smarter and stronger and more secure. As the state wants to have better relations with peers, superiors, and subordinates, so the individual wants to have better relations with peers, superiors, and subordinates.

Exemplars in Kind

Proper political behavior is particularly guided by the sages and Heaven. We should strive to be like Heaven and the sages in kind, knowing we cannot be the same in magnitude. This is like an architectural model being of a kind with a real building because it has many of the same gross characteristics.

Our social superiors are presumably more doctrinally correct, that's why they are in positions of authority. So presumably they are more clued into Heaven and the sages. So theoretically we can indirectly take guidance from Heaven and the sages by taking guidance from those in authority over us. In practice, guidance from social superiors is only as good as the system is. We all privately determine how much we trust the system. To that extent, proper political behavior involves a measure of doctrinal conformity.

11-1

"...As the number of people increased, so did the number of opinions expressed. Everyone held his own opinion for the only right one and condemned those of the rest. Thus quarreling arose among them. At home fathers and sons raged at one another, older and younger brothers separated from each other and could not get along peacefully. In the realm, people fought and harmed each other with water, fire or poison. If excess force was present, no aid came to the afflicted, surplus supplies rotted and were not distributed, and good teachings were kept secret so no one was edified by them. The conditions were as disorderly as with wild animals."

Mozi is telling an origin story in order to make a point. Elsewhere in the text Mozi debates another scholar whom he chides for postulating about (ways of life or maybe incarnations of) people of ancient times.

46-15

_Kung Mengzi said: "The existences of people in the past are only three." Master Mozi replied:_ "Who are the people in the past, that you assert that their existences are only three? You do not know whether the people have already existed in the past and that in the later-born, this existence returns."

Yet here Mozi is doing just that. The difference is that Mozi's origin story for civilization is a way of illustrating an abstraction, rather than an attempt to appeal to a fictional antique authority. Mozi's point is not so much that in specific Chinese prehistory people all had different opinions, it is just that in any absence of unifying authority people have differing opinions and that this leads to conflict, which in turn leads to waste and suffering. This is often called Mozi's parallel of the "state of nature" argument most famously put forward by Thomas Hobbes.

To a modern liberal mind Mozi's point seems ghastly. We strongly believe that people are entitled to diverse opinions and that it doesn't harm anything. Mozi seems to be making exactly the opposite point. But look at it from the point of view of Mozi's time. Mozi was not proposing the establishment of authoritarianism, because force based authoritarianism already existed. He was proposing something we take for granted, but which was then new. He was introducing the idea of a doctrine. He was introducing the bedrock fundamental notion of _idea based authority_.

We live in a world in which people share innumerable common assumptions that allow us to function together as a society. We share so many "opinions" universally that we don't notice the doctrinal unity we are benefiting from. We are like fish who don't notice water. The culture of ancient China, like the culture of the entire world, started out highly fragmented and idiosyncratic. So Mozi is telling the truth, he's just not aware that there are civilizations other than China.

We are horrified by Mozi's indictment of individual opinions, concepts of right and wrong, but that's because we are united in assuming that he is calling for unification of all opinions on every topic. It's important that I clarify the word "opinion". My quotes are from my translations of Forke's 1922 translation of _The Mozi_ into German, rather than from the original classical Chinese, but I have read other translations and what Forke calls "ansichten" ( "views" or liberally "opinions") are commonly referred to as "principles". Apparently the actual character, as given on ctext is 義, yi, which some machines translate as "predefined"(or presumably "predefinition" when taken as a noun) but for obscure textual reasons modern translators read it as "principles" or "ideas". The ABC Chinese English dictionary by John DeFrancis gives it as "bearing, rite, or etiquette." Could this be summed up as "style" as in "that's not my style"? My thinking is that even the Chinese language has drifted, and we are basically guessing at what Mozi really meant by the character he used. It can only be really got at by understanding of context. As I understand it, this is true of Chinese generally, even the written language. In that case, a better word would probably be " _precepts_ ". What Mozi is talking about here is fundamental understandings on which to base correct behavior. Each of those precepts might also be called an ethic and a body of them (in the mind of an individual, the adherents of a school, or of a whole unified society) might be called the ethics. Mozi is saying that every sovereign society should receive those fundamental understandings ultimately from the one God, and thus should be united by those understandings, though they may differ from other sovereign societies that have different relationships with the divine. "You can differ, but if you do, you're not one of us." I think we can all agree on that at least. Similarly, I can be a modern American of Mozi's school, and thus have a similar Yi to an ancient Mohist who may have been most adapted to the state of Qi in that my Mozi derived ethics match his, but his Qi derived ethics and my America derived ethics will differ.

Mozi is not saying that people can't hold personal opinions, think independently, lodge protests (5-1), or privately speculate with peers (1-3). He's not proposing a totalitarian unity of all thought. Rather he is simply proposing unified public doctrine. You can have your personal opinion and doubts, and especially your own original ideas (49-9) on many matters, but to the extent a doctrine has been publically finalized you will be in the wrong if you do not, for the sake of unity and peace, concur with it in public, especially in the presence of subordinates if you are in a leadership position. In my translation I will leave the word as "opinion" but I propose that it really means something more like "doctrinal position." These "opinions" are comparable to court rulings that are called "opinions" when courts consist of panels of judges. And of course, the majority opinion is the **ruling** of the court. And all other courts accept higher rulings as precedents. And nobody gets away with saying the law is something other than what it is. Yes, Mozi is guilty of not being a proper anarchist.

So Mozi's call for doctrinal unity is not as radically oppressive as you might think. Even modern America has something like doctrinal uniformity. Anyone condemning the constitution, calling for the reinstitution of slavery, or proposing the abolition of free speech will be roundly criticized and discriminated against. Americans are also united against the idea of mandatory doctrinal unity, and that itself is a Yi. Just as under Mozi's proposed regime (a future Utopia disguised as a past golden age), we are entitled to our own opinions on many things, but will incur public condemnation and possible career consequences for stepping out of line regarding the sacred cows. Within political parties, which are like feudal states under a common emperor, this consensus opinion is particularly stark. If you are a member of a political party you must agree with the party platform, at least in public. So in crafting platforms the parties are careful to leave wiggle room for different ideas about implementation because they know how necessary that is. And how are these platforms generated? It is in deliberative bodies. And how are the laws produced once those parties divide up the power? It is in further deliberative bodies. In Mohist terms, legislatures and conventions of party delegates are equivalent to private remonstrance. The public may be able to look on, and may personally remonstrate with legislators, but they don't take part in the proceedings. The legislators should be sensitive, open to input, but ultimately make the decisions themselves. An election driven multi-party system can be compatible with Mohism.

Assertiveness

As in all dealings with near peers, friendly and assertive, but not aggressive, foreign policy is particularly important. Actually this is a big part of _The Mozi_. The principle of _Condemnation of Aggressive Warfare_ was a main tenet of the ancient Mohists, and they famously worked against it by helping bolster defenses of underdogs. However, there were caveats. What Mozi was against was basically wars of conquest, invading another country to take their land and enslave their people. He believed defensive wars were OK, and since he believed in the value of military alliances, we can infer that coming to the aid of another state in its defensive war is also acceptable. He also made an exception for what he calls "punitive expeditions", mainly because the vaunted sage kings were reputed to have engaged in them. The distinction is that Heaven approves of such wars on the basis that the rulers of the naughty countries are violating the will of Heaven. In the example _The Mozi_ gives, the Miao people were committing what would now call atrocities and human rights abuses, inflicting very draconian and unjust punishments on the citizenry.

12-8

"...Ages ago, the holy kings introduced the five punishments to govern the empire. But when they were also adopted by the prince of the Miao, they brought the empire into confusion. Were the five penalties not good? Their application was not good. Therefore it is said in a book of the former Kings, The Lu Code, _'The Miao did not use education, but oppressed by punishments. They made five kinds of murder from the penalties and called them laws.'_..."

In a sense you could say that attacking a principality for its abuse of the population can be a form of coming to the aid of an ally's defense.

16-10

_And it appears not only in the_ Great Explanation _, but also_ The Explanation of Yu _is similar. Yu said: "Ye mighty multitude, listen to my words. Not only I, the unworthy, dare to speak of the turmoil. Against this foolish Prince of the Miao, I am completing the punishment of Heaven. I lead your armies and go ahead in the fight against the Prince of the Miao." The campaign of Yu against the prince of the Miao was not made to multiply his wealth and his prestige, to gain happiness and income, or to obtain eyes and ears, but he merely sought to promote the benefits of the realm and looked to self defense._

But I would be afraid such an exception for punitive expeditions could make the prohibition against conquest useless because any war of aggression could be framed as a punitive expedition and the blessing of Heaven could be falsely claimed. Mozi relates how such falsification of divine mandate is likely to earn the wrath of God.

35-10

"In the Clarification of Zhong Hui it is said: _'I have heard of the Xia that they pretended the will of Heaven and spread such orders to the people. God destroyed them because of their wickedness and helped to disperse their armies.'_ That shows us how Tang refuted the fatalism of Jie...."

He also counsels extreme caution when states take it upon themselves to punish their peers, rather than doing so only as agents of a higher power.

49-4

"The people of Zheng have killed their princes for three generations, and Heaven wants to punish them. If it is not done in three years, the discipline of Heaven may be sufficient. Now you also offer an army to attack Zheng, and declare that you would do it to fulfill the will of Heaven. This is like a man who has a recalcitrant and shirking son and the father chastises him. Would it not be quite wrong if the father of the neighboring house lifted his cane and also struck the young one, claiming that he had acted in his own father's way with his flogging?"

In modern terms, you wouldn't engage in a punitive expedition without approval of a multinational coalition (preferably a comprehensive one like the United Nations, rather than just you and a few of your friends). Alternatively, you could read the signs.

19-5

When the San Miao made a great uprising, Heaven commanded they be eliminated. At night the mirage of a sun appeared, on three acres of blood it was raining, in a temple a dragon was born, in the market the dogs howled, in the summer it froze, and the earth burst down on the springs, and the five crops turned.

Not only that, but Mozi isn't too hot on the laws of war. He condemns Confucius for treating war like a gentleman's sport.

39-7

...Let's think of a kingdom in rebellion. A wise man wants to save his contemporaries from perdition and offers for the purpose an army to chastise the culprits. If, following the supposed rules, the victorious commander orders his soldiers not to pursue the fleeing, not to shoot the surrounded and to help freed prisoners with provision wagons, then the rebels will all keep their lives, but the kingdom is not freed from perdition. So he brings his own parents into great distress and plunges his fellow man into the deepest misery...

Mozi is a no quarter kind of guy, figuring if you're warring with somebody you already know he's a bad dude, so there's no point in treating him fairly. Though, of course, giving quarter can have a tactical purpose, under the right circumstances, as evidenced by the successes of the sage king Wu. What Mozi condemns is such things as the Confucian way of letting an enemy retreat, presumably on the ethical basis that if the enemy is not attacking any more there's no pretext to continue fighting him. Mozi sees the whole conflict in a larger context. The strategically defensive war can include tactical attacks.

And then there's what are called the military chapters. These are instructions at the end of the Mozi for how to defend a besieged city. I consider these chapters to be false advertising, basically a ruse to give an enemy who might come into possession of the document misleading information about Mohist plans. Other parts are intended for low ranking defenders, to deceive them about what their superiors are doing so that they can be manipulated more effectively. Outrageous rewards are prescribed for relatively prosaic military achievements. Just to grab one out of a bag, here's this.

70-17

When officials, soldiers or citizens conspire to assassinate their commander, or a sergeant, they are punished as well as outraged. If you arrest them or bring them in, you will receive 20 pounds of gold reward.

Twenty pounds of gold is like half a million dollars. There's no system mentioned for verification of accusations. So anybody on the wall can point to his neighbor, accuse him, and get rich? That's a recipe for disaster. Clearly these rewards, some of them promising large fiefdoms, could never actually be fulfilled. Outrageous punishments are threatened for failures of discipline, such as the horrible execution of the entire family of a soldier who talks to the enemy from the top of the wall. This would probably be an idle threat, but the soldiers on the wall would never know because the families were held separately in the central keep--to "keep them safe". What I find particularly implausible are the commands to execute suspected violators without trial or be executed yourself.

70-39

Anyone who arrests a guilty party must bring about his execution. When officials do not execute a guilty party, they suffer the same punishment, even if they let a criminal escape. If the commander leads the fight and his people do not properly execute the orders, they will be punished with death.

If you set up a regime like that it's basically commanding everyone on the wall to turn to the soldiers to their sides and kill them. Nothing could make the enemy happier. A better way would be to command that violators be imprisoned for trial, or perhaps given dangerous suicide missions (perhaps climbing out on a pole extended 20 feet out from the wall to shoot arrows down on the enemy--right, sure).

56-2

_Master Mozi replied:_ "You are asking about the use of cloud ladders? They are heavy equipment that is difficult to move...The wall is 35 feet high. The battlements are 6 feet high and 10 feet wide. To the left and right of this, 20-foot-long rams protrude outward. From them archers try to shoot the enemies from the sides and to damage their machines by arrow shots..."

Commanders failing to do so should be subject to dismissal, not summary execution by whoever. Summary executions are not a sign of strength; they are the final stage of breakdown.

11-2

"...When using reward and punishment in this way, individual cases must be investigated precisely so that the truth is explored."

The "military chapters" are a farce, and I can see why Forke didn't translate them completely. He couldn't stop laughing. However, the defense chapters have a few wise sayings salted in here and there. 71-15 talks about stockpiling, 71-6 and 71-17 cover assigning jobs based on personality diversities such as introversion and extroversion, and 71-19 emphasizes the importance of proper population density. Other than those the only lesson these chapters hold for us is that sometimes you have to prevaricate.

Mozi's policies regarding warfare between states can be repurposed as individual guidance on interpersonal aggression. Mozi argues against wars of conquest on the basis that they are scaled up versions of petty theft, and petty theft is generally condemned, so wars of conquest should be condemned. It can also work the other way. Since wars of aggression are unacceptable, such human scale aggressions as "manspreading" are also unacceptable.

You defend what's yours, but you don't take more. That would be government by force. Under government by violence everybody bullies those who are weaker.

26-7

A government that is consistent with the intentions of Heaven is a just government and one that contravenes them is a government of violence. How do you recognize a just government? In this, master Mozi said that those who live in a large state do not attack the small states, those who are part of large households, do not interfere in the smaller ones, the mighty do not rape the weak, the prominent are not arrogant against the low, and the sly do not cheat the simple. Heaven is served in the highest regions, the spirits in the middle, and the people in the lower, so there is nothing that does not have its share in this threefold benefit.

People are loaned power because they supposedly represent larger interests, but this power is often used to take from those who are weaker for the purpose of serving petty interests. A just government doesn't operate on the basis of using power for selfish purposes, so how must it behave? It must use power to serve larger interests and protect those who are weaker rather than exploit them. For the most part cooperation is attained through respect, or at least bribery, and forceful punishment is not the primary tool to compel obedience, but rather is a last resort to be used for the service of the larger community and for the protection of the weak.

How do we reconcile concern of the large for the small and weak with the mandate that the larger cause take precedence over the smaller one, and ultimately that universalism supplant partiality and favoritism? Which one is it? Does the great serve the small, or does the small serve the great? The great is often served by service to the small and the small is often served by service to the great. Discernment is necessary. Simple mindedly serving the obvious interests of power is not necessarily right. Heaven transcends scale and the large serve the small to serve the even larger. Ideally there is no conflict between large and small scale concerns, so being ethical is being benevolent.

Heaven is concerned for the largest scale, and It punishes and rewards bad and good behavior. But the effects of bad behavior can have collateral damage. There can be innocent bystanders. For example, the empire may suffer a natural disaster because the emperor is a sinner.

27-4

"...So if the citizens of the great states move against smaller ones, or the inhabitants of the big cities set out to conquer the smaller ones, then when they pray for happiness and blessing from Heaven while behaving this way, they will never obtain happiness and blessings, and instead it will be misfortune and spoil they meet. If one does not do what Heaven desires, but what it does not wish, then Heaven will not do what one desires, but that which one does not wish. But what is it that people don't want? It is diseases, misfortune and ruin. If you do not do what Heaven desires, but do what It does not wish, you will inspire the people of the world to work for their own misery and ruin..."

What does this imply? It implies that we not only have a negative duty to avoid selfishly sacrificing the interests of the larger scale for smaller petty interests (such as selfishness or favoritism), but that we have a positive duty to actively serve the interests of the larger scale. If someone interferes with the emperor's sins, then disaster can be averted and small scale innocent bystanders can be saved. With _ability_ comes positive and collective _duty_.

Succession Issue

The succession system is a particular concern that was never addressed perfectly by any ancient sages, leading dynasties to degrade over time. If you're going to have a system that revolves around ensuring the good by calling for obedience to a hierarchy of good leaders, then it's vital that when the pinnacle leader of the hierarchy leaves office the successor must always be just as good. Hereditary monarchies choose the son of the king to take over as the new king, presumably on the basis that he has the same genes and has been brought up to it. That method is about as reliable as random selection. A better system is one in which the current leader picks her successor. An example would be adoptive succession  as practiced in ancient Rome. A good emperor selects someone of like mind and temperament and develops that successor through something like an apprenticeship. The ancient Mohists movement apparently practiced a similar system, with each Elder Master appointing his successor. The first in this lineage was Mozi, but the later elder masters were increasingly foolish and obscure. (One got embroiled in a civil war in which his honor was caught between conflicting promises, so he killed himself to save the reputation of the movement.) The Catholic Church practices a modified version of successor appointment, in which the pinnacle leader appoints a group of people who then elect the successor. These systems are all flawed and lead to either decay or stasis because they rely on the flawlessness of the ability of leaders to pick other leaders who can flawlessly pick other leaders.

"Competence" is a broad concept. The ancient Mohist reliance on it had implications that demand a digression at this point. If you are going to rely on the present worthiness of present leaders as the sole means of ensuring that the future leaders they select will be equally worthy then the competence component of worthiness logically must include the propensity to accurately judge the worthiness of others. In other words if you are going to rely on one leader to pick future leaders, then that leader has to be able to see how good a candidate is at picking his own successor. For a dynasty to last forever without any other form of input to the selection process, then the initial leader must have the ability to judge ability to judge ability to judge ability, ad infinitum. Otherwise at some point a leader will pick a successor who is foolish enough to pick a further successor who is even more foolish. The situation will quickly degenerate. This requirement is an infinite fractal, because the challenge that leaders face is also such a fractal. You cannot send the finite up against the infinite.

Of course nobody will measure up, you can only pick the best available. Alternatively, there could be some means of ongoing input other than the infinite foresight of the initial leader. In effect, that's what the proposed Mohist system really relies on. Eventually a dynasty founded by a sage who applies merit to pick his successor decays until finally a ruler is so degenerate that some nobleman asks Heaven for permission to found a new dynasty. This is nothing other than Heaven and the best of the ruling class (sensitive to the people) making huge adjustments every few hundred years. That's simply a very low resolution form of feedback that can be improved on.

An example from western history is the series of adopted emperors of the Roman Empire. Rather than passing the crown on to blood relatives, all the emperors from Nerva through Antoninus Pius adopted a promising young man. Eventually Marcus Aurelius was chosen by Antoninus Pius. And while he was generally excellent, Aurelius had some flaw, which Antoninus Pius could never have anticipated, that led him to select his worthless biological son for the throne.

   ........................................

Trajan contemplating his duty Commodus dressed up for the games

Why was this line of rulers susceptible to decay? They failed because they were not explicitly aware of the practice that was causing them to be so successful. They did not have the concept of exalting the worthy. Also, they were building their succession system on the assumption of infinite foresight, but they didn't _have_ infinite foresight.

This issue applies not only to Chinese dynasties, and others in world history, it also applies to the Mohist organization itself. Apparently Mozi appointed a successor, the Elder Master, who headed the Mohist movement much like a pope. Each Elder Master appointed his own successor. From an incomplete Mohist mindset this makes sense. The Elder Master is the best, so he will pick the best. Except that successors were eventually not up to the task, made bad decisions, and Mohism died out. So even with explicit knowledge of the concept of exalting the worthy a benevolent dynasty can decline unless it can add continuous feedback to the system. Otherwise the founder of the dynasty has to have superhuman powers of prediction. Could Nerva have selected someone wiser than Trajan who would have selected someone wiser than Hadrian who would have selected someone wiser than Antoninus Pius who would have selected someone wiser than Marcus Aurelius who would have know better than to select Commodus? How much foresight can we expect from Nerva? Only a real time feedback system can adjust for things that are impossible to anticipate.

And in fact such a system is hinted at in _The Mozi_ , in the story of King Wen. King Wen was selected by a broad coalition from all ranks of society from Heaven to the lowest peasants. Or course each peasant's vote did not weigh as much as that of each noble. But the peasantry as a whole weighed as much as the aristocracy as a whole. Each level of society was equally important, if not equally populous.

35-6

"...He was united with his people by mutual affection, and he showed them many blessings and gave to them from his abundance. Therefore, the neighbors lived peacefully under his scepter, those living far away were attracted by his virtue, for all who heard of him got up and flocked to him. The most weak and degenerate, whose limbs did not possess sufficient tension, were left behind and said, _'If the rule of King Wen could only come to us! We would then have the same advantages as Wen's subjects.'_ Therefore Heaven and the spirits made him rich, the princes took his side, the people were fond of him, and the most excellent scholars fell in with him. Before a generation had passed, he had gained dominion in the kingdom and the leadership of the princes. If I predicted that if a righteous man were at the head of the realm, it would be well-managed, so God, the mountains, rivers and spirits would have their worshippers and venerators and the people would thus partake of their manifold blessings, then I have demonstrated it with these incidents."

Mandate of Heaven

Degraded regimes require the intervention of Heaven in establishing a new person or institution to act as supreme human authority. In ancient China, King Wen's son overthrew the Shang dynasty and established the new Zhou dynasty. The slave army of the Shang turned coat. Since the victors get to write the history, the Zhou represented this not as a usurpation but a passing of the "mandate of Heaven." When a line of rulers becomes too immoral to rule, Heaven selects another to takes its place, and since Heaven outranks the emperor, there is nothing disloyal about overthrowing the emperor if Heaven orders you to do so. The Zhou even wrote history to say that the Shang had in turn overthrown the Xia dynasty in the same way. The rest of Chinese history would follow this pattern, with each dynasty claiming to have received the right to rule from Heaven. This political system, as such, is pretty clunky. But conceptually, we should follow something like it when we find we cannot accept our sovereign. Is there an alternative better fit to rule in ways that serve Heaven?

Most of the usurping dynasty founders Mozi so admired were also what he called sage kings. Ancient China had an analog of medieval scholasticism, in which the creation of new knowledge was distrusted. Everything had to be justified in terms of appeal to ancient authorities. This sort of cultural feature exists even in modern society, which is exactly why I felt compelled to dig up an ancient thinker who largely concurs with my own thinking. It was a pro-forma requirement to bolster any assertion by telling how it came from the ancients. Mozi didn't throw this principle out entirely, or use it as the primary bedrock of his system, rather he kept the idea of using appeals to ancient documents, but expanded on it to allow other sources of knowledge as well.

46-17

_Kung-said: "The noble does not create anything new, but only imitates." Master Mozi replied:_ "It is not like that. The very ignoble among the people do not imitate the good of the old times, and they don't do the good of the current times either. The less ignoble do not follow the good of antiquity, but they carry out the good that they themselves have, and wish that the good should come from them themselves. Now, if you imitate, but do not create yourself, it is not much different than if you don't like to follow, but act on your own initiative. I think that if you imitate the good old ways and also bring the good of our time to execution, you are multiplying the good as wished."

What this amounts to is using history as a corpus of empirical evidence. "This has been tried," Mozi is saying, "And it produced good results."

15-8

_...Master Mozi said:_ "The example is not applicable. Lifting Mount Tai and jumping over the Ji River would have to be called an extraordinary feat. No one has been able to do so from the oldest time until now. Comprehensive mutual love and exchange of reciprocal advantage is quite different. The wise rulers of antiquity actually accomplished them...."

But the sage kings meant more than that; they were an integral part of Chinese religion of Mozi's time. The sage kings were mythological figures, akin to prophets. Citing them was like citing the bible in a Christian context. The difference is that due to China's rapid development, the tales of sage kings were less mythologized. Tales of the sage kings were embellished relics of the actual reigns of real leaders, people much closer to Mozi than Bible stories are to us. There's a pragmatism in them that isn't present in the exhortations of Abrahamic prophets.

Mozi's selection of sage kings did not include the legendary ones like the Yellow Emperor. Other than occasionally throwing in Yao and Shun, he usually restricted his list to just "Yu, Tang, Wen, and Wu," the founders of dynasties. Wen and Wu were actual historical figures, the founders of the contemporary Zhou dynasty. Wen rebelled agasint the corrupt final Shang king but didn't live to take the crown himself. His pattern of dynastic change sets the pattern for how it's done. His son Wu did take the crown, and then exemplified excellent rule and set the ideal pattern for Zhou rulers. Tang had founded the previous dynasty, the Shang.

The Shang actually existed; they are historical and archeological fact. Tang was a real, proto-historical person, attested on oracle bones from later in the dynasty, though there is no writing from his own time. Further, Tang's story is suspiciously similar to the story of Wen, with a few enlightening embellishments that were possible only because there was no real history to get in the way. Yu is entirely legendary, a culture hero from the Xia dynasty which left no contemporary records at all. The Xia dynasty is only known to have existed because there must have been something before the Shang dynasty for Tang to have overthrown. What's important is not the truth of these stories, it is that they represent the soul of the nation. The highest ideals are projected onto these figures; then they are written in stone, beyond corruption. George Washington may not have actually chopped down a cherry tree, but the story is part of America's national identity and its lesson remains timeless.

These sage kings were not only exemplary; they are examples of rulers being directly chosen by Heaven. So when Mozi says the sage kings were great because they practiced meritocracy he is literally claiming divine favor for meritocracy. He is saying social mobility and equality of opportunity are divinely mandated and that they are therefore good and practical policies. That's his whole thing. Good policies are more effective than alternative policies because Heaven helps them succeed, and Heaven so favors them because they work better. By that reasoning, greater merit is the mandate of Heaven.

### Chapter 7: Religious Behavior

28-2

_Therefore, master Mozi said:_ "Be prudent and take heed. Do what Heaven desires, and avoid what displeases It...

Proselytizing

Religious behavior requires denying fatalism and promoting belief in Heaven and service to the benefit of the world in accordance with the will of Heaven. Mozi is clear about this. In the history available to him, bad leaders were irreligious, or actively antithetical to religion, while good leaders were pious (at least publically) and encouraged religious activity.

26-5

_...Master Mozi said:_ "In the upper region they cheated Heaven, in the middle they insulted the spirits and in the lower they harmed the people. Then Heaven said to itself: _'What I love, they turn away from and hate it, and what I promote, they turn to it to harm it. Their hatred is without borders and the damage that they inflict on humanity is extraordinary.'_ Therefore, It did not let them live the high life for very long or have even one generation of survivors. To this day, they are cursed and called the criminal rulers. _"_

Does this mean the details of any _particular_ kind of religion must be promoted? I think it doesn't. The general rule is that in localizing received standards, a good leader merely amalgamates the consensus values of the led and then promulgates them, partly by example. Remember that?

So the leader's religious practices should not conflict with those being led.

31-20

... If I want to be an excellent scholar in the realm, this is certainly not the right way to become an important man.

If you are the governor of a state full of Buddhists, it would be better for you to promote Buddhism. But if your Buddhist state is in a nation that is mostly Muslim, that would disqualify you from becoming the national president. Furthermore, it would be your duty as a subordinate leader to lead your people to greater conformity with the majority opinion. This means leaders have a duty to at least pretend to religious conformity as required by the setting or else to give up leadership.

As a leader you should not indulge in religious freedom that doesn't derive from the leniency of your superiors and the open mindedness of your subordinates. You have responsibilities to both subordinates and superiors. Your duty is to promote the standards of your superiors, and only innovate in ways consistent with those standards. A Muslim king might permit Christian subjects while anathematizing Buddhism, so the governor of a province subordinate to that king would have no option of conforming downward. You can no more lead well while practicing whatever religion you like than you can lead well while wearing whatever clothes you like. You can only diverge from those above and below if it is called for by those even higher above (presumably reflecting the consensus will of an even larger community). Ultimately you have no duty to support a king whose religion is antithetical to Heaven. But if the sovereign actively promotes religious freedom you can follow your heart while encouraging your subordinates to do the same--other than preferring theism generally.

Does this mean everybody has to be an evangelist for theism? No (31-7). There are many other aspects to leadership, and leaders have many other responsibilities. It means you have a duty to lead people toward theism to some degree, and not to lead them away from it.

48-2

...Those who aspire to the good are few. If you don't talk to people about it, they don't know anything about it... If justice and benevolence are well distributed...the quality of the enlightenment of the people is the greater.

This applies even to those at the bottom of the social pyramid. To the extent that your superiors give you latitude you should use that latitude to promote correct religious belief and behavior, even if that only means expressing your own beliefs when asked. But those lower in the pyramid are freed from the duty to consolidate the opinions of subordinates only to the extent allowed by standards received from above. They still have superiors, and they have a duty to conform to standards received from them. As always, the remonstration process applies.

But upward conformity is important to Mozi mainly because it's a practical policy. Mozi promotes it because it works, conforms to the sage kings, and the people will go along with it. When it fails to do those things it can be discarded. For instance, the whole three models epistemology is spelled out in the process of excusing refusing to accept a prevailing spiritual belief in fatalism. Mozi makes the case that even if the king likes fatalism, you can reject it because it fails the three models.

Mozi gives many examples of policies and procedures getting results. This is evidence that our futures are not fated. We can make decisions and they make a difference. Further, belief in fatalism is pernicious, producing lassitude and irresponsibility. If outcomes aren't related to behavior then any behavior is acceptable, so behaviors with bad outcomes will be engaged in. The problem with fatalism is simply that it conflicts with reality. When your guidance system conflicts with reality your behavior will be ineffective and your results will be undesirable.

35-9

"...The poor people in ancient times sought nothing more passionately than food and drink, but they were sluggish in their work. As a result, the products for clothing and food did not suffice, and they suffered from hunger and cold, frost and lack of food. But they did not concede that they were weak and demeaning themselves, and that they had not been energetic enough in their actions. Instead, they claimed that poverty is their inevitable destiny. The criminal kings of ancient times could not master the sense of lust from their eyes and ears or their degenerate instincts. They thus fell out with their relatives, lost the kingdom, and were to blame for the collapse of the temples of the gods of the land and of the crops. Also they could not admit that they were weak and dissolute and had led their government badly. Rather, they opined that the loss of their rule was determined by destiny."

But logically fatalism, or at least determinism, seems reasonable. After all, if effects follow causes, then all causes already exist and so all consequences are determined. Fatalism would only be false if new causes were being created on the fly. Metaphysical rejection of fatalism requires that creation be an ongoing process. Further, human decisions affect that creation process. In fact, this is consistent with some interpretations of quantum mechanics. I tend to believe in both determinism and an ongoing process of creation. Deterministic time lines already exist, but there are many of them. Sets of timelines exist in proportion to probabilities of all possible outcomes of all indeterminacies. Each such time line is deterministic, but since new time lines are constantly being created, partly in response to the contents of the existing time lines and partly in response to holistic factors, probabilities are constantly changing. Heaven is the intelligent universe constantly recalculating as all time space evolves. It is constantly finding new ways to make the time space continuum more prolific of new variants, which requires that it become full of more life and more order, more intelligence and more civilization. But that's my theory, and while it dovetails nicely with Mohism it doesn't specifically derive from it. The point is that our decisions matter and God is real.

Perennial

Wherever there is civilization, there are generally similar beliefs and practices, though they take different ritual forms.

28-5

"How can they follow the will of Heaven? It is by loving all the people of the world. How do we know that the love of Heaven extends to all men on Earth? Because sacrifices to It are universal. And what proves to us that Heaven is sacrificed to by all? From antiquity to the present day, there has been no people, not even those in distant, desolate areas or those that are cut off from all culture, who have not in some sense bred cattle, sheep, dogs and pigs, and filled vessels with pure rice, millet, wine and cider to sacrifice them with reverence to God, the mountains, rivers and spirits. From this we see how Heaven is sacrificed to by all. As It has power over all, so It must also love them all such that a good analogy might be the monarch of Chu or Yue. The king of Chu finds his sustenance within the four boundaries of Chu, and therefore he loves the people of Chu. The King of Yue is entertained in Yue and for this reason loves the people of Yue. The power of Heaven is sustained by the worship of the whole world, so from this I conclude that It must love all the people of the world evenly."

This paragraph extends Mozi's theory to the entire world, postulating something like perennial philosophy. Not only does Heaven bestow nature's bounty universally, but also It accepts sacrifices universally. But this universality of sacrifice is not so much an act of Heaven as a universal _human_ practice. Far from making this a really lame argument, this caveat underscores its true meaning. Wherever there is civilization, wherever people have mastered animal domestication and agriculture, similar beliefs and rites appear. Mozi is implying that this universal acclaim of Heaven, this widespread popular perception, is evidence that this vision of Heaven's nature is accurate. Further, Heaven rewards the good and punishes the bad, so be good for goodness sake.

Heaven could be any God. While _The Mozi_ talks a great deal about the will of Heaven, and describes many aspects of It in abstract or practical terms, we are never clearly told how to perceive Heaven so that we can use it as a standard ourselves. Effectively the standard of Heaven is being described to us rather than provided to us. We are being told about a ruler and instructed to use it for measurement, but we are not being provided with a ruler. I suspect that there are several reasons for this. Mozi's culture had a common understanding of Heaven, though religion had been becoming more polytheistic over the course or the Zhou dynasty. (To create a newer, simpler way, Mozi must circumvent the corrupting new complexity, and conveniently this gets his ideas extra antiquity gravitas while allowing him to call upon supposed primordial traditions that are so ill attested that they leave room for speculative creativity.) Everyone had a ruler already; they just didn't know how to use it. Heaven was known largely through various forms of divination. Natural signs and peculiar events, for example, were attributed to Heaven. Further, the hand of Heaven can be divined from Its action in history, as Mozi so often does. _The Mozi_ also alludes to other forms of divination, such as use of magic snakes and wise turtles, though these are in an historical context and may have been obsolete methods primarily for divining from spirits rather than from Heaven. And Mozi also bases an argument on the fulfillment of prophecies derived via officially commissioned divination.

46-2

"...Weng Nani was commissioned to question the auspices by turtle shell divination...If the saints assembled their best officials and their most eminent statesmen, and they pooled their counsel, still how could they know what would happen after many hundred years? But the ghosts and spirits knew it..."

The content of these prophecies is not part of Mozi's argument, simply the fact that they were fulfilled. This parallels Mozi's beliefs generally. He believes in Heaven because he has seen It acting in the world and because he can see it directly. He believes in the spirits based on hearsay, either historical records or contemporary folk tales, and chooses not to question those records based on practical considerations. If practical considerations (as well as the local folk beliefs) were different, Mohists might have a different take on the spirits. Mohists in ancient China in fact split up into different sects geographically, practicing superficially aspects differently depending on where they were. The three models should be the guide in adapting, but in applying of the three models we have a uniting factor. Wherever we apply a generalization of Mohism, using it as a multipurpose tool, Mozi must remain our primary sage, so any local variants of Mohist practice must be compatible with Mozi and his belief that spirits must always be taken into account in some way as part and parcel of our Heaven worship. And that applies even if the local masses believe differently and practical considerations dictate otherwise.

The point of the divination story is just that spirits have access to superior information, so they can't be fooled. Because they see everything, Heaven sees everything (as if Heaven needed help). But ordinary divination is communication with mere spirits, and unless blessed by Heaven it is probably just giving random spirits access to our world, rather than taking messages from the universally benevolent Heaven approved spirits. Since Heaven is like a high level leader who shouldn't be bothered with mundane matters, and is mainly concerned with large scale matters, divination from Heaven (humbly appealing for guidance rather than simply reading the signs provided) is normally best left to high level leaders, practiced on special occasions only, or based on large scale events. So there is a source for the calibrations on our personal Heaven-based measuring sticks; they are actually derived from Heaven itself, but for the most part we don't use Heaven itself as a ruler, any more than a prototype meter stick is used directly, rather we use our derived knowledge of Heaven the way we use lesser measuring sticks based on the prototype.

An understanding of Heaven has been built up, and is most clearly described by Mozi, who distilled it from the history available to him. We don't have to reinvent the wheel unless for some reason a great disaster presents us with a need to deal with things no predecessor ever anticipated.

We use Heaven as a compass, but we use our own eyes in our own lives to navigate the ground before our feet. We observe with our own eyes the behavior of the people around us, and we compare them with our guiding star.

Simple Thoughtful Rites

In spiritual rites and practices the thought is what counts, and whatever rites you believe in should be carried out properly to express this reverence. Simplicity, however, is of the essence. Mozi derides unnecessary adornment and ceremony generally, but in particular he makes clear that ritual correctness does not equate to morality.

25-14

"...The aristocrats treated this as a government policy and the commoners followed it as a custom, which they constantly exercised and at which they did not take offense. But was that real benevolence and justice? No, it is just an indulgence of participants and a misconception of habits as expressions of justice."

But he also speaks acceptingly of the ritual sacrifices involved in then contemporary Heaven worship.

26-3

"...The holy kings of the three ancient dynasties, Yu, Tang, Wen, and Wu, wanted to make it clear to the people that the heavens have their authority also over the son of Heaven. Therefore they bred cattle and sheep, fattened dogs and pigs, filled the ceremonial vessels with rice, wine and cider of impeccable purity, and sacrificed all this to God and the spirits thereby pleading for blessings from Heaven. I have never heard that Heaven has prayed for blessings to the son of Heaven. From this I realize that Heaven rules over the son of Heaven."

He particularly repeats important aspects of ritual correctness, the details of which are known to the pertinent sages.

12-7

"...The holy kings in ancient times knew the desires of Heaven and spirits and avoided what displeased them, seeking to promote the benefit of mankind and avert disadvantages. They taught the millions of the empire to fast and purify themselves and to sacrifice only immaculate wine and vessels full of rice and millet to Heaven and spirits. In the service of spirits and souls, they dared not to use less than completely pure and clear wine and cider or full baskets of rice. The sacrificial animals had to be big and fat, the jade scepter and silk fabrics had to be exactly in accordance with the prescribed dimensions. In the spring and autumn sacrifices, one did not dare to miss the right moment, nor hit the wrong mark in judging, nor do injustice when distributing food, and at home one did not dare to indulge in idleness..."

No changing the dimensions of the precious material objects used in ceremonies.

31-7

"... A ghost man came upon a ward from the temple and said to him: _'Guan Gu, why are the jade emblems not made to measure, wine, grain and rice in the vessels not pure and the sacrificial animals not fat and without flaw? Why isn't the right time for the victims chosen in spring, summer, autumn and winter?'..._ _'How fast is the punishment of the ghosts and spirits on all those who let the sacrifices lack the necessary respect and care?!'_ According to the report of those annals, there is little doubt about the existence of ghosts."

No use of sick or scrawny animals for the sacrifices that were followed by public feasts. He seems to imply that performance of sacrifices is an obligation, but the sacrifices he describes vary. At the national level, resources Mozi would normally be frugal with were lavished on spiritual ceremony.

31-10

"...In ancient times, when the holy kings of the three dynasties, Xia, Shang, and Zhou, created the foundations of the empire and established a capital, they said: _'We must choose a main altar for the kingdom,'_ and so they built the ancestral temple. Tall and magnificent trees were chosen and a temple was built for the gods of the land in a dense grove. They chose fathers and elder brothers, the most benevolent, reverent, pure and noble people to serve as priests and masters of ceremonies. Of the six pets, the most brilliant, and best nourished, with even hair, were taken as sacrificial animals. Scepter, square and semicircular slabs of jade were measured according to richness. The most ripe and fragrant were chosen from the five crops to make wine, cider, and rice cakes from, so that their goodness was always consistent with the quality of the harvest. So the ancient wise kings in the administration of the realm first cared for the spirits and ghosts, and only then for the people. It was therefore said: _'The officials who are employed must particularly see that sacrificial equipment and sacrificial robes are present in the treasury. Those who serve as worshippers and masters of ceremonies take their position in the court. The victim animals must not stay in herds with the other animals.'_ As the rulers of old set up their government, they always assumed that ghosts and spirits existed and cared for them in the most comprehensive way."

The sage kings cared for the spirits before the people. Presumably, this is a requirement in the dues phase of priorities. They of course fed the people a minimum before sacrifices, but then did sacrifices (a finite prescribed amount) for the spirits before filling up the granaries or investing for the people. Once all underlings (spirits are not underlings) get fed, the spirits get a percentage "consistent with the quality of the harvest." This comes before other taxes and it comes before security and it comes before investment. The modern equivalent would be tithes to support your chosen religious institution, which is separate from charity. I'd think this tithe would be distributed among the different levels allowing lower levels to do their own forms of sacrifice.

27-3

"...If the state is well regulated and there are sufficient resources, then at home full vessels of pure wine, millet and rice can and must be sacrificed to God and the spirits..."

Sometimes Mozi speaks of millet cakes and wine, other times he speaks of sacrifices of large beasts. Most importantly, in one anecdote, he chides a man for believing that he can sacrifice his way to blessings by the magnitude of meat he burns.

49-16

_A worshipper in Lu sacrificed a piglet to the spirits and ghosts, and prayed for a hundred blessings. When master Mozi heard about it, he said:_ "This is not possible. If you give meagerly to your fellow human beings, but you expect rich gifts in return, then everyone will be afraid of your gifts. Now if the spirits and ghosts are sacrificed to with only a piglet and a hundred blessings are begged of them, they must be seriously concerned that they might be offered an ox or a sheep. In ancient times, the holy kings served the spirits and ghosts and sacrificed to them, and that was all. Now, when only a piglet is sacrificed to you and you are expected to provide a hundred blessings, wealth is not as good as poverty."

Sacrifices, and associated ceremonial costs, are an obligation, a debt like taxes. Conditions are not attached to them. In light of this mosaic of considerations, I conclude that rites are like diplomatic gifts. A few luxury items are a small price to pay for the good will of a rival state, but the ambassador's furs are just a token, a message of friendly intentions, rather than significant tribute per se. The spirits don't want you to slaughter a herd of cows and ask for a herd of blessings in return. It's not transactional.

The spirits just want you to be polite, to recognize them and give them a birthday present or equivalent. There's a social, symbolic purpose, the burned meat is no real use to them. Other than a relatively small symbolic physical sacrifice (proportional to social level), the best way to sacrifice is to give to charity.

49-15

_"..._ What the spirits and ghosts especially expect from the people is that those who hold high positions and obtain great income should give to those who are most noble, and that whoever possesses great riches distributes them among the poor. The spirits and ghosts are anxious for more than taking the millet and eating the lung meat. Now you were in high position and had great income, but you did not have nobility. This is the first cause of misfortune. You do not distribute much of your great wealth as assistance. That was the second reason for your tragedy. You serve the spirits and ghosts, merely by sacrificing to them, and then you wonder where the disease comes from. It's like if someone with a hundred doors only closes one and then asks how the thieves get in. You cannot earn the favor of the miraculous spirits in this way."

If you tithe to charity and give a hundredth as much to sacrifices then you spend a tenth of a percent of your income on sacrifices. Mozi is not asking for us to waste much.

31-19

"...If one now deferentially and with all due diligence offers the immaculate wine, cider and rice as a sacrificial offering, thus attaining food and drink for father, mother, elder brother and wife, provided that ghosts and spirits really exist isn't that a great boon for them? If there were really no ghosts, only the substances related to wine, cider, rice and millet would have been wasted..."

Since this is the nature of rites for the spirits, no particular ritual or ceremonial ways are intended to be transcendent. What's important is being consistent and careful in your received tradition, rather than haphazard and sloppy. Whatever the procedure is, you must do it right. And you must be thoughtful, sincere and polite about it.

This balancing act regarding rites is part and parcel of the Mohist attitude toward religion generally. Mohism seems to be of two minds regarding religion. On the one hand, the Mozi presents a stripped down version of traditional Chinese Heaven worship, almost a generic theism. All the complexity of polytheism is absent: Heaven is in charge alone and the all spirits serve Heaven. Spirits are rarely mentioned by name, and only when they are acting directly as angels of Heaven. I can't provide a quote of the "gods" to worship _not_ being named. "Shang Di", translated as "God" is mentioned, but the western equivalent would be "Jehovah". This is an older name for the supreme deity, one from an earlier tradition but now generally considered to be another name for the same thing. Or you could infer Mozi as describing Shang Di acting on behalf of Heaven, in which case Shang Di is an aspect of Heaven; like Michael, it is the supreme spirit that represents Heaven among the spirits. Distinguishing it from Heaven is like distinguishing the hand from the man.

Similarly, the dualism of western "monotheism" is also absent: there's no devil, no hell, indeed no afterlife at all, unless you count continuation as a spirit in the service of Heaven. Heaven could almost be interpreted as the collective will of all the spirits. Referring to "Heaven" is equivalent to referring to "the government" or "Washington" when in reality what we are talking about is the collective will of many individuals operating in a framework. This stark unadorned theism that supports belief in the will of Heaven, from which all Mohist values stem, is the real Mohist religion, what other ideas are based on.

On the other hand, _The Mozi_ often caters to traditional Chinese ceremonies. It speaks of the importance of getting rituals just right, and of making animal sacrifices with the expectation that a more expensive sacrifice would bring a greater spiritual reward. It's all jarringly incongruent with the rest of Mohism, and Mozi knew it. He also knew it was best to let sleeping dogs lie and cross that bridge upon arriving at it.

In his day, Mozi saw support for this less abstract theism in the distilled cumulative wisdom (the writings and history of the sage kings: model 1) and in the commitment of the people to practicing religion as it had been handed down to them (the popular perception: model 2). He also saw the practical value of taking reform one step at a time, of keeping in place existing policies regarding ritual correctness (productive applicability: model 3). These are the three criteria, and harmony with the rest of Mohism is not among them because Mozi is only considered a sage from our external point of view.

How could we possibly follow this acceptance of imperfection? Why reject this, once we know what it is we are really following? Mohism, even with its apparent contradictions and incompleteness, is not that different from science. Relativity and quantum mechanics both check out, yet they disagree, and we just have faith things will eventually work out. The process is what matters, and it gave us both. We deal with matters as they come up. So everything the Mozi says, properly understood in context, is in fact valid. It just was never knit into a unified field theory for us. We can still be Mohists (scientists, in the analogy) because we use the Mohist method (three criteria) and accept the cumulative body of knowledge (the Mozi) as far as it goes.

This kind of reformism (as opposed to radicalism) rings true and _is_ harmonious with the Mozi we can know through what we have available now. If you are a pragmatic Mohist, you get along with the traditions of your society where they are harmless and relatively inexpensive. Nitpicking about sacrifices is not worth it. A higher priority is changing the values of the people, and then they will realize themselves what a waste it is to burn meat for the spirits when children or starving, or to waste a salary on a ritual correctness specialist when real work needs doing.

Does Mozi's refusal to be a total religious iconoclast mean we should go along with our local religion in every detail? Politicians should probably play along to an extent, liberalizing to an extent while staying within the bounds of respectability, just as Mozi did in his milieu. Those who are less ambitious should not prioritize attacking the local faith too harshly. Bad forms taken by religion are a symptom of the disease, not the cause. They come from underlying bad values. We should fix the values, and the forms will follow.

Another duality is between universal priesthood and specialized priesthood. Mozi depicts specialized priests. On the other hand, Mozi rejects excessive formality and ritual.

21-3

"... Bowing and scraping, and the like formalities were not practiced by the wise kings."

And as I've shown elsewhere, his theory seems to point at everyone having access to Heaven at least in some cases. So what gives? My theory is that the cost of sacrifices is there just to prevent trivial appeals to Heaven. If you have to sacrifice a hundred pigs for it, you don't often pray for touchdowns. An even better system would be to skip the sacrifice part and just go right to the charity.

Looking at the purpose, to dissuade trivial appeals to overly elevated levels, you would think something more proportional and needs based would work. A rich man can afford a hundred pigs and a pauper can't afford a penny. So the rich man's trivial concerns will be brought up while the pauper's won't. Instead a percentage of your worldly goods, or something, should be the price for accessing Heaven. Perhaps this should also be paralleled in the earthly bureaucracy as well. Don't bring trivial issues to the emperor unless it's really important to you. Also, we pray only with pure and universal intent because otherwise we are being idolatrous. Here's how that works in the Mohist context.

Humaneness (ren) is an ethic (a yi) that calls for benefiting mankind. It is part of the will of Heaven, the ethic of benefitting the three worlds, but only part. Spirits are also to be taken into account, but spirits, like people, are finite and partial. Favoring any spirit is like favoring a human. It is logical that a Mohist would care about the spirits corporately and also logical that none of them would be favored individually any more than any human should be favored individually. Mohists prefer the universal rather than schism or favoritism.

Any spirit less than Heaven is schismatic. Spirits are cosmically (aka supernaturally) powered personifications of _portions_ of reality conceptually set apart from the whole and thus imbued with personality. For example, some faiths center on a male god and a female god, thus creating schism, so that sub-Heaven spirits can be worshipped. Others have good and evil gods, or one god for each of the seasons. Any time you put your spiritual energy into appealing to a schismatic interest you are summoning a spirit without waiting for the decision of Heaven. Appeal to individual spirits is wrong.

Unless you count Shang Di (translated as God) only one spirit is mentioned by name in the Mozi, and that is Gou Mang, the "god" of spring, who grants Duke Mu of Qin an additional 19 years of life. Duke Mu doesn't summon Gou Mang, Gou Mang just shows up on a mission from God.

If you pray to Heaven for your football team to win, that prayer will be intercepted by the football god. You have opened the door to a demon which will sacrifice the general good for a narrow interest. You are practicing idolatry far more truly than someone who merely appeases the spirits with symbolic burned meat, recognizing their collective existence, yet asking nothing.

Any prayer then, even specifically to Heaven, is wrong if it is based on concerns other than Heavenly, universal concerns. When you pray for your sick child to get well, you may think you are praying to Heaven, but you are really praying to the god of your family.

All this is why prayers to Heaven are generally restricted to those in high layers under the sovereign, which is assured by requiring that they be accompanied by expensive sacrifices (a bull barbeque instead of a handful of millet and a pouring out of wine).

Mozi doesn't tell anyone to sacrifice to any particular spirit. He depicts sacrifices as being for "the spirits" meaning they are for spirits generally. We never know exactly which spirits are present at any time and place, so we provide a courteous gift to whoever happens to be there. Mozi doesn't dictate specific rites and ceremonies. His audience understood what the standard rites were. But Mozi recognizes that cultures vary and the Chinese way is not necessarily right either, indicating that rites and ceremonies can be dictated by common sense and moderation.

25-15

"South of Chu was the empire of the people of Yen. When their relatives died, they removed their flesh and threw it away, then buried the bones. This made it possible to acquire the status of a filial son. West of Qin was the Itchu Empire. When a relative died there, they piled wood and sticks together and burned the corpse. When the smoke went up, it was said that he was ascending far away. In this way one could become a reverent son. Here, the rulers saw to a government policy and the people had a similar custom, which they practiced consistently, and did not want to renounce. But was it really benevolence and justice? One calls this contentment in old habits, an equating of custom with morality. If we look at behavior in those three empires, then we must describe them as unfeeling, but that of the nobles of China as exaggerated..."

Since we don't now know details of the rites Mozi used, just the Confucian rites he rejected, or the modern variants that have evolved, we can probably make up our own ways based on what we know of Mohist principles and the Mohist world view. In recognition of the world's disunity, these new forms could vary from place to place, being different in each nation. For such, it might be worthwhile to include such elements of Heaven worship as are explicitly mentioned in the Mozi, with details filled in by invention and borrowing rather than research into the actual practice of Heaven worship in ancient China. In other words, for this purpose we are counting only _The Mozi_ as "the words of the sage kings", just as Mozi disregarded later ritual inventions adhered to by Confucians in favor of just the documented ways of the sage kings available to him.

48-4

"...You also cite the Zhou and not Xia. Your antiquity is not the real antiquity."

To this we add popular perception, the elements of religious practice learned by the world's cultures all through history and currently practiced. To this we add considerations of practicality and the beneficial result of policies.

Modern Mohists in each nation should establish and practice their own rites and ceremonies.

(1) These should be based on the rites and ceremonies we know of through _The Mozi_.

(2) They should be filtered by concerns for the perceptions of the local population.

(3) They should take practical considerations into account.

And they should be less detailed at the higher levels, allowing for increasing customization at lower levels. But I recommend starting with a community barbeque.

31-19

"... In this case, however, the relatives and comrades from outside in the village and community, take part in food and drink, as they have been prepared from the sacrificial victim, even if there should be no ghosts, then the merry gathering is a success, which makes it possible to acquire the friendship of your local community comrades."

Angels Only

Spirits exist and are everywhere, invisible because they are separated from us a short distance in an extra dimension. They can see us, but cannot traverse that short distance alone. Heaven must help them. Heaven is selective in providing this assistance because spirits have a variety of concerns and dispositions. Some are malevolent, others are benevolent, many have specialized selfish concerns such as the well being of a sacred natural place.

31-19

"...In ancient times and today the spirits and ghosts have remained the same. There are the spirits of Heaven, there are the spirits of the mountains and rivers, and even the people are ghosts after their deaths..."

Yet Heaven takes care of good people, so if you are a good person you can rely on the goodness of every spirit that is allowed near you. Spirits never act unjustly in our world. However, humans are capable of directly inviting malevolent spirits into our world by an act of will, and this usually ends badly for them.

32-11

_...In a book of the former rulers, the_ Book of Tang _, it is said: "If there is constant dancing in the palaces, it is considered ceremonial witchcraft..."_

The suffering of wicked people at the hands of spirits only directly affects the wicked, but indirectly there can also be innocent bystanders. So one source of evil in the world is foolish practices that let in evil spirits, and the solution is education about proper spiritual conduct, which keeps one under the protection of Heaven, at least regarding spiritual hazards.

47-6

"...One must eliminate merriment and anger, gusto and grief, infatuation and acrimony and practice only benevolence and justice..."

How do we know there are evil spirits? Everyone who dies apparently becomes a ghost.

44-10

...Ghosts are not human, but the elder brother's spirit is the older brother...

And some people are evil.

8-5

"...People with organizational common sense and righteousness were lifted up; the selfish and evil-minded, however, were removed..."

Therefore evil spirits exist. (1) Evil spirits exist but (2) Heaven ensures that spirits only reward the good and punish the bad; ergo (3) Heaven normally keeps evil spirits out of our world. There's a caveat to that. Heaven cares about people, but also about spirits. So, when a bad person and a spirit both want the spirit to have access to our world, Heaven will oblige. Good people place Heaven the highest, and would only want spirits to do what Heaven wants, so they would never invite spirits into our world against Heaven's will. But Heaven invariably helps the worthy and punishes the wicked, so the worthy invariably can trust the spirits Heaven chooses to send.

31-5

"But that is not the only report there that reads as such. _'Duke Mu of Qin stood on a bright day in his temple, when a ghost stepped through the gate and stood on the left side. He had the body of a bird, dressed in a white silk robe with a dark hem, and looked straight ahead. When Duke Mu of Qin sighted him, he was horrified and wanted to escape, but the spirit said to him:_ Do not fear. God has rejoiced in your shining virtue and instructed me to grant you an extension of your life for nineteen years, so that your kingdom flourishes, your offspring prosper, and Qin will not be lost. _Duke Mu fell down twice, touching the ground with his forehead, and said,_ May I ask for the name of the spirit? _The spirit retorted saying,_ I am Gou Mang. _'_ How can one doubt the presence of ghosts if the personal experience of Duke Mu is to be considered as proof?"

Being worthy, they want the will of Heaven to be fulfilled, so even if Heaven has reason to send a malign spirit, a good person's true wishes (the will of Heaven) will be fulfilled by that malign spirit. If you are truly good, you will accept whatever Heaven sends, understanding all spirits in our world to be agents of Heaven. Only trust the ones you didn't call.

Justice Plus Chaos

Regardless of any possible afterlife, Heaven rewards good behavior and punishes bad behavior in this life, though there are also random factors involved, so virtue cannot be inferred from fortune. Heaven is watching and will bless you with good fortune if you work to do Its will, and it will curse you with ill fortune if you do wrong.

27-7

"...I know that the well-being of the people is dear to Heaven. But not only for this reason do I know this: there are people who love their neighbors, help them and fulfill the will of Heaven, and they gain the reward of Heaven, while there are others who hate, harm, and contradict the will of Heaven, and they are punished for it by Heaven."

This is sort of like karma. A pitfall of karmic theories is that they fall into inferring moral history from current fortune. This leads to people punishing those who are already being punished.

49-4

"...This is like a man who has a recalcitrant and shirking son and the father chastises him. Would it not be quite wrong if the father of the neighboring house lifted his cane and also struck the young one, claiming that he had acted in his own father's way with his flogging?"

Mozi doesn't quite go there because he has no concept of reincarnation per se (presumably you can be influenced or even possessed by spirits, which could include ghosts of the deceased, but that's different, rare, and presumably bad.) Punishment and reward are in _this_ world, and they aren't always immediate, and they aren't always reliable. They're tendencies.

There's no denying that by some mechanism many unrighteous people are obviously blessed with life and wealth. If there's no afterworld in which to balance the scales then we can only conclude that divine justice is imperfect. Some people get away with their sins and others live unrewarded lives of selfless virtue. The fact that sometimes evil people can triumph (at least for a time) is true not only in the eyes and ears of everyone, it appears in the text.

9-8

...But who was it who started rich and noble, but got punished for their wickedness? It was the ancient criminal kings of the three dynasties: Jie, Zhou, You, and Li. How do we know? They ruled the kingdom in such a way that they hated and harmed everyone equally...

Presumably some force successfully works against the will of Heaven and takes some time to be corrected for. I glean from other parts of the Mozi that these mitigations of the power of Heaven include dumb natural imperfection.

48-20

"...The events, which make people get sick, are very many; you get sick through cold and heat, through exertion and distress. If you lock only one of a hundred doors, how should thieves not be able to penetrate?"

But presumably some evil also comes from evil spirits. Perhaps natural imperfections and evil spirits are even the same thing. After all, spirits can decide to cooperate or not.

31-13

"...So we want to go back to the past and also examine the books of the Shang dynasty. In it we read: _'Oh, before our age at the time of the Xia, there was no misfortune yet. The animals and reptiles lived together with the birds all in the same places. How could the people have been able to be otherwise? Even mountains and rivers, spirits and ghosts did not dare to disturb the peace.'_ If all could live peacefully together out of consideration for concord in the world and security on earth, then the reason is that the mountains and rivers, spirits and ghosts dared not disturb the peace because they wanted to support Yu in his plans..."

What it comes down to is that we have our lot in life which has nothing to do with Heaven's justice, it's just random.

32-9

The people are quite different from the wild animals, deer and beasts, birds and creeping animals...It's different for humans. We must rely on our effort to live; if we don't, we can't live.

How we deal with it reveals our moral choices, which Heaven responds to by adding punishment or reward. Therefore evil people can have good luck at first, and then get corrected. Divine justice is a factor, one we should take into account, like a navigator accounting for an ocean current. But it isn't the only factor and it isn't a guarantee.

No Pile Ons

Heaven's justice is Heaven's justice, which has been done, and adding human punishment or reward to what has already been done is double punishment or double reward. Admittedly, if there is karma, it would be logical to deduce that if someone has poor fortune they must have been punished by Heaven, and thus they must be bad people. Similarly, the fortunate must be good people, and we should admire them for what that says Heaven thinks about them. One author of _The Mozi_ , not Mozi himself, seems to imply this.

26-4

The son of Heaven is typically the richest and most noble man in the world. Those who want to gain such wealth and honor must adapt to the wishes of Heaven and correspond with them. If they meet the wishes of Heaven, they will love each other and promote each other, then they can be sure that they will be rewarded. If, on the other hand, they contravene the wishes of Heaven, they will hate each other and inflict evil on each other, and then they are not safe from punishment...

This paragraph says that as a rule you can infer that success and nobility coincide. Certainly some people succeed and then turn evil, or succeed by evil deeds, but it's only a matter of time until Heaven adjusts the status of such persons. So in a sense it must be that we can infer nobility not just from current status, but primarily from the direction of status change. Logically, then, only those who are stable in their current status can be assumed to be at the appropriate level and thus in those cases one can validly infer true nobility level from social level.

But this doesn't come from Mozi. All Mozi says here, when directly quoted later in the paragraph, is that those on the usual list of sage kings were all great and Heaven rewarded them while those on the usual list of criminal kings were all bad and Heaven punished them. That's not at all the same as saying that you can infer virtue from status, but it is the same as suggesting that virtue is linked to direction of _change_ of status.

Does this mean that we should look at people who are starting to fail and infer that they are bad and should punish them? No because according to the story of the neighbor's son, that would be double punishment.

49-4

"...this is like a man who has a recalcitrant and shirking son and the father chastises him. Would it not be quite wrong if the father of the neighboring house lifted his cane and also struck the young one, claiming that he had acted in his own father's way with his flogging?"

Furthermore, we don't know how far Heaven plans to adjust a person's status. Perhaps they are on the way down only a very short distance as punishment for a minor misdemeanor. Also it must work both ways. Can we reward someone who seems to be winning? Not necessarily, maybe they only are going up a short distance and our help will send them too far. In essence, we can read direction of status change for internal notes, but we should still treat people on the assumption that current status level is valid until we see for ourselves that the person is over-rated or under-rated. We should, for its own sake, neither try to keep people at their current level, or moving in their current direction, nor try to dislodge people from their current level or direction of motion.

You do what you do on the basis of what you personally know, not on what you infer Heaven to be doing. Social status is not a reflection of the will of Heaven: it is a reflection of past judgments by people, which admittedly are influenced by Heaven over time. As such, it _could_ be obsolete or erroneous--but should not be _assumed_ to be. Until we personally see evidence to the contrary, a person's social status can be treated as reflecting that person's aptitudes and abilities--including the set of skills we call moral character. This is just courtesy and giving people the benefit of the doubt. If someone is a doctor you assume she's a competent doctor until you see proof otherwise. But again, what is being reflected in social status is just the judgments of others, which we can warily trust at first, though we should be eager to form our own opinions as soon as possible.

So don't punish or reward people because you think that's what Heaven is doing. You should wish success on everyone, in accordance with merit of course. If you are partial to someone unworthy, you can still help them succeed by helping them deserve to succeed. We should try to develop the moral character of everyone (26-2: _when I lead the people to act righteously, I do what Heaven desires_ ), and try to push everyone to greater success by pushing them to be worthy of success. If those we help first are nearest at hand, that's just acting locally. It can still be part of universal love. And who is closer at hand, or more likely to be the object of our unearned favor than ourselves? It's only natural that we should place self improvement high on our list of priorities. We seek to rule.

### Chapter 8 Conclusion

44-16

A disciple must take depth to be deep, shallow to be shallow, grow what grows, and diminish what diminishes. Furthermore, he examines what belongs together and thereby gets good designations, and further examines the sound, the origin and the name. By going back to the circumstances you can get some things more correctly. If the phrasing is inapt, people can make corrections based on the circumstances.

Yi and Li

义 礼

In Mohism, yi means ethics, ethic, or ethical. It is a set of standards that a society (an ethos) considers right. Mozi proposes conforming upward in yi. That is, he proposes that everyone should read the intent of those higher in society and base their own ethics on the ethics of their superiors. This means that each nation sets its own ethical standards that everyone in that nation should conform to and promulgate. It also means that all nations should base their own ethical standards on the will of heaven, but until they do (or do so accurately) those lower down should conform and remonstrate.

Li means propriety or custom. It originally meant "sacrifice," but over the course of the Zhou dynastry the meaning was broadened to include many other ceremonial behaviors. Confucianism was the ultimate codification of all this, making all life as ritualistic as a special sacrificial ceremony. Mozi wanted to return to old style li, keeping the ceremonial behavior in the temple where it belongs. I suggest that for Mozi, yi comes from Heaven while li is for the sake of the spirits.

Mozi and Confucius were both trying to unite li and yi, but from different directions. They had different plans for where to go and how to develop culture once li and yi were united. Mozi wanted yi to take over li. This would originally mean each state dictating rules of propriety.

48-3

"Formerly the Duke Huan of Qi wore a high hat and wide belt, had a bronze sword and a wooden shield. Attired thusly he ruled his kingdom, and it was well ordered. The Duke Wen of Qin wore a skirt of coarse cloth and a buckskin fur, and he wore his sword stuck behind his belt. Thusly he ruled his country, and it was well managed. The King Zhuang of Chu had an elegant beret with a silk chin strap, a red suit with a wide coat. Thusly he reigned in his kingdom, and the government was good. The King Gou Jian of Yue cut off his hair and tattooed his body. Like that he ruled, and his state was well ordered. The costumes of these four rulers were different, but their way of acting was the same. Therefore, I know that action does not depend on the costume."

But as rulers came to understand Heaven more, all Yi would be united and Li would follow. This never occurred because Mohism failed and died out. Confucians wanted for Li to take over Yi, for traditional ceremonial propriety to dictate ethical norms. They won, and Li came to be identical with Yi. Sacrifices remained as a small part of this unified ethic of ceremonial conformity, but mostly an elaborate and static set of rules dominated China for thousands of years thereafter.

Had Mohism survived, Heaven would have guided the rulers in establishing their yi and li. Pure pragmatically benevolent Heaven worship would have prevailed, penetrating every aspect of life with consequentialism rather than ceremony. Sacrifices would have devolved to mere tokens and community parties. Most actual "sacrifices" would have become donations to charity. Similarly actual kindnesses would have prevailed over rank graded exchanges of bows.

Mohism was the right idea, not just for China but for the entire world, and it deserves another chance.

Summary

I set out to write down how to live as a modern Mohist. I have boiled it down to this.

Epistemologically you put things in **perspective** and apply **three models** , using **Mozi** as a primary sage. I have tried to make a philosophy that is fully consistent with _The Mozi_ , yet kinder, more modern, and more cross cultural. I've never intended to be slavish to Mohism as it was probably practiced in ancient China. My intent has always been to keep things close enough to _The Mozi_ to make that book useful in the way The Bible or The Koran is useful to fans of those books. I'd be tickled to see Mohist preachers citing _The Mozi_ the way Christian preachers cite the Bible to make topical points they're interested in, and using this book as a filter they way Christians use theological works. To do that, I've had to scour _The Mozi_ and compare it to the softer philosophy I've based on it, searching for anything in need of incorporation, adaptation, or contextualization. A contradiction would undermine my whole project, and if any exist they are oversights. Where this book conflicts with _The Mozi_ , the latter definitely takes precedence. You'll have to figure out how to use it, or apply my principles in ways I didn't do comprehensively enough. I've learned that most contradictions can be resolved and that a friendly approach leads to better understanding. That's just basic Universal Love.

Based on proper perspective, you see things from Heaven's viewpoint, caring about the whole world, and thus you seek to promote **wealth** , **order** and **growth**. To that end you treat all in accordance with merit, or best function, which is comprised of **particular competence** combined with virtue, which is in turn comprised of **righteousness** and **benevolence**.

Mostly, righteousness comes down to correct organizational behavior. Organizationally, you **obey** and enforce standards set by higher recognized authorities, you **elaborate** those standards downwardly by sensing a **consensus** , and you **remonstrate** properly when superiors are in error. While self defense and proper enforcement of legitimate authority are righteous, aggression between peers should not be allowed under the standards of any righteous superior, and is certainly not consistent with the will of Heaven, which is above them all.

Benevolence mostly consists of correct economic behavior. Economically you apply your resources and efforts with **frugality** and **diligence** , guided to **moderation by purpose** and systematized by my four stages of priority: **sustainment** , **taxes** , **security** , and **investment**. An important form of investment is in good relations with the spiritual world, which takes different forms in different times and places. If you are capable of it, the best investment is in seeking to become wiser, in seeking worthiness to rule.

A huge and complicated intellectual philosophy is hard to stay connected to in everyday life, but these simple guidelines should serve well enough.

The Horror

There are many issues I have not addressed. If I have not corrected every possible misunderstanding or warned against every possible bad idea I apologize for my inadequacy. There are just too many of them. My intent was to outline what Mohism is, and can be, rather than to defend it against what it is not. Mohism is not a Sinocentric faith about worshiping the ruler of China. Universalism is in its bones. But it had to come from somewhere. Mohism is not a sexist system, focused on treating women unfairly. Meritocracy is in its bones. But it had enough reform work to do, it couldn't be expected to fundamentally change society overnight. Mohism is not a bloodthirsty creed, intent on mass murder and eternal warfare. Peace is in its bones. But it was forged in an era of strife, and it had to survive. Mohism is not a theocratic superstitious religion. Rational inquiry is in its bones. But belief is an integral part of human life, even today.

The question might be asked, if Mohism had to accept so many compromises just to come into existence, how can it be worth using today? Why not start over with something that hasn't been worked over. This is like asking why not melt down that traditionally forged katana and cast a new blade. Perhaps we can sharpen it up, maybe fix the handle, but we should recognize what went into it and what a masterpiece it is. Treasure it and preserve it into the future. This really is old wine in a new bottle.

It could be argued that I am not being true to _The Mozi_ or to Mohism as it was practiced in ancient China. How do you know what the ancients had? I say all we really have is _The Mozi_ , and I am true to the intent of _The Mozi_ when understood as a whole, in the best way to use its lessons in modern life. Furthermore, Mozi came to me in ghostly form and told me I had it right. Boo.

### Chapter 9: Additional Topics

56-1

Qinzi served master Mozi for three years. His hands and feet were covered with calluses, his face was blackened, his body was worn down. He executed the instructions of his master, but did not dare to ask what was on his mind. Master Mozi was concerned for him, so he procured wine and dried meat, had it set down on Mount Tai, and took his own place in a grassy clearing to feast with Qinzi. Qinzi bowed twice and sighed. Master Mozi asked him what he wanted. Qinzi bowed again and again and said, "I want to ask about..."

Additional Topics

Raised as a Methodist, I rebelled intellectually as a teenager and became an atheist sometime in the 1970s. Then, in the early 1980s I started seeing synchronicity and spent much of the next twenty or thirty years forming a theory about it, which I came to call Theoconsequentialism. I joined a Unitarian Universalist congregation as a best fit. In 2011, about 7 years ago, I was reading about other forms of consequentialism and came across references to Mozi. I was struck by the similarities to my own ideas. So in 2014 when I wrote my theories down in a book about Theoconsequentialism, I somewhat facetiously listed Mozi as an intellectual progenitor. As I read more and became more familiar with _The Mozi_ , I came to realize that, while similar, my ideas didn't match Mohism, so one of us must be wrong. I realized that Mohism could teach me a lot, but that it also had some imperfections. So I felt compelled to write a book explaining Mohism in favorable light, a book explaining why I had extolled it. In the process, I realized I could make it into something it never was, I could forge a Modern Mohism that might have actual value to people as it had value to me.

In writing this book, I've generated a lot of material that didn't need to be included in a general introduction such as this book was meant to be. Each time I look at it, or look at something in light of Mohism, I gain new insights. Some of them are great, but they would just be better material for a blog or an endless series of sermons. Sure, I could wedge these into the argument I present above in chapters 1 through 7. But inserting irrelevant digressions like that would break the rhythm, style, and structure of that exposition. There's enough of that in there already. By all rights I should let well enough alone, but I feel that leaving these out would somehow leave this work incomplete. These essays are cut and pasted in haphazardly from my voluminous "notes".

Mohist Theology

A basic assumption of Mohism is the existence of an entity called Heaven. Heaven is the assumed standard in this system of ideas, an apriori postulate. Using the three models, why should one believe in Heaven?

1. Precedent. Heaven, or God, is a concept arrived at independently and broadly. The received wisdom of many cultures includes this idea or something like it.

2. Popularity. Most people in the world today have some kind of belief in a supreme deity or something like it. Many believe, or pretend to, based on social pressures and tradition, but many believe because they have observed the pattern of subtle divine intervention in the world.

3. Purpose. Mohism hinges on the concept of the will of Heaven and won't work without it. The will of Heaven is a moral law above any human law, including that of self proclaimed theocrats. We each act on the will of Heaven as we perceive it directly. That's the whole point.

The Mohist concept of Heaven is that of the divine bureaucracy. If there are superhuman spiritual entities, then they are probably organized under the command of one supreme ruler served by all the others, so in effect the entire spiritual realm can be considered one entity. An analogy is the way we refer to "the white house" to refer to the office of the POTUS. The universe itself, like a government, has a will. A premise underlying Mohism is that you cannot postulate moral truths that are independent of context without supposing there to be some universal will for those moral truths to be an expression of.

Heaven worship was an established and universal religious practice in Mozi's China, everyone understood it, so there was no need to explain it. It's not so much a part of Mohism, as an assumption. For modern Mohism, this vagueness is beneficial. It enables monotheists encountering it to project their own God onto Heaven. There are some slight differences between western theism and Heaven worship, but I consider the Heaven worship better. Heaven is more like an institution than a person. It is like saying "the government" rather than "President Carter". It is a personal God, but not a human one. Washington has mandated new fuel standards. There is an emergent unity to the spiritual world. You can say the spirits as a whole constitute Heaven, or that Heaven controls the spirits as a whole. The Chinese called this the Heavenly bureaucracy, and they had an elaborate and detailed mythology that the Mohists were aware of, but all we get in the Mozi is Heaven and spirits (generically).

And that's a good thing. We don't need to look up the details; we have in _The Mozi_ all the details that are relevant. If you are Christian or Jew or Muslim adopting Mohism you can substitute the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim name for God and be none the worse off. You would have to be of a somewhat Unitarian bent, dispensing with belief in a devil, and interpreting references to spirits as talking about angels. If you are a polytheist, such as a Hindu, you can take a spirit first approach and conceive of Heaven as almost an abstraction like Brahman. I suppose an agnostic or atheist could even be a pragmatic Mohist, seeing Heaven as a hypothetical objective observer and a symbol of benign nature while being willing to let the unwashed masses be scared into moral behavior by ghost stories. But it would be hard to get around the fact that Mozi clearly condemned leading people to abandon religion.

4-5

The criminal kings Jie, Zhou, You, and Li have hated all the people of the whole realm, causing them to revile the heavens and insult the spirits, and they harmed mankind in every way. Therefore, Heaven punished them by depriving them of the kingdom and their families and letting them be killed themselves.

For a Mohist the objective meaning of life, the proper focus of our attention and efforts, is the benefit of the world, by which is meant Heaven, spirits, and people. The needs of all three should be optimized, so if spirits can benefit greatly at minor cost to the people, for example, then that is the path that must be taken (sacrifices are an ancient case in point, environmental concerns might be a more modern version: though the people would benefit from developing an old growth forest or historic building we may reserve it, essentially keeping it sacred, because such things in a sense have spirits of their own that must be accounted for).

But for the most part the Mozi focuses on the benefit of people, justified as the will of Heaven, because that was the concern at the time and because that requires the most complex human coordination. I suspect that things that are truly right will invariably benefit all three, once all factors are taken into account. Preserving an old growth forest benefits the spirits of the forest, but also the people of the future who will have it to enjoy and Heaven because the people and spirits (about whom Heaven cares) are benefiting. This is complex and variable, with relative values changing in different circumstances. The value of something increases as it becomes rarer.

Discerning Tolerance and Advocation

There are two kinds of material in _The Mozi_. Sometimes Mozi says exactly what he means. Other times he is pragmatically compromising with the culture of his day. It would have helped if they hadn't been so mixed up. But the same Mozi who speaks of Universal Love and a better society also advocates some barbaric stuff. I suppose no carnivore can object to the animal sacrifices. No one who is safe can object to the defensive warfare. But aren't these misplaced and overly stressed? I mean, sure, instructions for cleaning toilets have to exist, but do they belong in a cook book? That's how misplaced it is to talk about how many pigs to kill for each blessing right next to talk about purifying oneself of selfishness. It leads one to think some reading between the lines might be called for.

The attitude of Mohism is often to scoff, but let barbarians be barbarians.

25-14

_Master Mozi replies:_ "I call that indulgence in habits, confusing of customs with expressions of righteousness. In ancient times, east of Yue was the land of Chenmu. There, when the eldest son was born they dismembered and devoured him, and considered it good for the younger brethren. When the grandfather died, the grandmother was taken out back and thrown out on the basis that one could not live together with the wife of a ghost. The aristocrats treated this as a government policy and the commoners followed it as a custom, which they constantly exercised and at which they did not take offense. But was that real benevolence and justice? No, it is just an indulgence of participants and a misconception of habits as expressions of justice."

To disrupt social traditions too much might lead to disorder that is worse than what it cures. In good time, Heaven will correct those ways if they are improper.

As for the contemporary central Chinese ways Mozi was telling his agents to bend but not break, Mozi was rejecting pseudo-antique proto-Confucian visions of li) because he knew they were not ingrained in the national psyche yet. People still remembered the older simpler ways of just doing a sacrifice instead of all this complicated etiquette that you needed a degree for. But instead of actual sacrifices, maybe people could start moving toward giving to charity instead. Mozi didn't like the path the culture was taking and wanted it to take another branch while there was still time.

He also knew that the old stories reflected stuff so old it was culturally profound and filtered to reflect real ideals. Sacrifices to the ancestors and respect for parents are things Mohist agents are going to have to bow to; they are ways in which the ideal of merit based affection will have to defer to the consequentialistic requirements of maintaining social order by supporting the most closely held truly traditional ways.

But this doesn't mean Mohists believe in going along to get along no matter what. Mohists are not relativists, they are consequentialists. They have a culturally independent ideal, the entirely merit based society described in _Exaltation of the Virtuous_ and _Identification with the Superior_. This is the goal, the default, what they do when the social conditions allow. _Universal Love_ and the _Will of Heaven_ have an even higher value, so when necessary the imperfection of the contemporary reality is recognized and dealt with as needed. But deviations are to be used minimally. The imperfection of reality is not used as a pretext. Ideally you steer straight, but there may be a pothole. You may steer around the pothole, but you don't use it as an excuse to veer entirely off the road.

Mozi accepts that barbarians can be allowed to keep barbarian ways, if dealing with them would be overly disruptive, but this doesn't mean barbarians get to impose their ways on the more civilized. Similarly, traditional ways of civilization can be deferred to only to the extent that iconoclasm would be overly disruptive, but this doesn't mean that Mohists cannot engage in a program of weaning society off of obsolete traditions or should not resist the institution of new irrational ways disguised as arcane traditions.

Sacrifices

49-15

"...What the spirits and ghosts especially expect from the people is that those who hold high positions and obtain great income should give to those who are most noble, and that whoever possesses great riches distributes them among the poor. The spirits and ghosts are anxious for more than taking the millet and eating the lung meat...You serve the spirits and ghosts, merely by sacrificing to them, and then you wonder where the disease comes from. It's like if someone with a hundred doors only closes one and then asks how the thieves get in. You cannot earn the favor of the miraculous spirits in this way."

Mozi believes leaders should represent a consensus of the values of those under them, with consideration also for the will of Heaven. However, he also recognizes that this means leaders will often find themselves compromising with values they would never generate from first principles. Unity is important enough to be worth compromising. And unity can require customs and traditions that are arbitrary. Such customs and traditions can be kept if _necessary_ , not for convenience. As a rule, anything longer established will be harder to change. So Mozi compromises a lot. Consider these compromises to be taking one for the team--sacrifices as it were. One such is signing on to ritual sacrifice.

Mozi says this of the sage kings.

26-5

_..._ "In the highest sphere they worshipped the sky, in the middle they served the spirits and in the lower they loved the people. Therefore, Heaven said to Itself: _'All I love, they love, and all that I support, they also support them. Their love for the people is all-encompassing, and their care for the same is boundless.'_ That's why it raised them to the status of heavenly Sons and gave them the whole empire. Their deeds worked upon thousands of generations, and the descendants praised their goodness, which spread throughout the empire. Still today they are glorified as the holy kings." _..._

So impartiality requires not being prejudiced against people just because they're ghosts. But seriously, this has bearing on how we apply consequentialism. In applying consequentialism, how far into the future do we look? That is to say, do we concern ourselves most for the short term benefit of the world, or the long term benefit?

44-10

The love that extends to all and the love of few are equal to each other. The concept of all-embracing love remains the same. The love of ancient generations and of later ones is quite the same as love of the present generation of people...

We concern ourselves the most for the most benefit of the world: total benefit, regardless of where it is. But adding up how much benefit we propose to cause can get difficult. How certain can you be of future benefits you will cause, larger though they may be than shorter term benefits? Teaching a child may lead to vast benefits to the sum of all the descendants of that child, or maybe not. Furthermore, how can we concern ourselves for the love of former generations?

Maybe I can speculate here, that the ghosts and spirits represent the interests of former generations, while Heaven represents the interests of all generations, including future ones. And maybe Heaven sees it all from an eternal viewpoint, and we affect former generations by how we follow up on what they did. We affect them by what we necessitate. If you squander inherited money, you impose a necessity on the ones you inherited from. You force them to work harder to leave you a larger legacy in order to achieve their goal that you be well provided for. Heaven helps us achieve our goals, and our actions in the present can affect the relationship of those in the past with Heaven.

31-19

"...Ancient times and today the spirits and ghosts have remained the same... the relatives and comrades from outside in the village and community, take part in food and drink...."

Ghosts are the past, which we indirectly affect in the present. Heaven cares for all, which includes the future. To each stage of time, Heaven's desire for a thriving world, full of growing life and prosperous civilization, is the will of the infinite future personified. To it, we and our descendants are no different from the ghosts and spirits of former generations, and Heaven cares for all its ancestors.

The ancient sage kings are said to have placed more emphasis on the spirits than on the people.

31-10

"... So the ancient wise kings in the administration of the realm first cared for the spirits and ghosts, and only then for the people..."

At least, they fed them first sequentially. But really, there's no zero sum competition because it's impossible to benefit one without benefiting all.

28-8

"...This is how they treat Heaven in the upper sphere, the spirits in the middle, and people in the lower, so there is nothing that would not share in this triple benefit. This is called Heavenly virtue. All those who act in this way are holy and wise, benevolent and righteous, loyal and well-disposed, kind and reverent. That's why the most beautiful honorary titles in the world have been collected and applied to them. Why? It is because they followed the intentions of Heaven..."

If sacrifice has any value, it should be an act of ritual devotion, an effort to express oneself to spirits by giving up things that matter to you more than they ought to. I would think sacrifices would be one of the last ways to spend surplus. But Mozi seems to think some form of sacrifice is essential at the taxation phase of priority. Mozi describes even the poor as sacrificing a little millet seed. On the other hand, he chastises the rich for not sacrificing hundreds of pigs (or donating similarly to charity).

The inference is that the percentage of wealth you sacrifice should scale with how wealthy you are. But the point remains that he was steeped in a culture that considered sacrifice to actually have a practical purpose. It was necessary to get along socially, and it made one feel in tune with the world.

31-19

"...the relatives and comrades from outside in the village and community, take part in food and drink, as they have been prepared from the sacrificial victim, even if there should be no ghosts, then the merry gathering is a success, which makes it possible to acquire the friendship of your local community comrades."

There are modern equivalents, such as giving to charity. But sacrifice is often done wrong. Necessities are sacrificed. In ancient China, starving people burned meat. In modern China poor people burn money. Part of the whole concept of moderation in use is to establish priorities, to readjust old values that led to this wrong kind of sacrifice.

Mozi set baselines of what everyone needs, and set those basic needs above all other uses of resources. His condemnation of luxury beyond those needs is a message to us. When we sacrifice, we are to sacrifice _luxuries_ , not necessities. Such a sacrifice is not zero-sum. For example, when you have a large herd, setting aside a few cattle to be raised for sacrifice (community barbecue) is giving up what is for you a luxury, excess food that would only make you fat.

Archeology tells us that the Shang mass murdered excess peasants and every time the lord died many of his courtiers killed themselves. But Mozi provides a moderated version in which courtiers merely fight to the death for their lord.

9-4

"...Suppose, then, that rewards do not go to the virtuous and penalties are not liable for vices. In that case... if the prince is in need, no one will die fighting for him, and if he must leave the state and flee, no one will follow him..."

And the places of human sacrifice had long been used only for execution of convicted criminals. But the custom of retainers dying with their lord had served a purpose. It cleaned house for the new boss to bring in his own people. Mozi sees no need to purge the old guard after a regime change--they'll make perfectly good peasants under meritocracy. Mozi sees no need to sacrifice perfectly good peasants when there's not enough food. Instead, the ruler wishing to thin out excess population could give up the luxury of being lenient to criminals.

17-2

Killing a person is considered unfair and there is a death penalty on it.

Sacrifices done right are always _directly_ beneficial to the one doing the sacrifice, a win-win bargain, rather than an exchange of the valuable for the valueless. We sacrifice luxuries because this is good for us and the goodwill is good for the spirits.

44-10

... "The sage loves, but does not draw any advantage from it," is no statement of master Mozi.

So if you happen to have a bunch of luxurious jewelry, that stuff would make an excellent candidate for sacrifice. But if you want to make a sacrifice and so you go out and spend grocery money on some luxurious jewelry so that you can sacrifice it, then that is not sacrificing a luxury--that is sacrificing groceries. The spirits will not be fooled. If you have no luxuries to sacrifice, you have no duty to do a sacrifice, because you have clearly already done so.

If you have canned chili in your rotating stockpile, but have given up eating mammals, you can sacrifice it to the food bank spirits. So sacrifice is an additional tool for preventing the consumption glut that leads to economic depressions. In addition to improving us psychologically through acts of ritual devotion, and to improving our relationship with the mysterious, sacrifice is a way of planning ahead.

44-10

The love that extends to all and the love of few are equal to each other. The concept of all-embracing love remains the same. The love of ancient generations and of later ones is quite the same as love of the present generation of people...

In Mozi's time, the concepts of research, investment and capital growth weren't fully formed. Posterity wasn't much on the radar. So Heaven arranged a placeholder for those things, and that placeholder is sacrifices to the spirits. We give luxury goods up because it benefits people other than ourselves, the invisible people of another world. The technology of sacrifice has improved. Mozi would approve.

39-6

Furthermore, the Confucians say that a noble follows after, but does not invent himself. It is to be retorted that in ancient times Yi invented the bow, Yu invented armor, Xi Zhong invented the wagon and Qiao Cui invented the ship. Are today's leather workers, smiths, wagon makers and carpenters all noble? Are Yi, Yu, Xi Zhong, and Qiao Cui but ordinary people? The ones you follow may have introduced new features and should be commoners according to this principle.

It is in the spirit of Mozi (it is righteous for Mohists) for us to sacrifice in the way traditional to our culture, and if our culture's way is to give sacrifices in new forms such as making provisions for posterity or donating to charity then that is at least not less valid than stabbing a goat. Though we can also stab the occasional goat if we are hungry and we do it right. And share with the ghosts. Maybe one of them is Mozi.

What the good spirits really want for their birthday, though, is that you serve the will of Heaven. "Give me a token birthday present," they say, "and write a big check to my favorite charity." And of course they want you to behave yourself all the time.

Though you can't see them usually, some spirits or another can see you wherever you go in this world or wherever they go in the parallel world.

31-17

"Since the spirits see everything, thus one cannot even feel safe in gloomy ravines, vast swamps, mountain forests or deep valleys, for the gaze of the spirits notices everything..."

But while they may move around in the spirit sphere, particular spirits habituate analogs of specific places, since rites have to be where the right spirits can see them.

31-15

"Why was the reward in the ancestral temple? It was to indicate the uniformity of the distribution. And why were the old time punishments imposed in the temple of the land gods? It was to indicate the righteousness of the judgment... "

Therefore spirits can see us from another world, a layer between us and Heaven.

19-1

_Master Mozi said:_ "What words will describe what is now generally praised in the world as good? We praise that which has utility in the upper sphere of Heaven, in the middle sphere of spirits and in the lower sphere of the people. The idea is that praise is earned by those who bring advantage to the upper sphere of Heaven, the middle sphere of the spirits and the lower sphere of the people..."

Since we don't usually see them, it seems they see us as through a one way mirror. Heaven can thrust them down into our world, or we can pull them down with us. So perhaps it is that the future, whose various interests the spirits represent, perceives us through our effects on it. Mozi is pretty sparse on the metaphysical background, so take your pick. I have my own.

Problem of Evil

Heaven is both immanent and personal, the empowered moral principles of the universe personified. It both emerges from the nature of reality and creates it. It is a ubiquitous property of the world, but one that has a will, like a person, and that will is benevolence, ren, humaneness. Heaven wishes for life to thrive, especially humans, and especially civilization.

26-2

"...Heaven loves life, wealth, and order while it dislikes death, poverty and confusion. Therefore, I know that Heaven desires justice and abhors wrongs."

Heaven has good will and unlimited power, yet the world is still imperfect because Heaven acts slowly but inexorably, and we are part of that process. Heaven _uses us_ , as efficiently as possible, in a process to improve the world from an initially flawed state.

12-9

"Thus, the officials of old were appointed to govern the people. They are like the cords into which silk filaments are united, or like the rope to a net in which the vicious and the evil are seized and tamed in the kingdom, so that their various opinions are compounded into one and the same..."

All is as Heaven has made it, in the way that the unassembled parts of a machine are as the assembler has laid them out for assembly. It can be said both that the assembler placed the parts and that the parts are not where the assembler ultimately wants them. Creation is ongoing and we are involved in it, which is why there is no fate.

In fact it may be that dead, deterministic fate _would_ be the fate of the world were it not for the intervention of Heaven, which injects improving freedom into the equation in the form of what we call righteousness. Mozi describes evil as correlating with belief in fate, but perhaps this is at least partly because only righteousness gives us the power to change fate, protecting us from grasping individual spirits and unthinking mechanical matter. Perhaps those who are unrighteous really are fated.

35-5

"...Those who now make use of the words of the fatalists, they are going to break the justice of the world and by expressing them they set the destiny for it... "

Mohist Karma

Heaven punishes the wicked.

26-6

"...If one assumes that Heaven does not love humanity, why does Heaven send a disaster when people murder each other? From this I conclude that Heaven loves mankind."

And Heaven rewards the righteous.

26-2

"...Therefore, when I lead the people to act righteously, I do what Heaven desires, and if I fulfill the wish of Heaven, Heaven will also fulfill my wishes..."

Evil deeds are punished in _this life_ , and good deeds are rewarded in _this life_. So what about the afterlife? After death we must all become ghosts, because Mozi assumes that we can assume that dead family members continue to exist in spirit form.

31-19

"...Now it is true that sometimes a son dies before his father and a younger brother before the elder, but nevertheless in the world the general rule is that whoever is born first dies first. Thus, those who die first, are either the father or the mother, either the elder brother or wife. If one now deferentially and with all due diligence offers the immaculate wine, cider and rice as a sacrificial offering, thus attaining food and drink for father, mother, elder brother and wife, provided that ghosts and spirits really exist isn't that a great boon for them?..."

Since we all presumably become ghosts, who continue to exist in the alternate dimension of the spirit world, there is no reincarnation or karma from past lives. But similarly, there is no predestination. We have the power to influence our fate, and over time to determine it. Heaven has power over the access of all spirits to our world, but good or bad things can still happen to people undeservedly, things that were not caused by spirits (48-20); this implies that there are in fact random natural elements to the world, chaos that Heaven and the orderly principles it fosters have not yet corrected.

11-1

_Master Mozi said:_ "When people were created in ancient times...The conditions were as disorderly as with wild animals."

The fact that Mozi does not blame an illness on evil spirits, but rather lists several possible natural causes of illness, means that in his mind there are no evil spirits acting in the world, though his doctrines make it abundantly clear that there are righteous ones.

48-20

"...The events, which make people get sick, are very many; you get sick through cold and heat, through exertion and distress. If you lock only one of a hundred doors, how should thieves not be able to penetrate?"

If Heaven inexplicably punishes or rewards someone, we should not infer that this somehow signifies the person's deserving additional punishment or reward, nor should we compensate for it, because Heaven's punishment or reward is right and sufficient as is.

49-4

"...the discipline of Heaven may be sufficient...This is like a man who has a recalcitrant and shirking son and the father chastises him. Would it not be quite wrong if the father of the neighboring house lifted his cane and also struck the young one, claiming that he had acted in his own father's way with his flogging?"

However, there's the question of whether we should take Heaven's punishment as a signal or warning. Someone who is being punished may not deserve additional punishment, but it tells us _something_ about them. My inclination is that we can't accurately guess what Heaven's punishment is responding to, so we should also ignore it as evidence of anything other than imperfection. I mean, supposing Mozi's illness really was divine punishment: what would this really tell us about him? To propose anything we would have to be totally speculating. However, this does not preclude us from punishing or rewarding others based on wrong or right behavior that we humans witness and understand. If someone gets a wart, don't think that is Heaven punishing them for sin and then punish them again. But if you see someone steal, then you get to punish them. Or if someone is born rich, don't think that is Heaven rewarding them for virtue, and then reward them again. That wealth is its own sufficient reward.

_The Mozi_ sometimes seems to say that people are presumably more virtuous because they are more wealthy, but on close examination what it is indirectly saying is that they have a more profound responsibility to exemplify virtue, not that they necessarily do so.

26-4

The son of Heaven is typically the richest and most noble man in the world. Those who want to gain such wealth and honor must adapt to the wishes of Heaven and correspond with them...

But if you witness someone doing a good deed, you should give them a word of encouragement and approval. Divine justice can occur at any time. It can be immediate.

31-4

"...Rulers instructed their ministers, and fathers warned their sons by telling them: _'Beware. And, take heed of yourselves. Anyone who kills an innocent calls down mischief on his head. The punishment of the spirits and ghosts is so fast.'_ How can one doubt the existence of ghosts and spirits if one considers the report in that work?"

In other instances that punishment takes years.

31-4

"...Three years later, the King Xuan ... fell down and died..."

So "very swift" can be unimpressively slow. He must mean that in the case of murder, the punishment of ghosts is swift enough to be sure to happen in this lifetime even in the worst case scenario. So does this mean that lesser misdeeds sometimes go unpunished?

Mozi's cited sources merely say that spirits are _able_ to punish lesser misdeeds, but that they _always_ avenge murdered innocents. Any clear statement that _all_ misdeeds are _always_ punished is notably absent. Perhaps it's left unclear because Mozi thinks it would be beneficial for people to believe ghostly punishment is reliable.

4-4

"...Therefore it is said that Heaven gives blessings to those who love and support their fellows, and misfortune to those who hate and harm them..."

Good _people_ are rewarded and bad _people_ are punished, but on looking closely, it seems any particular misdeed would merely _risk_ offending any individual watching spirit (though all spirits would be eager to curry favor with Heaven).

46-6

"...I would prefer the one who works both when he sees me as well as if he does not see me..."

This doesn't necessarily weaken the motivating power of divine justice. Even with the limited omniscience (and interest) of individual spirits, the percipience of spirits can function as variable reinforcement. Murderers _always_ are avenged. Lesser criminals _risk_ punishment and there's no way to know whether the spirit that sees it will care or be able to act. Such a theory would be in line with both the letter and the intent of _The Mozi_.

Mozi was insistent on the omniscience of spirits generally, but it is textually supported that individual spirits have limited perception or concern.

31-10

"... When the wise rulers gave rewards, it was always done in the ancestral temple, but shame and disgrace were only imposed in the temple of the land gods..."

And the threat of variable reinforcement will serve the function of inducing careful behavior, as intended.

If you insist that evil deeds are _always_ punished people _will_ find they get away with them sometimes and will stop believing you. _We_ know the arc of justice is long, but some people might jump to hasty conclusions.

Mohist Charity

Note: _This one obviously was written before I came up with the four priorities. But it makes an important point about why they are the way they are._

Does Mohism call for us all to give the shirt off our backs to anyone who needs it? It does not. You also need your shirt, that's just moving the problem. It calls for us to be generous, not to ruin ourselves. We must ensure we have what we need to perform our function. But if you have it to waste on luxuries, you have it to give to charity.

But when you give to charity it should be effective, not just buying meals for junkies to live another day. Further, you weaken yourself when you give until it hurts. In America, the statistics show that poor people are very generous with charity and the rich are very stingy. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer. So a valid reason to keep wealth is to get stronger.

46-5

_...The gentlemen reported this to master Mozi by saying: "Geng Zhuzi does not seem to be particularly successful in Chu. We visited him and he gave us only three liters of food to eat, also he treated us as his guests not with special generosity." Master Mozi said,_ "You never know." _Soon thereafter, Geng Zhuzi sent him two hundred ounces of silver with the message, "Your unworthy pupil has here two hundred ounces of silver, of which he desires that the master may make use of it." Master Mozi said_ , "In fact, you never know."

Also, if you don't spoil heirs and don't have a fancy funeral, you can keep your wealth all your life and then leave it all to charity when you die. You should have what you are willing to ensure everyone has. However, your responsibility to take care of people without regard to worthiness, your responsibility to charitable donation based on universal love, extends only to those under your charge. This rule allows local surpluses to exist for something other than alleviating the needs of those you have no control over. This rule is necessary for things to get better, and I made it up. It is not based on the text. However, I would imagine this is because it was such a basic assumption there was no need to explicitly detail it. That might be disputed on the basis that Mozi's _Universal Love_ was a radical innovation, but I think he felt safe in espousing it because he knew cultural factors would mitigate the side effects.

For responsibility to entail giving everything away to those who are irresponsible is for responsibility to be irresponsible. If my neighbor gambles his money away and I give him some of mine, without consequences, then I have as good as gambled _my_ money away. He should instead mow my yard for it. Those who are needy for reasons other than irresponsibility will be happy to accept some subordination, which in any case ensures they become (as subordinates of the responsible) essentially responsible themselves because they are then under responsible control--which is doubly safe, since if they accept subordination they weren't irresponsible to begin with, just unlucky. This is another reason to be good to your people. Often they don't deserve their lowly status and it will eventually be corrected.

Mohism calls for people to abandon their own personal standards of right and wrong (and other things) and instead, for the sake of unity and its benefits, all agree to accept common standards. Mohism supposes that standards were united at some point in the past, but that things fell apart. Mohism is trying to return standards to unity. As such, it looks for standards that would best approximate universals. In _Universal Love_ , Mozi calls for a universality that seems to demand total generosity. Reading this in him may be misinterpretation, or not, but to apply universality in different contexts we need a nuanced version of it. We need to have a sliding scale of need.

15-4

_The scholars and nobles of our time may say, "This universalism is, of course, something beautiful, but one of the most difficult and vague things in the world." Master Mozi replies_ : "Only because the scholars and nobles of the world do not recognize the advantages and have pre-conceived notions..."

Depending on what you are doing, which is presumably (if you are ren and yi) something worthwhile, then you may need certain things in order to do it. Imagine I live with others and we are all cold because there's no fire in the house. I have a coat. I am also the strongest, so I am the one to go out and get firewood. Should I give the coat to another, one who is perhaps sick, or keep the coat so I can wear it outside, where it is even colder and windy, to get firewood? I should wear the coat while I am getting firewood, and then pass it off to the sick person. While I am getting firewood, I have a greater need for the coat. Once the firewood is inside, the sick person has a greater need for the coat. The need is relative to task and conditions. "Need" ie worthiness to be prioritized for limited resources, flows from purpose.

Now, suppose I were a coat merchant with a wagonload of coats. I come to a town where all the coats were stolen by bandits and the people are freezing. If I were interpreting universality in an overly simple way I would simply give my surplus coats to the people of the village. Then I would be out of business as a coat merchant. To a coat merchant, the wagonload of coats is not surplus, it is needed for his purpose. Perhaps he could offload the coats and lend the use of his wagon to the village so they could gather firewood, then load the coats back up and proceed with his journey. Wagon time is something the merchant may have a surplus of.

Now, suppose I have a coat and an acquaintance does not. We are otherwise equal. Should I give the acquaintance my coat, even if he is known to be a practitioner of selective favoritism, not likely to return the favor? I should decide objectively and selflessly who should have the coat, and all other factors being equal, I should exalt the worthy, myself. I should give the coat to the person more likely to do good deeds as a consequence. This is not different from keeping the coat because I am the strong one bringing in wood.

What this story demonstrates is the dichotomy between something called "universal" and something called "partial". More proper English words for these are "universalism" and "favoritism". Though you may have duties beyond meritocratic favoring of the worthy (such as oaths you are obligated to keep if you are to be worthy yourself), the _discretionary_ favor you give everyone should be based entirely on how worthy they are in your estimation. Everyone (except those who pose a grave and immediate threat to the benefit of the world) should be considered worthy to a certain degree, but it's a sliding scale. All are deserving of having basic needs met. All are worthy of being treated objectively, based on merits, without prejudice or favoritism. Even enemies attain this level of worthiness the moment they surrender.

Jian Ai

Mozi urges everyone to practice something called "jian ai", which is usually translated as "universal love". I don't speak Chinese, but I'm familiar with Mozi's use of the term and I've read about the issues involved in translating it. The range of connotations of the word translated as "universal" includes shades concerned with team effort and open sharing. But "universal" is the most popular way of translating it in _The Mozi_ because in Mohist doctrine, there is an important dichotomy between "universal" and "partial", that is to say between "impartiality" and "favoritism". To be "partial" is to be _exclusive_ , and to be "universal" is to be _inclusive_ , so Jian Ai is sometimes translated as "impartial care" or "inclusive care". But I read that "care" is too soft a word for the kind of love implied by the "love" part of universal love. You should love a beggar in the gutter just as you love members of your own family--there should be one standard for all. But there's a nuance of this "universality" being about more than who _gets_ the loving, it's also about who _does_ it. This universality is not just about everyone getting the benefits; it's about everyone doing the work. It's both everyone loving and everyone being loved. When you help that beggar up out of the gutter you don't say "Here, let me help you get up," you say "Here, let's get you up." This is team love, by the team and for the team. There's another English word that covers both the dichotomy role (universal vs partial) and the shared effort role. It is "common." Common has the added value that it also has connotations of "usual" in English, and as such is part of the idiom "common decency". But translating jian ai as "common decency" that would be too soft, more like impartial caring. Jian ai is a strong attitude, stronger than mere caring or decency.

But the love here is not true love. Everybody understands that this is not romantic love. But when you help that beggar up out of the gutter, you give him a mat on your porch, you don't buy him a palace or a jewel encrusted mausoleum as one might do when motivated by partial love.

  .jpg)

The love in universal love is not doting, but it is stronger than mere caring. What we normally think of as love is exactly what Mozi condemns as "partial," it is favoring someone so much you want them to receive special perks nobody else gets. Universal love doesn't extend to giving strangers your car because that would be partial.

The question remains, why do you keep your car for yourself then: isn't that partial? No, because your car is a tool for your mission in life, you have it because your role requires it. Your keeping it is not because of purposeless self preference. You keep it because you, as the expert on yourself, evaluate your role in society as justifying your having it. Giving up your tools is not love, it is foolishness.

Universal love is about ensuring everyone gets the basics that everyone needs. It's about everyone getting adequate food and clothing and shelter. It isn't about gold rings, because nothing in Mohism is about gold rings. The love in universal love is about ensuring all have what everyone is due, and that's part of why the standard of what everyone is due is so low. The love in universal love is really just _compassion_.

In the eyes of someone benevolent, someone applying jian ai, everyone is due relief of the misery of need. If you got drunk last night, you deserve that headache. If you drove drunk and got arrested, you deserve the sore feet from having to walk instead of drive. Drunken revelry and driving are luxuries nobody is entitled to. But if you are cold and unclothed or hungry and unfed, then these things happen to us all, these are common needs everyone should have alleviated by the efforts of everyone. And our caring is profound, it isn't mere decency, or concern, or courtesy. It's compassion. And the word "compassion" has the added advantage that refers only to the alleviation of suffering. You never give someone your car out of compassion, but you may give them your sandwich, or trade your luxury car in for an economy car and give the difference to a charity.

The word often translated as love, or care, works best as "compassion" because think about this: you're supposed to love enemies you are fighting in battle. It's possible to be compassionate to enemies--offering quarter, say, and then caring for your prisoners--but not to love them. Love implies you assign them merit, or worthiness, that they don't deserve. Beyond basic necessities, compassion scales up with what the recipient deserves, with worthiness, rather than having to be always the same.

So, in a Mohist context, jian ai could also be translated "common compassion." Mozi is referring to a social safety net. Loving universally is not some reduction of the self to blind enslavement to everyone. If you practiced it that way then you would quickly be the beggar in the gutter, helpless and blindly submissive to each and every passing stranger. That would be to resign all responsibility and consign the world to disorder. Universal love is not undiscriminating just because it is not favoritism, but also because it is not "love" (it is merely compassion) and it is not just _to_ all, but _from_ all.

There is a favoritism involved in impartial caring, or universal love, or common compassion, however, because there is a thread of favoritism running throughout Mohist doctrine. This kind of favoritism is meritocracy, it is exalting the worthy. Beyond basic needs, which everyone is entitled to, Mohists are free to prefer the more worthy and provide them with advantage. This explains why benevolence does not call for us to become the slaves of every passing stranger who makes demands. That would be an unjust act, exalting the unworthy over your worthy self. Mohism does not rule out self esteem.

44-7

...The love of humanity does not exclude one's own person, for you are among those who are loved, and since this is the case, love extends to one's own person. The usually so-called self-love is love for a person.

If Mozi expected us to give away all our worldly possessions, then why did he not demonstrate that himself, rather than keeping a wagon load of books?

47-13

When master Mozi travelled to the south and went to Wei as a messenger, he took many books with him in his car. Xian Dangzi looked at them and wondered very much...

Because he had regard for his own worthiness to be the best user of those books, he "deserved" to keep them rather than sell them for money to feed the destitute.

Also, the question comes up of how universal our outlook is if we run around being mindlessly and reactively generous. If you give alms to a beggar at your door, how universal is that? It is favoritism to that one for being near while snubbing the beggar who is too far away to present a bowl. So what do you do when the beggar presents a bowl? Theoretically, and most purely, the correct Mohist response is too direct him to a charity and resolve to give more to that charity.

But we want people to know about Mohism, so there is the case to be made for making sure recipients of our largesse are aware of who it came from and why. So you tell that beggar at your door, "As a Mohist I will certainly resolve to give more to the Salvation Army on your behalf, their address is 123 Main Street."

There are three opposites of common compassion. Exclusive compassion is favoritism, caring only about a special group. Common cruelty is meanness, malevolence to all. Exclusive cruelty is bigotry, malevolence only to a special group.

You may have what you are worthy to have. You are worthy to have something if you will most use it to benefit the world. In Mohism, benevolence always takes priority.

Consequentialism

Benevolence is more than common compassion, or universal love. It is concern for the "benefit of the world". That is the full name of the will of Heaven. Common compassion is a major contributing element but it has limits that the full will of Heaven does not. The real world involves having to make choices in a complex environment. A beggar is hungry, should I give him my sandwich? In a simple minded way, common compassion would say yes. But what if I have a job interview later on today? Being hungry will hurt my chances. Does that not sacrifice all the good I could do in the new job for a temporary fix for the beggar? Every choice involves complex consequences.

That's why Mozi constantly harps on the need to consider the benefit of the world. This is why Mohism is considered a form of consequentialism. Moral reasoning in Mohism is based on the consequences of an action, rather than the act itself.

In one situation, fighting off an attacker so he cannot hurt the innocent might be acceptable because it benefits the world. In another situation, the same violent acts would be unacceptable, such as if they were being used for robbery, which harms the world by undermining the integrity of the social fabric.

Now there may be some argument as to whether Mohism is "act consequentialism" or "rule consequentialism," but I believe these to be academic questions. All consequentialism is act consequentialism, it is about choosing the course of action that has the best consequences. Using a rule as an intermediary in that calculation doesn't matter. If you choose to abide by a rule because you believe that rule produces good consequences, then you are choosing an action based on the consequences of general application of the rule. The only thing that distinguishes rule consequentialism is that somebody made a rule. So what rules did Mozi make about this?

After Mozi died, his followers went on trying to live by his way. But theory met reality and, in the absence of the master, the Mohists found themselves challenged. They began to develop logical tools for parsing Mohist doctrine, looking for loopholes that would let them satisfy what seemed to be conflicting requirements.

44-16

A disciple must take the deep to be deep, the shallow to be shallow, grow what grows, and diminish what diminishes. Furthermore, he examines what belongs together and thereby gets good designations, and further examines the sound, the origin and the name. By going back to the circumstances you can get some things more correctly. If the phrasing is inapt, people can make corrections based on the circumstances.

One of the main contradictions in Mohist doctrine is the conflict between consequential and deontological ethical reasoning. Despite the importance Mohists place on models, standards and principles as tools, they are simply means to the end of producing desirable consequences. Only Heaven is both a means and an end. Heaven's objective and selfless concern for the entire world is a standard against which to measure all other moral compasses. And the will of Heaven is also the purpose we should all serve.

12-7

"...The holy kings in ancient times knew the desires of Heaven and spirits and avoided what displeased them, seeking to promote the benefit of mankind and avert disadvantages...."

Service to the benefit of the world is the actual guiding light of Mohism. Mohists are consequentialists, ultimately judging the moral value of everything based on how effective it is in producing good results.

37-3

"When Yu, Tang, Wen and Wu ruled the world, they said, _'We must enable the hungry to eat, the freezing to wear clothes, and the exhausted to get rest, and as a result we will find that order occurs rather than chaos.'_ Thereby they became famous and admired in the world..."

Yet at the same time, Mohists believe the norms of a society are invariably most likely to produce the best results.

12-2

"The reason for this confusion was evidently that the people had no leaders who could unite the many opinions within the realm..."

Such unity has good consequences. If unified standards sound illiberal, it must be kept in mind that the ideal ruler, according to Mohist doctrine, rules not by whim but by consensus.

11-4

"...But through what will the kingdom be governed? It is only through doing this: the son of Heaven summarizes the various opinions within the kingdom into one, thus the government of the empire is based on these..."

This is not personal despotism it's tyranny of the majority. Yet the free flow of ideas is never to be stifled.

1-3

Ministers who only encourage him in his actions are corrupting to a prince, and subjects who only flatter him are bad for a ruler. A prince must have officials who dare to confront him and a ruler must have subjects who express their displeasure. As long as discussion reigns and a healthy opposition asserts itself, the prince's life is safe, and he does not endanger the existence of the state. If, on the other hand, officials and subjects appear to be most focused on their rank and position, and they dare not say anything, leaving the prince surrounded by silence, and if the officials in the country do not open their mouths, then grudges accumulate in the hearts of the people. Autocracy reigns at court, any freedom of expression is frowned upon. Then the state is in danger.

Society develops norms organically, good leaders derive and enforce them as explicit ideals, and good citizens support those common standards. Thus Mohism seems to include both rule based and consequence based standards. Basically it's rule consequentialism, with the rules being locally generated based on transcendent ideals. But there are inflexible rules for how to deal with conflicts between local rules and ideals. Which are good rules because they invariably have good consequences that fit the ideals. And to make it more complicated, a big part of Mohism is based on judging virtue, which is measured based on the other sources of moral right. So everything ties up together circularly making it impossible to define where it starts, what's really the fundamental basis.

Like so much else in _The Mozi_ , this dual moral approach seems like a contradiction, but each such contradiction is actually a clue to interpretation. There are many ways in which any one idea can be taken, but when two ideas in _The Mozi_ seem to conflict that merely narrows down the ways in which each idea can be understood. Mozi cautions that to be validly comprehended his entire philosophy must be taken into account without omission.

47-19

_Master Mozi said,_ "My words can be applied. If you spurn _my words_ without thinking first, it is like harvesting grain but not keeping any of it. Those who use their words to attack mine are like people throwing eggs at a stone. You can use up all the eggs in the world, but the stone remains and cannot be shattered."

So two possibly conflicting ideas can each only be taken in ways that allow each other to also be true. This often means additional propositions are implied simply because they are necessary. For instance consider these two propositions. #1 It is raining around here. #2 My car is dry. Though these would seem to contradict each other there are many ways both could be true. My car could be somewhere else (maybe I got a ride here, or walked). Maybe my car is under cover, in a garage. Maybe it just now started raining and my car hasn't gotten wet yet. If we add a third proposition, things get narrowed down further. #3 I am driving my car right now. So either I am driving my car under cover or else it just started raining. My car is with me where I am, where it is raining. Further, the "under cover" possibility is narrowed to a large parking garage or a tunnel, rather than my one car garage at home. It has to be somewhere I could drive.

So, what is the proper moral arbiter? Is it the benefit of the world, or known moral standards? For both of these to be true it must be true that either they never conflict, which is unlikely, or that one of them must take precedence in some way. As it turns out, we don't have to dream up some way to resolve conflicts between norms and consequences because Mozi has provided us with something called ' _the three models'_.

35-3

_How can this happen? Master Mozi said:_ "You have to set up a standard. If you debate without a norm, it is like using a sundial on a turntable to determine the time of day. In this way you will never be able to distinguish between truth and falsehood, advantage and disadvantage. Therefore, I would say that my three models must be applied." _What are the three models? Master Mozi said:_ "One deals with the 'origin', another with the 'basis', and the third with the practical application'. What is the origin? One finds the origin in the history of the old, wise rulers. And what's the basis? The basis is discovered in the reliable sensory truth of the people corporately. And how is the practical application found? It is by applying various principles of justice and administration and observing which has benefitted the state, the families, and people. These are the so-called three models of discussion."

The three models are a great tool for deriving moral truths, but they also closely resemble the scientific method. They are a checklist. To be true a proposition must pass all three checks. It must fit with historically established fact, it must fit with consensus observational evidence, and it must produce replicable results. In reference to our initial conundrum, to be moral an action must conform to both requirements. It must be in accordance with norms (righteous) and it must have good consequences (benevolence). And these qualifications must be commonly observable (no mysteries revealed only to the select and their paying customers).

If you are astute, you have observed that there are three models but norms plus consequences only adds up to two items. In this particular application of the three models the second model, consensus perception, is considered a given because clearly everyone exalts righteousness and benevolence, or at least pays them lip service. To be acceptable, a behavior must be both lawful and good. A good government policy must fit the traditions of the culture, it must harmonize with the understanding of the people, and it must produce beneficial results. These three models can be summarized as prior Precedence, popular Perception, and purposeful Productivity.

However, this is not to be taken to mean that unless an action or proposition is perfect then the prescription is passivity. Mohism recognizes the principle of selecting the lesser evil.

44-3

...If you meet robbers and must chop off a finger to get your body free, that's a (relative) advantage. The encounter with robbers is, of course, an evil. Whether you chop off a finger or wrist, the advantage is the same everywhere in the world, and the choice is not difficult. If it is life and death, there is only one advantage and no wavering...

(That's not the only common proverb Mozi introduced. He also invented "fight fire with fire," and "don't criticize unless you have a constructive alternative".

16-2

_Master Mozi said:_ "Whoever condemns something must have something else that he can put in its place. If he condemns something and puts nothing in its place, it is as if he wanted to fight a waterspout with water. His view would certainly not find any appeal."...

And he also gave us "have your cake and eat it too:

49-11

"...You are like someone who wants to sell rice and is enraged that it is not kept after it has been sold. Isn't that absurd?"

There are many others, you can find them. I haven't focused on including these offhand bits of wisdom because I'm trying to present the whole theory. End digression.)

In sending his disciples out to proselytize, Mozi instructed them to adapt the message to the situation and the audience. The perfection of the ideal is never compromised, but the path to it is understood to be a persistent process.

49-14

_Master Mozi sent Wei Yue travelling...Master Mozi said:_ "Every time you come into a kingdom, choose what's most important, and carry it out. If there is disorder in the country, speak of favoring the worthy and of assertion of uniformity; if the land is impoverished, emphasize moderation in consumption and moderation in funerals. If the state revels in sounds and feasts, talk about the condemnation of music and the condemnation of fatalism, and if corruption and immorality reign, speak of the veneration of heaven and service to spirits. If the state is inclined to robbery and assault, talk of the unifying love and condemnation of the war of aggression. So when you speak, choose what is most needed and carry it out."

So, to answer the question about priorities and precedence when norms and consequences collide, the answer is clearly that consequences take precedence by a hair. Normally if a course of action does not satisfy both sets of requirements then it is avoided. However, when a choice must be made between limited options, and inaction is not possible, it is consequences that matter most.

44-3

If one appraises the more important and less important things in an object, then one calls this the weighing. One may weigh what is supposedly wrong and declare it right, or deny the wrong and declare it wrong. That is correct weighing. If you chop off a finger to protect the wrist, you choose a big advantage and take a lesser evil into account. By taking this into account, you are not really choosing a disadvantage, but opting for a relative advantage. What you have chosen from is something other people hold. If you meet robbers and must chop off a finger to get your body free, that's a relative advantage. The encounter with robbers is, of course, an evil. Whether you chop off a finger or wrist, the advantage is the same everywhere in the world, and the choice is not difficult. If it is life and death, there is only one advantage and no wavering. If you kill a man to save the realm, you are not choosing to kill a man, for if to benefit the realm you must kill yourself, you do it to benefit the realm. When one weighs the more important and less important things, that is a form of inquiry: you investigate whether or not something is the basis. When the lesser evil is chosen, one finds that the apparent motive is not the motive.

But the thing is, violations of norms are also consequences and have knock on consequences, so that must be taken into consideration. I believe that's called  "rule consequentialism". We, of course, seek to rule.

Mohist Innovation

Mohists believe that while pain and suffering have negative value, so that eliminating them for anyone is a moral act, most positive pleasure and happiness are morally neutral. Pleasure is not so much sinful as overpriced at any price, in and of itself. So if a Mohist utopia is not a world of endless pleasure for everyone, then what is it? In a fully Mohist ruled world, what would happen? The world would be run by wise and moral people devoted to securing the benefit of heaven and the benefit of all. That benefit takes the form of utility in the sense of useful stuff, stuff that aids our mission. And our mission is to create useful stuff, to aid our mission.

Of course we have negative needs, such as food and shelter, needs that need to be met or we will suffer and our abilities will also take a hit. But such needs reach fulfillment and then adding more does no good. Indeed overly fulfilling basic needs can be detrimental. We need to eat, but if we eat too much we get fat. We need to rest, but if we rest too much we get weak. Are there positive goods that can be improved indefinitely, some morally acceptable (Heaven serving) sink for the energy freed up, in a presumably perfected Mohist society? When we abandon frivolous waste we will get rich, but what do we spend it on if frivolous waste is outlawed?

One such good is of course population. If technology had never advanced beyond that of Mozi's time, _people_ would be the most advanced technology available, tools would be mere aids, and such primitive tools can be improved only so much before any additional improvement is detrimental. A qualitative change is necessary before there come to be tools that can be improved more. A wagon, for example, can be perfected, so that there is no theoretical way it can be better for its purpose.

6-6

"...Ships and wagons were built firmly and permanently, but at the same time also light and agile, so that they could carry heavy loads and drive far. With the consumption of relatively little material, one achieved the maximum efficiency..."

But once you make the leap to a modern automobile that is a whole new class of object that has further room for improvement. Or can we consider the automobile a refinement on the oxcart? I think we can. The oxcart is defined by purposes, and anything that serves those purposes is part of the line of valid improvements on oxcarts. An automated high speed maglev cargo train is a descendant of the oxcart.

It has been improved not by adding gold leaf doilies, or racing stripes, but by making it carry more and carry it faster. The purpose of a vehicle, such as an oxcart, is to carry a lot fast, and anything that does so is a vehicle.

Research and improvement of tools and people can serve as an infinite sink for efforts. Anything that adds to the combined virtue and power of humanity serves heaven. Virtue is improved by better understanding the will of heaven, and power is improved by improving tools. Basic research doesn't directly produce measurable results immediately, but is essential to further empowerment and development of better tools.

William McNiel makes the case that the West overtook China because the Confucian system restricted the role of merchants to mere caterers to the rich. The mass of the population lived at subsistence level and the only surplus was in the hands of hereditary rentiers who spent it on luxury goods. The size of China was so great that this still meant a lot of artisans discovering new things, but even then the impacts of innovations were always muted by the extreme stasis of the system as a whole.

Would Mohism have been any different? Excessive reliance on human labor rather than capital investment was part of the weakness of the Chinese system. This is apparent in the Mohist obsession with fecundity. But I believe a rational Mohist system may have arrived at the same conclusions I have about investment because its form of meritocracy, based on personal evaluation (impress me) rather than erudition (ace this test) would have led to its own form of competition. Everyone would have been seeking to rise, and one available path (alongside demonstrations of generosity, loyalty, and work ethic) would have been to apply technical solutions to performance improvement. At low rates of technological progress, this kind of advantage over other kinds of competition would be too small to begin bootstrapping, so whether it prevailed in ancient times would have been chancy. At higher rates of technological progress, however, a similar system would be much more successful because the superiority of adopters of technical innovation would be great enough to give them an increasingly large share of power over time.

An innovator (or early adopter) gains power, and promotes others more based on innovation than the other criteria that might be emphasized by someone who came up another way. Each generation, the percentage of innovator types in the upper ranks would increase until the entire society became some sort of technocracy like modern Singapore. That is what would happen if, within the bounds of Mohism, a society chose to select for that. Other approaches (dare I say experiments) are also possible, with different valid outcomes. This would especially hold true if the application of Mohism also included downward elaboration, allowing lower downs leeway for experimentation.

That is to say, it would work if executed properly, because downward elaboration is very true to Mozi's intent. Does Heaven micromanage? No, it sets a couple of general criteria. Each echelon should imitate by also only adding a little more to the rules. But also yes, Heaven does micromanage in the sense of watching with spirits. But this is equivalent to promoting based on results, the antithesis of micromanagement.

In summary, it could have been different had Mohism won the day, but due to the earliness of the times, there is no guarantee of it. It might as easily have devolved into a theocracy. But in the modern environment such a system would be much more likely to be successful.

Mohist Science

Things that detract from purpose (by costing more than they return) harm frugality, while things that detract from focus (by distracting us from more productive time use) harm diligence. The key word is "distraction".

Mohist doctrine urges us to specialize in something and focus on it all we can, then work diligently within that focus. With training, we can learn to ignore distraction without losing awareness of our surroundings. With skill, we can learn to use times of enforced idleness productively.

By conquering distraction and enforced idleness, focus can make us diligent users of all available time for productive activities. But there are still many ways in which our ability to devote time to specialized productive effort can be detracted from. There is our simple humanity, the need to take time out for maintenance through rest, eating, hygiene, and exercise. These are givens, though planning for efficiency can reduce their cost. Then there is burn out. We can actually become less efficient after focusing on one kind of task for too long. Mozi _wasn't_ at his school teaching when he said this:

49-12

"...The conceited man said to master Mozi: "Do right, just do right! Why talk about it?"

_Master Mozi retorted_ : "Let us assume that the world were unaware of agriculture. Whose merit would be greater, the one who instructs mankind in agriculture, or the one who does not, and only tills the fields alone? ..."

Do you think Mozi alternated between teaching and travelling just because he couldn't send anybody else to go talk to a king about some topic of the day? Or that he stopped and talked to a farmer because he needed to buy some produce for the school cafeteria?

48-2

_Gong Mengzi spoke to master Mozi: "...Now you go around to the people everywhere and talk to them. Why are you taking the trouble?" Master Mozi replied:_ "Today's world is corrupt...."

He needed to revive his creative juices by meeting new people, and he needed to reinforce his motivation by reminding himself of how messed up his world was beyond the ivory tower.

_Everybody_ needs to do this, it's a human requirement just like the need to sleep and eat. Even a plowman benefits from spending a percentage of time in activities only tangentially related to his primary specialization. Perhaps he becomes an amateur meteorologist or entomologist. Provided such diversions represent giving in to the right kind of distraction, ultimately they strengthen productivity, and they are in fact an investment that may pay off very well. In short, science is the hobby of every Mohist. Learning has an honored place in the thinking of Mohists.

12-4

"They examined everything precisely to explore the truth..."

39-6

Furthermore, the Confucians say that a noble follows after, but does not invent himself. It is to be retorted that in ancient times Yi invented the bow, Yu invented armor, Xi Zhong invented the wagon and Qiao Cui invented the ship. Are today's leather workers, smiths, wagon makers and carpenters all noble? Are Yi, Yu, Xi Zhong, and Qiao Cui but ordinary people? The ones you follow may have introduced new features and should be commoners according to this principle.

Mozi believed in respecting the accomplishments of the past, but also in adding to them.

46-8

Wu Mazi spoke to master Mozi: "When one ignores today's people and only praises the former kings, one praises old dried-up bones. It is as if a carpenter only knows dry wood, but not living."

_Master Mozi retorted_ : "What makes the world live is the teachings and precepts of the former kings. If you extol the former kings, you extol the world's source of life. Not extolling the commendable is not virtuous."

47-4

_Master Mozi said_ : "All the words and deeds that benefit Heaven and the spirits and the people, you must bring to execution, and all the words and deeds that harm Heaven and spirits and the people you must refrain from.

47-12

_Master Mozi said:_ "The holy kings of antiquity wanted to pass on their teachings to posterity, so they wrote them on bamboo and silk and carved them in metal and stone to leave them to the sons and grandchildren of later generations. The sons and grandchildren of the following generations should take these as models. If we now hear of this legacy of the former kings and do not follow it, so we insult this tradition."

Antiquity does not equal correctness because much that is old was wrong

48-4

_Gong Mengzi said, "In any case, a noble man must imitate traditional language and traditional costume before he can be called virtuous." Master Mozi retorted_ : "In ancient times, under the reign of the Shang King Zhou, the Minister Fei Zhong was the greatest villain and Barons Ji and Wei were the greatest saints of the realm. They spoke the same language, but the one was virtuous, the other not. Duke Dan of Zhou was a saint, while Guan was a villain in the realm. Their costume was the same, but the one was righteous, the other was not. So clearly it doesn't come down to the old costume or the old language. You also cite the Zhou and not Xia. Your antiquity is not the real antiquity."

So how can it be said he did not believe history progresses?

But as with everything else the place of research is just part of a greater priority scheme.

46-17

Kung-said: "The noble does not create anything new, but only imitates."

_Master Mozi replied:_ "It is not like that. The very ignoble among the people do not imitate the good of the old times, and they don't do the good of the current times either. The less ignoble do not follow the good of antiquity, but they carry out the good that they themselves have, and wish that the good should come from them themselves. Now, if you imitate, but do not create yourself, it is not much different than if you don't like to follow, but act on your own initiative. I think that if you imitate the good old ways and also bring the good of our time to execution, you are multiplying the good as wished."

Research takes time and resources, so that makes it the opposite of diligent and frugal activity unless it produces applicable results proportional to costs like any other investment. It is a means, albeit a means to other means, not an end in itself.

49-21

_Gong Shuzi carved a magpie of bamboo and wood. When it was finished, he let it fly, and only after three days did it come down again. Gong Shuzi considered himself to be extraordinarily adept. Master Mozi spoke to him, saying,_ "The magpie which you have made cannot be compared to my plug for a cart hub. Just now I have cut a three inch long piece of wood, which resists a load of fifty hundredweights. What is skillful is useful to man, hence the name. What you do not use can only be described as clumsy."

What can count as "applicable" varies according to what circumstances pertain. Starting in the 18th century, kites played a role in generating new knowledge because they synergized with other available knowledge. Eventually, they led to airplanes. But in 5th century BC China, a kite was not worth the sacrifices of the peasant who supported the tinkerer who built it. But that's Monday morning quarterbacking. You can't tell what research will lead to until you've followed it to see where it goes. If you knew, you wouldn't need to do the research. But research must be done because it contributes to a better future. So you apportion a certain amount of surplus wealth to research and hope it is applied skillfully rather than squandered. The more of a long shot a line of inquiry seems, the less are the time and resources that should be devoted to it.

And another thing about research is that sometimes it doesn't look anything like plowing. You can't dictate how many acres of research to complete each day. Research should be no more than a side gig for everybody except those who have built up a track record of results. It is an acceptable form of active play associated with other acceptable activity.

The basis of invention is science, and science is almost wholly the outgrowth of pleasurable intellectual curiosity

\--Alfred North Whitehead

But it must be emphasized that research is active, it doesn't look anything like passively listening to music, for example. Certainly pursuit of music has led to discoveries, by those seeking to produce it more efficiently. But likely those same discoveries would have been made in pursuit of improving the efficiency of some other activity had anything else attracted the spending of the wealthy. What attracted investment was music, so that's the path discovery had to take. What if the aristocrats of the 17th and 18th century had been equally enamored of something better? As a matter of fact quite a few of them were and they made innovations in a variety of fields.

The fact that _intellectual_ inquiry is pleasurable and also produces discoveries does not equate to spending research budgets on parties. Intellectual pleasure is a valid type of activity, but just any old pleasure isn't intellectual. If it's you doing recreational research, then you should self evaluate regarding your worthiness to be spending time as you are. You should examine the authenticity of your intellectual drive and the validity of your methods. Are you just smoking joints and doodling and calling it geometry research? If so, don't expect moral support from Mohists. Which is more important, the joints or the doodling?

Mohist Education

Other than devoting his life to a school for public officials, I don't think Mozi had a plan for education generally. Get the hierarchy straight and the sage king will come up with something. Mohism was mostly about getting people right and then getting society right by getting the right people on top. Sure, there were some general principles provided that would always apply, but Mozi was pretty laissez faire on education as far as can be determined from _The Mozi_. He wasn't specifically about using education to manufacture good people, he was about letting the existing system (whatever it may be) produce people and then picking the best products for the highest positions. Motivate people, and they will get educated.

8-3

_But what means are there to bring this about? Master Mozi said:_ "It is like when one wishes to have as many good archers or charioteers as possible in a realm. Then one will make them rich and distinguished, honoring and exalting them. It is thus possible to increase the number of good archers and charioteers in the empire. This is even more the case among the competent and excellent scholars, who are characterized by their virtuous way of life, discernment, discursive skill, and erudition in all kinds of teachings and methods. They are undoubtedly the jewels of the state and the assistants of the gods of the country. One must also make them rich and noble, one must honor and distinguish them, and then the number of excellent scholars in the kingdom will increase."

Joining the Mohist movement was an opportunity for further education of a specialized type. Mozi's academy was a combination of a seminary and a college of public administration. It was a specialized college. After the movement expanded, Mozi's disciples moved away from the academy model and went to more of a warrior monk model. You joined a Mohist chapter and the movement became your life. But the ancient Mohists got thrust off into a niche that defanged and harnessed them. During his life Mozi recalled his agents when they began helping rulers wage aggressive war. Succeeding Elder Masters got embroiled in civil wars and the movement devolved from heroic defenders into little more than finicky mercenaries who ultimately failed to prevent the Qin conquests. Repeating their mistakes doesn't even have value as ritual devotion.

There are quite a few modern professions that would appeal to Mohists. Among them, education seems like a good fit for the Mohist agenda, but not just as a career path. Education is an opportunity to teach Mohist values. But beyond that you would think, on superficial examination, that a Mohist society would focus on vocational education for everyone.

48-21

_Some students shared with master Mozi that they would like to learn archery. Master Mozi gave this answer:_ "This cannot be done. A sage estimates how far his power reaches and only then does he act. A soldier is not in a position to both fight and also assist anyone. You are not soldiers, so how could you complete your studies and at the same time master archery?"

I think taking that paragraph as a blanket condemnation of off topic studies might not be entirely right. Indeed everyone should (at least serially) specialize. But contrary to what seems to be implied by the story about the archers, there is value to training outside your field. These archers were college or even grad students. They needed to be focused on their specialty at this point, not taking electives. But this doesn't mean electives don't have a place.

Furthermore, this is just another example of how Mozi was not far from his Confucian roots. The Confucians also were trying to de-emphasize the martial training of society's future leaders. Mozi was very much a part of that sentiment; though he was more pragmatic about war, he shared the Confucian preference for not idealizing it. It's something nasty you might have to do, but it's not for fun and it has nothing to do with what makes you a gentleman scholar.

Innovation and insight comes from broad knowledge and tossing ideas around. There are two approaches to applying this. One is to have generalization itself be a specialization, and require everyone else to be narrow minded technicians. This is pretty much the "gentleman naturalist" model, and it has led to contributions, but is very inefficient because _most_ people afforded leisure will _not_ apply it very vigorously to intellectual pursuits. The other approach is to give everybody a measure of liberal education. Most important innovations in history have been made not by designated generalist innovators but by professionals adding to the knowledge base of their field because they have a smattering of outside knowledge to spice it up. The generalists are often first to capture the single remarkable breakthroughs, but they always stand on the shoulders of hordes of incremental developers.

Everybody should have a broad enough education to be able to produce new insights in the process of living their daily lives in which they apply specialized skills. The details require working out, but basically whatever field you are training in should involve more than rote learning. You should be taught to generate new thought, and to experiment with new applications and methods, especially in your field. Part of every field should be contributing to expansion of the field, the way professors don't just teach, but expand the field they teach in, or the way doctors don't just practice medicine they share clinical experience with doctors, helping build up the collective wisdom. Why does that stop at the professional and academic level? Whatever you do you should be a contributing scientist expanding your field, and for that you need broad understanding of many things outside your specialty, perhaps not in great detail, but enough to allow insight.

So how does "being a scientist at whatever you do" pertain to diligent focus on the task at hand? Doesn't it contradict it, saying you should daydream about better gardening techniques instead of just concentrating on the gardening task at hand? It isn't a contradiction because you can redefine tasks. All tasks should be defined so as to include attention to learning as a part of the task. This ties each task that much more closely to the benefit of the world, and is thus actually an act of focus.

Whence Surpluses

How is it that any Mohist can have anything to spare for preparation for the future as long as the world has starving children? The answer depends on the scope of personal responsibility under Mozi's hallmark concept, _Universal Love_.

Most of Mozi's principles were absorbed from Chinese culture of his day. He created his own mix, with its own priorities, but very few of his basic ideas were original. Mozi would freely admit this, proudly touting the roots of his doctrine in the words and deeds of the sage kings, or the perception of the people. All these ideas had precedents: meritocracy, benevolence and righteousness, diligence and frugality, the will of Heaven, condemning of military aggression. Again, Mozi mixed these up in his own way and pointed out new ways they could fit together. His epistemology was also kind of original in that he gave three models as a set, and clearly defined them, but each of the models already existed and was in practical use.

But none of this was new, except perhaps for the fierceness of his commitment to diligence and frugality, and even that had precedent in that they are concepts as ancient as poverty. (Every peasant is an "ascetic"--it's only remarkable when nobles do it.) In this Mozi was original only in suggesting that the behavior of survivors of lean times be extended to everyone at all times. Wherever Mozi was most original, his ideas were least polished and are most resisted even today, but it is his original ideas we really ought to look at most closely.

Mozi's one truly original ethical proposal was _Universal Love_ , which he proposed based on his third model, practicality. He saw it simply as being needed, and also as being consistent with the other two models. It was something unrecognized and he pointed it out. The thing is, this made it something new, untried, and untested. All the kinks hadn't been worked out, as those of the others had, it had that new concept smell. Further, fitting it in with the others was an ongoing work.

The fact that the later Mohists were still struggling with this when the dialectical chapters were written tells us how unfinished this aspect was.

44-6

The disposition can be very generous or very stingy; this is true of the exercise of the commonly mentioned virtues: with princes, superiors, elders, respected persons and relatives one is generous, but this generosity with seniors does not require that one be stingy with juniors. One can be generous to relatives or very hard hearted; if the degree of kinship is very close, there can be no great pettiness. If one is benevolent to his parents, one does not boast of his actions, but simply attends to them.

I think I can put together a proposal that's consistent with _The Mozi_ , both the core chapters and the dialectical ones, and which will work robustly.

Truly agape universal love as Mozi proposes it in the _Universal Love_ chapters may actually be possible, as he makes the case, because it actually has been put into practice (and more than once--nobody gets to stick a flag in it). What Mozi did not address is that mutually benevolent societies are as unstable as a soap bubble. Sure, you can do it, as the sage kings did, but for how long? The whole cycle of history apparent in China (and everywhere else, but _they_ actually had a _theory_ about it, calling it the Mandate of Heaven) need not be accepted as fate. It's not necessary for each dynasty to go through the pattern of being founded by a mortal sage, who presides over a golden age that inevitably decays into corruption and disorder necessitating a new dynasty. While there's more involved in a stable utopia than just an enduring ethic, a _stable_ version of _Universal Love_ would help stick a thumb in the eye of "fate" and release history from that karmic cycle.

The "deal" that gets to a stable version of Universal Love is built on the "thick" and "thin" love of the dialectical chapters combined with hierarchical meritocracy and care to avoid schismatic favoritism.

You owe kindness to those under you.

You owe loyalty to those over you.

You owe courtesy to all others.

The devil is in the details, as in the definitions of "kindness", "loyalty", and "courtesy".

You owe "thick" love to those in your chain of command. You serve those above you, making every effort to further their goals and principles with which you identify. You take care of those under you, ensuring they are provided with all they need to survive and function.

You owe "thin" love to everyone universally. That is, you have goodwill, wanting everyone to be part of a functional chain of command in which they both give and receive both loyalty and kindness. To further this desire, you refrain from malevolent actions and you act to further general order. Unlike thickly loving everyone, this form of universal love can even be applied to robbers, who would not be robbers if they were in a functional chain of command, so you might want to take them into yours (ie capture them), or you might want someone else to do so, or there to be peace between their chain of command and yours. Your love for the many may force you to harm robbers in the process of attempting to capture them, but such is life.

My thesis here is that _Universal Love_ is all about order. It produces order, and you love people by giving them order (with all of its knock-on effects). But that needs qualification. Order doesn't _necessarily_ produce love, it does so only if those in charge are worthy. Only in a world where the Mohist ethic is universally understood, would order _always_ produce love. Here's my reasoning. Lack of love clearly is associated with disorder.

14-2

"Therefore the wise (who are responsible for the management of the realm) must become clear about the origin of the turmoil. They will find that they have their reason in the absence of mutual love..."

It would follow then, that love must be associated with order.

14-3

"...If in the realm everyone loved each other, if the states did not fight one another, if the families did not interfere with each other, if there were no thieves and robbers, and if governments and citizens or fathers and sons showed love and affection to each other, then the realm would be in a well ordered state..."

But how does the causation work, how are those associations created? The answer depends on which of these are true according to Mozi.

1. Lack of love produces disorder

2. Love produces order

3. Disorder produces lack of love

4. Order produces love.

What kind of textual support exists for each of those four possibilities?

1. Lack of love produces disorder

"Where does it all come from? It is all from the lack of mutual love." 14-2

2. Love produces order

"If in the realm everyone loved each other... then the realm would be in a well ordered state." 14-3

3. Disorder produces lack of love

"When people were created in ancient times, they had no laws and no government...Thus quarreling arose among them." 11-1

Only 4 is unproven. Order doesn't necessarily produce love.

It's a necessary but not sufficient condition. So, in order to correct the failure of order to produce love, it is necessary to persuade the orderly system, the people running it rather than the mindless laws, of the importance of producing love for its own perpetuation. It just needs to know.

This is in fact the point of _The Mozi_. To let those in charge of order understand that it would behoove them to encourage love, because only that way can the cycle of social decay be broken.

This whole kind of graded universal love also allows for phasing out the conflicting li system of special obligations and replacing it purely with a chain of command form of grading. Graded love of this kind allows what is working to get empowered over that which is not working, as in a meritocracy. A farm that is efficient is not required to sacrifice to the point of destruction to sustain a farm that is not, so better farms evolve. But similar good farms are both kept going by one giving a little to help another through a rough patch. Aid to the family next door is the responsibility of the mayor, who is father to all the houses of the village, and to whom you owe loyalty as you owe kindness to your own family. Better families evolve when the mayor lets you keep some surplus so you can have more children. But better villages also evolve when your village, possibly with the help of the province, manages to keep all its families alive. Love gives some, justice might give more. Order makes the proportions right.

Mohist Economics

If simplistic "Keynsianism" is right, then stupidly applied Mohist frugality could in fact lead to economic depression, except perhaps under a command economy. People committed to Mohist ethics would be working and producing, but never spending on luxuries. So the only goods available would be necessities and tools, and they would be abundant and cheap because of overproduction. The deflation would be massive. Unemployment would drive down wages. All because Mozi said not to buy luxuries, so there would be no demand. But did Mozi really direct people to low demand household spending? He directs people to avoid luxury spending rather than to never spend. The stockpiling of goods was to be constant, and population growth (or presumably other kinds of growth, such as research and development, or plant-and-equipment upgrades) would ensure constant demand. People would be motivated not by starvation, but by ambition and ideology. They would be motivated to improve, rather than to fight more fiercely or cheat more cleverly.

Mozi believed in a social safety net, but was not a communist.

19-9

_Master Mozi said:_ "If it were possible to establish the glory of righteousness in the realm and to thus win the princes by virtue... the princes of the small states will say _: 'That works itself out, and we have peace. This is how we can strengthen ourselves militarily; it also helps if we give relief to the people and assist with adversity, then let the people guide themselves...'_...This would be an advantage for the whole realm, but the kings, princes and lords do not understand it, and it must be said that they do not know this most important means of availing the realm."

If he were a communist no further thought would be required. He would be calling for us to give all our wealth to the king and beg for some of it to be given back to account for our needs. But since Mozi is not a communist, this allows us to think about the economic impact of Mohist ways. Mozi is calling for **generosity** as a _moral principle_ , not for a command economy. In a totally command economy you don't have to think so much about economics, the way someone without feet doesn't need to worry about what kind of shoes to wear.

If you have a market system (considered as a closed system and barring the complexities of international trade) and you combine it with a culture of frugality such as Mozi advises, then modern economics rightly says you are going to have a depression. The erroneous next step is to assume that the most robust kind of demand is consumer spending on consumable luxury goods and ephemeral luxury services because these are never saturated and need constant renewal.

If we take this idea to its logical conclusion, everyone would ideally be a heroin addict. I am probably misrepresenting economics already. From my understanding of what many people think of it, modern economics is basically Keynsian economics, and Keynsian economics (among other things) places great emphasis on the importance of demand. What I'm talking about here is the worst kind of misapplication of half understood demand side economics--which Keynes himself derided.

The decadent international but individualistic capitalism in the hands of which we found ourselves after the war is not a success. It is not intelligent. It is not beautiful. It is not just. It is not virtuous. And it doesn't deliver the goods.

\--John Maynard Keynes

The strategy of driving economic activity purely by stimulating indiscriminate household spending is flawed. One problem is the idea that the spending driving demand must be on consumable luxury goods and ephemeral luxury services. This misapprehension is based on the assumption that demand for products will decline once the market is saturated. Once you make a mountain of canned food, the value of canned food will plummet and food canners will get laid off. So, the thinking goes, consumption should focus on the kinds of demand that are resistant to such saturation. But market saturation of any good only occurs under cultural conditions appropriate to that good. Germany has a higher saturation point for beer than does Utah. A world of survivalists would have an unlimited demand for canned food.

If everyone were Mohists, the demand would simply shift to different kinds of products. People would still spend all their income, because if you believe the right kind of spending is a moral act, how can you refrain from spending if you are committed to morality? A world of Mohists would spend all their money, they would just spend it on products Mohism tells them to value, rather than spending it on products hedonism tells them to value.

As individuals we don't have a lot to do with general economic growth. At our level it's called investment. But as citizens, we can support pro growth policies. Public investment and research lead to economic growth, even if the people don't take vacation sea cruises or get big screen plasma TVs.

Now you could read _The Mozi_ and take Mozi to be a degrowther.

21-2

"The wise rulers met the provision that consumption should be kept to a minimum. To all traders of the realm, wheelwrights, teamsters, leatherworkers, tanners, potters, smiths, and carpenters fared the instruction to pursue the trade that they understood. 'It is enough to make what the people can use.' The holy kings renounced everything that makes trouble without increasing the usability."

But you would be wrong. Mozi was aware of the economically depressive effects of an ethic of frugality. Investment is one solution, but the most important kinds of investment possible in his time were state level developments in infrastructure like walls, canals, and roads. That and his Confucian background may explain his emphasis on training people for government service. It's where the action was at the time.

5-4

"If you don't have any cereals in your stores, you can't stand a famine. If the arsenals are not full of weapons, injustice cannot be fought with justice. Without ramparts and walls in good condition, a defense is not possible, and if one has not taken precautions in the spirit, one cannot encounter unforeseen cases..."

State investment is important, but the best way for an individual or family to promote growth was to breed. Most farming in China during the 5th century BC didn't even use animal drawn traction plows, it was all done with human labor and hand tools. Every child was a capital investment for the family, as well as an expansion of the consumer market for the economy.

25-1

_The Master Mozi said_ : "If we compare the concern of a virtuous steward of the kingdom with the care of a reverent son for his parents, there is no difference between them. In what way does a good son now care for his parents? When his parents are poor, he strives to make them rich; when there are few inhabitants, to multiply them; and when the crowds are in turmoil to calm them down....A well-meaning regent is active in the same way for the realm. If the realm is poor, he seeks to make it prosperous, when the population is low to enlarge it, and when the masses are in turmoil to soothe them.

In modern Mohism, growth must take the place of fecundity. Conditions no longer call for the fecundity Mozi alluded to, but the underlying need he was addressing with fecundity remains and is addressed by a more general kind of economic growth.

We can make the judgment call Mozi allowed room for, and realize that our family is not "few". Further, when he talks of specifics Mozi is just another sage, and we can consider the first model satisfied by being _in line_ with his _suggestion_ of a fecundity value. By also considering the common _perception_ of overpopulation we satisfy the second model and by formulating _practical_ policies that replace the function of fecundity with other forms of growth we satisfy the third model.

And this kind of growth, commonly called "development" has a basis in _The Mozi_. Part of Mozi's argument against aggressive war is that it is unnecessary because internal development is preferable.

46-19

"...Now much barren land lies within the borders in Chu," _master Mozi continued,_ "More land than can be cultivated. Even if you summoned many thousands of active workers, that would not be enough. But Chu laid eyes on a city between Song and Zheng and had to steal it. Would Chu's act be different from that of the kleptomaniac? ..."

Investment and research lead to economic growth, even if the people don't take vacation sea cruises or get big screen plasma TVs. In modern Mohism, growth will take the place of fecundity. Conditions no longer call for the fecundity Mozi alluded to, but the underlying need he was addressing with fecundity remains and is addressed by a more general kind of economic growth.

As individuals we don't have a lot to do with general economic growth. At our level it's called investment. But as citizens, we can support pro growth policies.

Mohist Creativity

In order to grow, as it should hope to do when it can, a society generally needs creativity, and by its nature this needs to be broad based. People in all walks of life need to be able to bring creative thought to bear from their various perspectives. This requires that people have enough breadth of learning and mental stimulation to be able to be creative. This collective purpose translates at the individual level to a requirement for some form of art. But Mozi discourages decoration and ornamentation of almost everything in life. Here's his take on vehicles.

6-6

"...The current rulers proceed differently regarding ships and wagons. To the good construction, the ease and agility, the unfolding of luxury is added, using levies from the people to decorate ships and wagons, the latter with colorful embroidery, the former with wood carvings. The women use up their woven and knitted fabrics to produce the fancy embroidery, so the people are relegated to enduring the cold. The men are taken from their plowing and harvesting in order to make wood carvings, therefore the people go hungry. This behavior of the princes regarding ships and wagons is imitated by the vassals around them, so the people have to endure hunger and cold at the same time. The consequence of this is an upswing in criminality, which in turn has necessitated stiffening of penalties, and the combination leads to turmoil in the empire. If the prince is really interested in maintaining order in the state and he hates anarchy, he must practice thrift when building ships and wagons."

Mozi rules out most forms of art as passive hedonistic indulgence. Musicians are not passive, but they are active in production of an art form that is mostly passively enjoyed. Thus music is discouraged by the text.

32-10

...While scholars and nobles take pleasure in music, they cannot move a muscle, nor apply any of their mental faculties to administer their offices...

In fact, if you take the word music to mean something that requires total concentration, making work impossible (as it is defined here), then that which does not have those qualities is not technically music. If you can watch a TV show while riding an exercise bike, is that OK? If you can drive a truck or cook a meal while listening to music, shouldn't that be OK? If you can print a cheap Van Gogh poster and put it on the wall to cheer the mood subliminally without detracting from attention, how can that be overly expensive or distracting?

The author of most of Chapter 32 leaves an opening to being persuaded of some value to aesthetic considerations.

32-3

...If it were like the production of ships and wagons by the holy kings, I would not object to it... If the musical instruments benefited the people in a similar way, I would not mind."

Ornament designed to create pleasure is frowned on. Architecture should be designed with purpose, though avoidance of the negative impact of outright ugliness can be part of that purposeful design. Clean lines avoid ugliness, and do not constitute ornamentation, so plain housings that hide mechanisms and such might also be OK. And there's a difference between quality and ostentation. Extending that, a simple splash of color can't be that expensive and has worthwhile results in mood. The point is that it shouldn't stand out, but rather should exist to avoid standing out in a negative way.

For general stimulation of creativity, I think the exchange of tales should remain as the most authorized art form. I would even go so far as to say that a tastefully limited amount of illustration is not extravagant. Is a newspaper story extravagant because it includes a picture of the event it describes?

Yet there is also a collective consideration involved in the signal of Mohist plain tastes. We could justify a certain amount of "art" but in something like ritual devotion we might often want to emphasize our rejection of ornamentation. Is such a standard itself a form of ornamentation; or a form of expression?

Mohist Arts

Creation and consumption of the arts is generally considered something _The Mozi_ condemned. _Condemning Music_ mostly condemned more than just music.

32-2

The reason that the master Mozi condemns music is not that the sound of the great bells, the sonorous timpani, the harps, guitars, flutes and oboes did not appeal to him, or that the ornaments of the figures and the colors of the colored embroidery are not beautifully regarded, or that the roast of oxen and pigs are not excellent tasting, or that staying on high terraces, in magnificent pavilions and hermitages would not be a pleasant rest. The body knows well what pleasing to him, the mouth, what tastes good to him, what delights the eye, and what pleases the ear, but if one goes back to antiquity, these do not fulfill the duties prescribed by the wise rulers, and if one grasps after their presence in the senses, that does not promote the well-being of the people...

It condemned everything like it, which seems to mean not just entertainment but all aesthetic concerns.

I think this may be a misreading of the master's intent. The luxuries being condemned were the kinds of indulgences pampered aristocrats lavish on themselves with tax money. Palaces, concerts, elaborate decoration were all associated with the expensive musical extravaganzas. These are not investments of any kind. But they are planned just to induce pleasure, rather than to alleviate discomfort or to give utility, to exalt or to edify. I could argue that these big public wastes of money are all Mozi was talking about, but he means for the restrictions to apply to everyone.

32-10

...But while peasants are being amused by the music, they cannot leave early in the morning and come home late, and do not plow, sow, plant, or harvest crops in quantity, therefore production is insufficient. If the women prefer to listen to the music, they will be unable to get up at daybreak and not retire until the night. They will not be able to spin and weave, nor assemble the hemp, silk and linen threads together, and therefore such materials are not produced. What is it that causes those important in the administration to neglect concern for the state? It is music. Therefore, master Mozi said that the music was not worth anything.

It seems the author of chapter 32 expected everyone to work from dawn to dusk, but this was nothing new for commoners. The real target of this expectation of relatively demanding diligence was the elites. But Mozi wanted the elites to work harder, not to give a few serfs a day off. The common masses are so numerous that their wasting a little is the same as a prince wasting a lot. It's waste. This seems difficult, but I could also argue that Mozi intended these restrictions to be for his time only.

But none of those arguments are valid. Mozi meant to restrict expenditure of resources and effort on pursuit of pleasure for its own sake. He meant it for everyone. And he meant it forever. However, aesthetic concerns and some forms of art can have a _productive_ purpose. If something is ugly enough it can actually be soul crushingly detrimental. Aesthetic concerns can be considered to prevent ugliness, but not to pursue titillation. Protecting ourselves against these things is similar to protecting ourselves against cold wind and rain.

6-1

"...The construction of these houses was such that the height was sufficient to protect against the moisture, the side walls to hold wind and cold, the roof to catch snow, frost, rain and dew..."

Similarly, art is generally a waste of time and resources. But it should be in the same category as sacrifices to the spirits. Art can have a spiritual purpose, and it can lead us toward sagacity. If a work of art has an actual function it can be part of building a better future. The question should generally be "Does it inspire benevolence and righteousness?" And if so, we should ask how much good it does versus the cost.

But the nature of art is that you don't know what's in it until you open the box. So Mohists will have to rely on trusted reviewers who share their values. Furthermore, play has a purpose. It's part of creativity. In fact, children need it to develop. But we can't trust ourselves to know how much we need. You can say, "all work and no play makes jack a dull boy" but you might just say that as you are engaging in absolute self indulgent navel gazing. And that is a thought I could never formulate had I never stocked my mind with analogy ammunition. I would not know that if I had never seen _The Shining_.

The only way to approach this is for indulgence in play to have a status cost, depending on current status. Children need a lot so it shouldn't cost them much. High officials need very little, so it should cost them a lot. If it really leads to something of value, as the proponents of play claim, then the cost will be more than made up for. Lu Ban played with a kite, maybe the first.

49-21

_Gong Shuzi carved a magpie of bamboo and wood. When it was finished, he let it fly, and only after three days did it come down again. Gong Shuzi considered himself to be extraordinarily adept. Master Mozi spoke to him, saying,_ "The magpie which you have made cannot be compared to my plug for a cart hub. Just now I have cut a three inch long piece of wood, which resists a load of fifty hundredweights. What is skillful is useful to man, hence the name. What you do not use can only be described as clumsy..."

Mozi sneered at it as frivolous. So it cost Lu Ban status. But it may have paid off, in his case, because he is now revered as a great inventor. How many seasons of football did he watch? How many hours did he spend playing "Civilization"?

Mozi isn't just condemning music when he condemns music. He's condemning the entire entertainment industry. It would be easy to find an excuse to abrogate Mozi's condemnation of entertainment and music. But I think it's important to respect his intent. Entertainment takes more than time and resources, it takes up spiritual energy, it diverts us from better purposes, becomes an end in itself. This applies even when it's free, even when you can do it while engaged in productive activity. That's why the most telling piece of the Mozi on music isn't in Chapter 32, Condemnation of Music, but in 48-13 when he argues about doing it for its own sake.

48-13

_Master Mozi asked a Confucian why he was playing music and he answered, "I play music to make music." Master Mozi replied_ : "What you say is not an answer to my question. Now, if I asked you why you were building a house and you replied to me, _'In order to be protected from cold in the winter and heat in the summer, and that the house is intended to separate the sexes,'_ then you would have given me information about the purpose of the house. Now I'm asking you why you're making music and you're saying to make music. That's like you're answering my question, about what reason you have for building a house, by saying you're building to build the house."

We might further question Mozi about the purpose of separating the sexes. Elsewhere he says it's to comply with customs ("...the partition was high enough to divorce men and women, as customs demanded..." 6-1). And elsewhere yet he denigrates doing things just because they are customary (..."I call that indulgence in habits, confusing of customs with expressions of righteousness..." 25-14) because customs can be changed by the ruler ("...Before a generation is over, the habits of a people can be remodeled, and they seek to adapt to the ruler..." 16-14). But until the ruler can be persuaded, we should conform to harmless formalities unless benevolence would be impaired.

But the point is that entertainment and music can divert your course, when you make entertainment too important to you, as you will do when you indulge in too much of it. But I have learned that sometimes it's better to ration a vice than to cut it out entirely. When you ration it severely enough you force yourself to give up on it as an important focus. If you can only drink one beer a month, you can't make intoxication a big focus of your life and you will have to find something else to do. If you can only listen to music, or watch movies or TV shows, for one hour a week, then you have to find something else to put your psychic energy in. Not only is the cost drastically reduced, but the real poisonous nature of it is defanged. And I think this is supported by Chapter 7.

7-3

_...Master Mozi replied_ : "According to the ordinances, the holy kings wanted to reduce what's too much. There is a purpose to food, and eating is because you know hunger, but wisdom is not used. Now the holy kings probably had music, but as little as possible; that's as if they had none."

Totally cutting out a vice keeps it important and mysterious and longed for. If you can listen to music for one hour a week, you can put the urge off by deferring it. I can have that, but later--and only a little bit. It's not out of the question. When you prohibit it totally you come to hate the restriction and there is no outlet when your will breaks and you are finally overcome. The only thing to resort to is to abandon the idea of restriction at all. When you allow a little bit, but require that to be a _little_ bit, the brittleness is softened with very little harm to the hardness. Furthermore, having _some_ exposure to entertainment will help Mohists understand the feeling and imaginations of the world around them. It will be just enough to stoke creative fires, not enough to make them fat and lazy and jaded. Severe (but not total) restriction also drives extreme selectivity for quality. If you can only watch one hour of TV a week will it be _Fear Factor_ , or _The Expanse_? And think of the great and inspiring works Mohists would be missing out on if they totally eliminated all exposure to the arts. Severely limiting quantity will keep those accessible, but leave out the garbage. In 32-3 the author of Chapter 32 says he wouldn't mind if a valid purpose existed for the music, and he also points out what an obsession it has become. Music fails the checklist, despite having popularity and precedence, only because it has no valid purpose.

1. The sage kings did it. Even the best ones did a little.

2. People love it. You'll have a hard time breaking them of it. Not worth the cost to demand total abstinence.

3. A very little doesn't hurt as much as none at all or more than a little. In small amounts, music can inspire to greater efforts, though in larger amounts it can substitute for them.

Leading Like Leaders

Mozi holds up the ideal of following the principles of your social superiors.

12-5

"...If the sovereign holds something to be right, you must do the same, and what he considers to be wrong, you must also see it that way. If you are not practiced in talking, you can take the excellent speeches of the prince as your pattern, and if you are not able to accomplish good things, then learn from the lord of the land how to do good deeds..."

Setting aside the notion that many of us may bridle at the concept of having "social superiors" at all, the implications of such imitation are not necessary straightforward. Your leader has the quality of wanting to be a leader, so the right way to imitate that person is to also want to be a leader in some sense. In an ideal Mohist state, everybody wants to be a leader, because everyone wants to emulate their own leaders, who have righteousness, which includes the property of wanting to lead.

So in an ideal Mohist state, everybody is trying to be worthy all the time. Everyone is motivated, so the only thing that distinguishes people is ability. Principles are uniform, everyone is morally equal, so the only thing that could cause people to have different levels of worthiness (allowing them to be assigned different ranks) is competence. This explains why Mozi sometimes seems to be talking about promotions based on just ability and other times he seems to make character part of the equation, or even the main consideration.

8-4

"Thus it was said in antiquity that the sage kings decreed, _'For those without righteousness give no wealth, for those without righteousness give no audience, for those without righteousness give no nepotism, and with those without righteousness have no close relationships.'_ When the rich and those making up the land heard that, they withdrew and counseled each other..."

8-2

"...if in a state there are many efficient and good officials, then the administration of the realm and the families prospers..."

Under ideal conditions (in the Moral State), among morally similar people, ability is the only variable. But in the real world character deficiencies must also be considered.

8-5

"In their administration, the sage kings of antiquity saw the excellent properties and benefits of the capable. Even if someone worked in agriculture or in a trade, he was hired if he had skills. He was given a high rank, he was granted ample income, the management of the business was transferred to him, and he was given decisive command authority..."

In listing these three kinds of work "commerce, agriculture, and trade" Mozi is not just pulling lines of work out of a hat. Mozi is referring to the "four occupations" of ancient China. These were sort of like castes except that exceptional individuals could move between them, so they were more like social classes, except that they were based on fields of work: scholarship and leadership, technical craftsmanship, commercial trade, or farming. Except that there was a vertical distinction, with the "scholars" representing the officers and gentlemen who ran everything. Mozi's mandate to "follow the leader" seems harmless on the surface, but it is subversive in that it suggests that peasants, tinkers, or peddlers should strive to become scholars and leaders. "Follow the leader" is a double edged sword, putting those in leadership positions on the spot, making them responsible for the behavior of subordinates by the examples they set.

In a perfect Mohist hierarchy, everyone is striving to imitate the ideals of those above them, who are above them in part because they have better ideals. So in a perfect Mohist hierarchy, even the peasants would nearly be sages. What else but natural ability or lucky experience would distinguish people in such a state? 71-6 speaks to this, if you have Johnston's translation.

In the real world, people have different proclivities and proficiencies. Most people aren't going to be interested in being leaders any time soon, because they will know they don't have the talent. So if ambition is the only motivation given for seeking worthiness, most people would have no motivation to care about worthiness (other than natural human moral leanings).

16-14

Before a generation passes, the people are guided into new pathways. Why? It is because they are seeking to adjust to the top. If everyone now loved and promoted each other, they would not only have untold benefits, but it would also be very easy. In doing so, we do not think about why the ruler wants it. If this is to be the case and, by rewarding and praising, by punishments and prosecutions, but with a deterrent effect, we believe that people would all love each other and support each other. Their urge would be as strong as that of fire to rise upward and that of water to go down, and would not be hindered by anything in the world.

Some people are naturally motivated and ambitious, others tend to righteousness by inclination, but how can ordinary people be motivated to seek worthiness? In 16-14 Mozi suggests that leaders are responsible for their people because most people are naturally cooperative except a few odd outliers who can be brought to heel by incentives.

16-14

"...To change the habits of a people, a generation suffices, because of striving to satisfy the rulers. Shortage of food, fuel and wearing of sackcloth falls to a people in disorder, and so they understand and satisfy the rulers. Before a generation passes, the people are guided into new pathways. Why? It is because they are seeking to adjust to the top. If everyone now loved and promoted each other, they would not only have untold benefits, but it would also be very easy. In doing so, we do not think about why the ruler wants it. If this is to be the case and, by rewarding and praising, by punishments and prosecutions, but with a deterrent effect, we believe that people would all love each other and support each other. Their urge would be as strong as that of fire to rise upward and that of water to go down, and would not be hindered by anything in the world."

People will follow a leader to goodness on the basis of sheer charisma, but only so far. You have to make it the easiest way to go. What else is there? If the leader is not worthy, punishment is not an effective substitute for moral leadership.

9-11

It is suggested that they could use their impressive and mighty power. Just how is such power gotten? When they oppress the citizens, the deaths are hateful to all, for life is what everyone aspires to. So they do not attain what is dear to them, and more than likely what happens is exactly what they hate. Throughout history, no one has yet gained dominion over the kingdom and the leadership of the feudal princes in this way.

If people are to follow the leader, and leaders are to apply meritocracy, an implication is that people will happily judge _each other_ and seek to impress _each other_. I propose that meritocracy won't work if it's a game only authority figures can play. What is more, instituting a system where peer judgment is a component of lifestyle is the best way to produce conditions for cultivation of the more advanced skill of judging judgment ability. This is what the ancient Mohists never managed to get off the ground, and this is why they failed to break the dynastic cycle.

Legitimacy of Authority

You can support the existing social order by a default of assuming that rank or status reflects authority worthiness, as it would in a utopian society. But as soon as you personally have evidence that rank and worthiness are mismatched, you make every effort to adjust the error. But this leaves a question about what exactly constitutes "the existing social order". Mozi never actually says those words.

27-2

Nowadays, the people declare that they might understand how the son of Heaven is to be considered nobler than the feudal lord, and how these would be nobler than the high officials, but they have not known that Heaven is nobler and wiser than the son of Heaven...

What he actually does is describe an ideal society and how people would behave in such a society, following the standards of superiors who are presumably actually superior because the ideal society ensured that the best were really on top.

28-8

"Conformity with the intentions of Heaven leads to accord, but the refusing of it to discord. When accord is raised to a principle, justice reigns; when discord is the principle, violence prevails..."

Then he proposes that the way to create and maintain such a society is for everyone to treat people justly, giving them their due.

13-5

_"...Master Mozi notes:_ "The authorities should make an attempt with the family heads so that each family head adopts a notice and ordinance to the family members, saying, _'If you see someone who loves the family and promotes it, make it known, and if you see someone who hates and damages the family, report that as well.'_ Someone who brings attention to a friend and supporter of the family is thereby also a friend and promoter of the family..."

But he also disparages his own contemporary society as being infested with incompetent and corrupt people in positions they aren't qualified for.

37-4

"Those who believe in fate today are like the thieving kings of the three ancient dynasties, Jie, Zhou, Yu and Li. They were dignified as sons of Heaven and possessed the whole empire for themselves. But they were not in a position to rein in the lusts of their eyes and ears, and they followed their degenerate instincts. Outside they hunted from chariots, using snares and threaded arrows, at home they celebrated with wine and music. They did not care about the government of the state, the families or the people, so they made excessive, useless spending and oppressed the people..."

It's as though he is saying both "treat people according to worthiness," and "your boss isn't worthy, but follow him anyway." That would be nonsense. There's got to be a nuanced subtext.

To get that nuance we have to look deeply. Mohist theory is described piecemeal, but is really designed to all work together as a single system that makes for a better society. Once this thing is up and running (and rank really equates to worthiness) that's what I call "The Moral State". Mozi is not the only one who has had such a concept.

I was researching associations between ethics and aesthetics and learned that Plato held a scorn for art similar to that of Mozi. Plato's reasons were different from Mozi's, but more importantly this led me to look at Plato's political ideas, as presented in his book _The Republic_. Plato proposes that the ideal form of government is what he calls "aristocracy", or rule by the best. This is reminiscent of Mozi's depiction of what I call the Moral State. Nowadays we associate the word "aristocracy" with rigid inherited status and class. Such a form of aristocracy is not what Mozi had in mind, though it was the state of affairs in China when he began his work. For the time being, Mozi was ready to accept that we all start from different lots in life. He just wanted to inject vertical mobility into that. This would have allowed merit or demerit to adjust everyone's status over time, leading to the Moral State.

10-6

"...Now if the kings, princes, and nobles really want to practice goodness and righteousness, to seek scholars, to walk the path of the wise rulers, and to benefit the families and the people, so that harmony prevails in the kingdom, the people thrive, those near and far live in peace, the sun and the moon give their splendor, ships and carriages come properly, and so that rain and dew moisten the soil for the grain to grow, then our method of preferring the capable must be heeded, because the services of the proficient are beneficial to Heaven, the spirits and humanity and because it is the best basis for state administration."

If such a system operates long enough, true egalitarianism will emerge. The weakness of evil is that it is selfish and short sighted. The evil will gladly sell out each other and the future. So Mozi understood that progress is always possible because if you can convince an evil lord that he can benefit from a policy he won't care if it subverts the prerogatives of his equally evil heirs.

We can speculate about a logical end of the extreme Meritocratic State in which everyone has an equal start and status is totally fluid, but we must accept that Mozi did not consider equalization of birth status a priority. Even in a meritocratic system, one that won't hand you anything based on ancestry, your father may be highly accomplished and moral and so he may have attained a high position, in which case he has the resources to give you an advantageous start in life, in the form of a better education and introduction to a valuable network.

44-2

...Through music he may show his love for his children and desire music for their sake, but that is not true love. Through music, he wants to do something good for his children and strives to do it, but it does not benefit them.

If such a father is truly worthy he will not give you unfair advantages, in a partial manner, he will attempt to improve you morally and thus help you to _deserve_ advantages. If he is operating in a Moral State, he will act that way in order to score cool points. The superior availability of better moral education is thus a birth advantage even in a Moral State. This counter-egalitarian factor can be compensated for by free moral education provided by Mohists equally to all.

...All Soldiers are entitled to outstanding leadership; I will provide that leadership...

**\--**NCO Creed, US Army

At any rate, if family connections produce good officials, fine. Mozi didn't care where they came from, the luckily educated sons of current officials or the particularly talented sons of peasants.

48-16

_A man came to the school of master Mozi. He was strong and well-built and possessed good mental faculties, so the master wanted to persuade him to join him as a disciple._ "If you study with me for a time, I'm going to get you an official position," _he said to him, and he spoke to him with kind words, so that he could win him as a disciple..._

What you are like _now_ , regardless of origins, determines your proper utilization. Who knows what that might have evolved into under conditions of surplus? But the question remains that Mozi accepted something resembling Plato's Aristocracy (with caveats).

26-4

_The son of Heaven is typically the richest and most noble man in the world. Those who want to gain such wealth and honor must adapt to the wishes of Heaven and correspond with them._..

Now Plato proposed that Aristocracy was just one of five types of government, the best among them. The argument could be made that the Moral State has resemblances to all of them, so the question comes up of which it really is. Is it Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy, Tyranny, or Aristocracy?

Actually, it's a trick question.

The Moral State is meritocracy. Meritocracy is an outcome, not a method. Well, it's also a method, but it's a method that can be practiced by any system of government listed, plus others Plato never dreamed of. As with finding one's place in society, regardless of initial advantages or disadvantages, all that matters is outcome.

Mohist doctrine does not define exactly how the system must operate. That is to say, Mohism differs from Legalism which proposes rule by a systemic machine that operates without human input since every kind of decision can be made if everybody just goes by the book. Mozi realized that such a system is impossible. Somewhere every "by the book" system cheats and relies on the free judgment of human operators somewhere in the works.

Mohism is about society being controlled by good people, people who have internalized a will to good outcomes and will make them happen using whatever system is handy. What's important is to change people and put the right people in power. System change will follow (in a consolidation phase, to make things easier and expand the beachhead), but it will not lead. To achieve the Mohist ideal you don't start by trying to set up a real world copy of the theoretical Moral State and then expecting it to produce moral people. Starting from where you are, you make moral people and then you expect them to set up a real world copy of the theoretical Moral State, staffed by moral people. Meritocratic hierarchies don't make people moral, per se, they just inspire them to imitate the morality of their leaders. They only make a Moral State when led morally.

Any system of government can be operated as a meritocracy if that's what the people with power want to do. Meritocracy is not just a means, it is an end.

Mozi says to identify upward, but we must ask the question "upward in what?" Mozi alludes to how to identify what political entity to support. The son of Heaven was appointed long ago, presumably by God (acting on behalf of the people) and the current son of Heaven is the heir to that despite numerous (divinely blessed) usurpations. And everybody else who has authority derives it from the son of Heaven, in theory. When there's usurpation in a feudal state, the new de facto ruler may eventually get recognized by the son of Heaven. This is actually how it happened in ancient China, and it is how the international community works today. If you want to go there, and pretend it's really all about the emperor of China being the sole sovereign, then consider that the United Nations is the new son of Heaven, heir to the League of Nations, which the Republic of China joined in 1916. Of course that's ridiculous; sovereignty doesn't derive from the single event of Heaven blessing one ruler long ago. Any successfully independent group of people that maintains separate allegiance to the divine, with no intermediary, is sovereign. If those people had prior commitments to other sovereigns then that's a conflict of legitimacy. But this reflects the real world. There are groups that operate independently and may be locally powerful wherever we are. Sometimes there are conflicting claims. So, who should we treat as a legitimate authority?

What if you encounter a criminal gang? Do you treat the immoral leader of the gang as a superior simply because of his station? No, the legitimacy of an authority comes from its contribution to order, half of which is conformity to higher authority. In Mozi's world, that was the son of Heaven, a then universally recognized authority. At that time only the King of Chu had declared himself a peer of the Zhou emperor, though he was a mere figurehead for the rest of China. Mozi wanted all the feudal princes to actually defer to the putative emperor just as they required those under themselves to defer. In our own world, the United Nations recognizes sovereign states, and we are all citizens of one or another of them. Those sovereigns, even if they are abstract or institutional rather than personified in a head of state, are our highest authorities. We don't go over the head of our own governments and appeal to the UN, we just migrate to a different country if we find our own intolerable, changing allegiance rather than betraying it. The sole function of the UN is to recognize legitimate sovereigns. And it doesn't always do that. Who constitutes the legitimate head of a government becomes ambiguous every time there's a civil war. So there needs to be another way to determine legitimate authority in conditions of chaos.

A leader who doesn't defer to a worthy higher superior demonstrates unworthiness for authority. But the higher leader who promoted such a disloyal subordinate is similarly unworthy because of having done so. It's incumbent on every leader to adequately ensure subordinate leaders are worthy for their positions. Those who fail in that are themselves unworthy. Failure to fully support such a superior would not be evidence of unworthiness. But in that case, the higher leader keeping such a subordinate leader in position wouldn't be so bad, meaning that the disrespectful subordinate leader is actually bad. It goes back and forth forever and isn't worth thinking about. All disorder allowed under a leader is a mark against that leader, whatever its cause.

Authority is defined by what it does, and proper authority creates order and all the goods that follow it. So whoever is actually doing that is a legitimate authority. If the domain would be served by joining under a superior authority, one of the qualities of a legitimate authority is that it recognizes that superior authority. One of the true marks of a legitimate nation is that it recognizes and joins the UN (to the extent it is functional). A province must recognize the national government (if it is working). An individual must recognize local authorities (if they are actually doing their job).

Support for higher authorities is most important for those who have authority themselves. Anyone who has authority of any kind that is derived from an institution should respect the system of that institution and require that others respect it, or else resign from that institution. In this view, hierarchical duty comes with leadership status. Buck privates are exempt. Leaders can be punished by demotion. Buck privates don't have that, so more drastic options are necessary. If you are working for a company, a manager who doesn't obey a higher manager can be demoted to rank and file worker. A rank and file worker can only be fired.

A first organizational duty of any Mohist is to determine who has authority over them and who they have authority over. Mohist doctrine talks a lot about what to do once you are there, but says very little about how to decide who is in charge when the legitimacy of an institutional hierarchy is uncertain. Work with whatever is effectively maintaining thriving order around you, and give it the benefit of the doubt. Give primacy to supporting the highest level hierarchy. And go where you can do some good.

Reconciling Peace and Justice

How can we be peaceful when there is injustice? When beneficial, we follow because we are righteous, and we are righteous because we follow when beneficial. Just because righteousness starts with Heaven and theoretically flows down the ranks doesn't mean everything always flows perfectly in practice, so sometimes we must bypass our more direct superiors in order to find a righteous and benevolent superior.

1-5

...Whoever occupies a post without being up to the office is not the right man for it, and whoever enjoys the income of an honor that he cannot fill should not be in possession of that sinecure...

So righteousness involves support for the social structure, but only where it is operating in accordance with the will of Heaven.

27-1

"...This proves to me that justice cannot come from simple and ordinary people, but from the noble and wise. That said, we must ask who is truly noble, and who is wise? Heaven is uniquely noble, and Heaven is wise. Thus, justice in reality has its origin in Heaven."

Heaven is at the apex of any stable social structure because it is the source of yi (righteousness, and the will to righteous actions) and any unrighteous social structure is unstable.

26-2

"... If I do not do what Heaven desires, but what it does not wish, I will lead the people to bring about their own calamity and ruin..."

The supremacy of the will of Heaven allows us to prioritize benevolence, to think in consequentialist terms, and to concern ourselves with larger interests rather than being tied to small matters. It is the opposite of an excuse for cruelty, short sightedness, or petty self interest, and similarly it is _not_ a call to support cruelty, short sightedness, or petty self interest in social superiors.

The stability of the social structure usually requires our getting along with consensus principles (consequential rules) and not making disproportionately unnecessary waves, as well as encouraging others to do the same. But anyone seeking to be righteous will be compelled to intervene when it's worth it.

The task of encouraging others to be peaceful, without disturbing the peace in the process, requires a fine balancing act between various consequences; and appeals to traditional values can be of great assistance in eliciting the required cooperation without setting off over-reactions. The objective of Mohist reformism is to eliminate relatively bad people from positions of power, because ultimately they destabilize the structure as a whole, though keeping them in place would be more static.

STABLE STATIC

Static and stable are not the same thing. A bicyclist is stable, but not static. A stodgy buggy whip manufacturer in 1920 may be static but it's not stable. An organization that keeps the same people in the same offices forever is static, but not stable. An organization that keeps the same offices, but adapts constantly by changing who staffs them, is less static but is more stable.

Keeping the peace can also require (at least public) conformity to the more revered local "traditional values" provided those are themselves in conformity to the larger picture. _Pointlessly_ antagonizing benign customs and traditions simply has no role in properly executed reform, but customs and traditions are always a means, never an end.

For any kind of stability to be possible, higher level standards must take precedence over lower level standards (in accord with proper proportionality) so part of righteousness is to prefer those higher level standards where they conflict with lower level standards. But benevolence is a standard received by all from Heaven, so righteousness demands that we never conform to standards which are not benevolent. Because of a similar line of reasoning, the way to righteousness is to always speak and act in harmony with the recorded words and deeds of the sage kings. They are the best examples to be selected from known history, and the stories we hear about them have been further polished by passage through the filter of time. To Mozi, the records of the sage kings indicated a way worth following just as to us the records of Mozi indicate a way worth following.

But righteousness requires more than conformity, it also requires justice (including application of meritocratic ideals), respect for obligations (including duty to superiors, and noblesse oblige to subordinates), and responsibility (in fact, "responsibility" would be almost as good a candidate for the one word translation of "yi", as Mozi uses it, as is "righteousness" or "ethics").

Further, there's an aspect of the concept of righteousness that implies that it correlates with wisdom. Righteousness doesn't so much require wisdom (since even a fool can become righteous just by following the lead of the righteous) as that it makes you wise. Moral and ethical purification is rewarded with deeper understanding.

14-1

The wise, whose business it is to govern the realm well, must know where in the realm the confusion comes from, and only then can they remove it...

Subversive Mohism

28-1 to 28-2 talks about the scope of Heaven. Those passages say not to violate Heaven's laws because there's nowhere to run to. Then the text advises to be cautious when talking about what Heaven wants and then it talks about the hierarchy. The subtext of "you can't escape Heaven" is "you _can_ escape earthly lords". When you antagonize an evil lord by agitating for good results, you can escape to another evil lord because he is happy you agitated against the other (on schismatic grounds, the weakness of evil being its partisanship). Good people everywhere can take advantage of this, creating a general climate of rebellion of the good against the evil (universality being the strength of good).

The Mohist ideal is an order in which those who are good and wise also hold the most authority, which they use to maintain a system that ensures the good and wise continue to rule. We are urged to give the benefit of the doubt to the majority of the system in which we find ourselves, playing our appropriate roles and seeking to rise by demonstrating virtue and competence. Typically, we are to assume that if those above us misuse power that they are aberrations, disobedient to higher superiors to whom the crime must be reported.

Here's an example. A stupid Mohist finding himself in the German Army in World War Two has been ordered to execute some civilians. He assumes the Fuhrer is a good man and would never order such a thing, so the flaw must be with his Captain, who is clearly not obeying the orders passed on from the Fuhrer by his Colonel. So he goes to his Colonel and reports that the Captain is violating the Fuhrer's orders by commanding the murder of civilians. Now of course the Colonel actually gave this order that the Captain passed on, and the order is perfectly in line with Hitler's policies. So the Colonel has the Mohist shot for skipping the chain of command, being an idiot, and just out of general evilness. But the Mohist has acted morally.

But the "jump the chain of command" standard is not the only Mohist methodology. It's the one you use in an ambiguous situation in which you can give the benefit of the doubt and assume the society is generally good, but that some leaders may be loose cannons. You might use it in, for example, the US Army in Viet Nam. The advertised US Policy there was not to murder civilians. The Nazi's were open about what they were about. A smarter Mohist in the WW2 situation would understand that the entire chain of command is corrupt and that Hitler is not in compliance with the will of God. He would understand that his immediate superior is not giving evil orders because of disregard for good commands from higher up, but because higher up is giving evil commands.

This brings us to one of the big conundrums of Mohism. What does a good Mohist do when the ruler is evil? And this is where we resort to the Mohist epistemology, the three models. Mohist doctrine doesn't specifically guide us, so we must create a plan of action. To propose a plan of action for such a situation we should make sure it doesn't violate what the sage kings would do, we must make sure we don't ignore what the majority of the people see the situation to be, and we must make sure that our plan of action actually makes the world better in a practical way.

I'll tell you straight up, some of the sage kings were usurpers. We don't have to limit ourselves just to the sage kings known to Mozi, we can add Mozi to the list of sages, as well as throwing in respected historical figures from our own culture, such as George Washington. But two of the big four sage kings took it upon themselves to usurp established dynasties and found new ones.

In Nazi Germany, the majority of the people were hoodwinked and believed in the rulers, but why only listen to them? Would a Mohist German conscript (begs the question, would a Mohist allow himself to be conscripted into the Wermacht) creating a plan of action for resistance take into account only the popularity of Hitler in Germany, or would he realize that most of Europe, indeed most of the world, didn't like him at all? The weight of world opinion was against Hitler.

That leaves consequentialist practicality. A smart Mohist conscript into the Wermacht would feel justified to rebel, on the basis of sages and popular opinion. The only relevant consideration then, would be to craft a plan of action likely to serve the benefit of the world. The exact shape of that plan would depend on details of the situation. Would he shoot civilians so as to stay out of trouble with his superiors so that his life would be more comfortable? No. Would he shoot civilians in order to gain the trust of his superiors so that he could attain a better position to take effective action against them, action of such impact as to justify the sacrifice? Maybe.

The situation isn't always so clear cut, though. Mozi's own situation was that the emperor was simply too weak, both politically and morally, to provide effective leadership. It was pointless to appeal anything to him. There was no order to be loyal or disloyal to, there was simply chaos. So Mozi lobbied the next echelon down, tried to sell his philosophy to the rulers of the Warring States. This is very analogous to our current situation. There is no real world leadership above the national level. Also, consider a quasi-democracy like America. Your loyalty must be nuanced and complex.

Mohism And Modern Democracy

Mohism is perfectly compatible with electoral forms of government. Mozi told leaders to find out how the people feel and to include their consensus as a major consideration in policy formation. Sure, my two-stage translation may be to blame.

8-3

"...The district head merely sums up the views of the district into unity..."

"Sum up" is ambiguous even in English, and other translations are even less forgiving of my interpretation. But other places seem to back up the sentiment that leaders should be sensitive to the conditions of subordinates. And it's perfectly possible that Mozi meant to be ambiguous.

What better way to sum up the people's "opinions" and be aware of their conditions than to poll them? However, other aspects of the Mohist ethic superficially seem to conflict with modern democracy.

In modern election based governments, the conceit is that the people corporately are the sovereign, or the nation abstractly is the sovereign, and the sovereign hires civil servants then gives them power of attorney with a sunset clause. In theory, the system is based on conspiring with underlings, who are really the boss, against superiors. In Mohist terms it superficially seems just crazy. In reality, a modern political party still operates much like a Mohist kingdom. There's a party line promulgating united precepts. Everybody pulls an oar together. Anybody that steps out of line finds themselves on the out.

The only real difference is that multiple parties are allied under a higher order polity. The government these parties vie to rule is analogous to an imperial government based on rotating hegemony, its officials equate not to the son of Heaven (the People and the Constitution, or the Throne) but to imperial ministers lent from the currently dominant principality of the hegemony. We are all loyal to our own principalities, openly criticizing the other competing principalities, but restricting ourselves, within the ranks, to more private and conciliatory remonstration. And we would never dare to openly attack the son of Heaven, no matter our hostility to the other principalities. For a citizen to try to project Mozi's Moral State onto a modern democracy and treat the current government as beyond open criticism in an anachronistic manner would be maladaptive. Such behavior would only be required of actual civil servants, who must be apolitical. They would act more like members of an idealized hierarchy. Also, the court system, parallels it closely, with its appeals system, precedents, private counsels, and unquestionable final rulings by ultimate authority.

All that stuff about how to behave in a hierarchy only applies within a hierarchy. The modern world is a little different from ancient China. In Mozi's simplified hierarchy the judicial, legislative, and executive branches are all one. In modern America, for example, there is a division of powers. The judicial branch is most like Mozi' moral hierarchy, whose decisions are conformed with upwardly and appealed in a controlled remonstration process. Open debate, as with peers, is addressed to the legislative branch, to which the others defer internally. And the executive branch holds the most direct authority over individual citizens, lacking much remonstration process for citizens within the branch, but it is subordinate to the other branches, limited to putting their will into effect.

The executive and judicial branches are actually hierarchies and when you become involved with them you treat them as such. Political candidates, as candidates, are separate from their other roles. As a candidate, an incumbent county sheriff is not the county sheriff, just a prospective future county sheriff. In terms of that person acting as a candidate the person is not in a hierarchy, the person is a peer whom you can judge on worthiness and choose to recommend for promotion or demotion. Then when the same person is acting in her capacity as sheriff she is now a hierarchical superior with authority over you.

The concept of private remonstration is actually something I came up with based on the standard in the Army. Even if your superior is wrong, you don't call them out in public. Also, it's just logic. If you are to (1) publically support the decisions of authorities and (2) advise authorities when their decisions are bad, then logically the only way to do that is to (3) privately advise authorities when their decisions are bad. This standard is justifiable in Mohist terms because calling out a superior in public is similar to what Mozi called "collusion with subordinates" or some such. This wasn't a prohibition against talking to your people and getting feedback, it was a prohibition against fomenting revolution. I am proposing that there's really no difference between carelessly open criticism and outright rabble rousing rebellion. There's a difference between saying that the law could be better and saying it is not valid. If your relationship with someone morally prohibits your commanding them, then it morally prohibits fomenting rebellion against them.

39-9

_..._Yanzi _replied: "I am not proficient enough to recognize an exquisite man. However, I have heard it said that an exquisite man, when he comes to another country, makes it important to himself to uphold a good relationship between the ruler and the subjects and to eliminate disharmony between the government and the people." When Confucius came to Jing, he knew that Bokung was planning a rebellion, but he did him service via Shi Qi._

But there's a distinct difference between destructive criticism and constructive criticism.

16-2

_"Master Mozi said:_ "Whoever condemns something must have something else that he can put in its place..."

And emergencies can be an occasion for yelling in the clear.

39-8

Next the Confucians say: "A noble is like a bell; if you strike it, it sounds, if you do not strike it, it will not sound." On the other hand, all righteous people serve their prince with complete devotion and their parents with filial love. If a good deed is perpetrated, they praise the same and, if mistakes are committed, they do not hold back with their censure. That's how good citizens act. Now if you only sound out when you are touched and, but you do not let yourself be heard as long as you are not, then you also keep all the threats of which you know secret and compel yourself to silence and indifference, because you only answer when you are asked..

Now, in modern multi-party political processes, public debate is part of the system. That's because modern political parties are analogous to competing principalities or families (by which Mozi really meant extended feudal clans). And also there's a distinction between office holders acting in official capacity and office holders as candidates for further or continued office. This is a good thing, applying meritocratic judgments to all, but it's more complex than the simplified system Mozi presents. To treat modern political leaders like feudal overlords is anachronistic. Mozi was not advocating feudalism, he was assuming it, and proposing principles that would lead to non revolutionary modifications that he felt would reform the system. Those principles are applicable broadly, but to take Mozi's examples literally is to be stupid, like filling out a form by literally writing the words "Y-O-U-R-N-A-M-E".

Further, in the modern political arrangement, government officials, no matter how high, are akin to imperial ministers, not to the emperor. They are not to be taken as values leaders to which upward conforming applies, except in the context of acting as their actual subordinate as a government employee. Then you salute and publically support the current organizational policies apolitically. If I am a Democrat working for the State Department and the new Republican Secretary of State puts out a policy that calls for leaving all the lights on in embassies at night worldwide, then I put that policy out to my subordinates as gospel. In private I may remonstrate with my superiors about the energy cost. But the policy isn't unconstitutional or anything.

As a private citizen, I would not have any duty to refrain from openly criticizing the policy of leaving the lights on all night in all the embassies.

However, within a political party, the party is in fact a proper leader, capable of demanding that members conform upwardly. If I should choose to be in a political party, I should in fact love it or leave it. To claim party membership and fail to publically come to terms with the party platform is dishonorable.

Mohism was designed for coping with China during the Warring States era. It's about how to survive in such situations and move the needle toward something better. In good times it seems unduly conservative on the surface, but under the hood, not so much. Its compass needle always points unerringly toward the common good.

State Consequentialism

These days, _The Mozi_ is often presented, to those who pay any attention to it at all, as something it really wasn't. I suspect such misunderstanding is actually hostile rather than merely clumsy. An example is this notion that Mohism was "state consequentialism". The suggestion is that since Mozi proposes policies that focus on considering the health of the state, then that must mean there are no other considerations but the state. The same could be said of any other theorist who proposes policies without adding " _and make sure to take care of the people_ ". Except that Mozi adds " _and make sure to take care of the people_ ". From reading _The Mozi_ it is clear that households and individuals are expected to have their own funds. Some are poor, some are rich, money exists. Markets are taxed, not shut down and everything confiscated. Mohism is actually "universe consequentialism" because it involves taking the entire universe into account. But it gives us a hierarchy to work out the details so we can focus on our own level.

Also, Mohism can be applied in any organization, not just a state. It's particularly well suited to corporations, which are viciously competing dictatorships under a common tacit overlord.

More About Conforming Upward

The question comes up, in conforming upward what exactly do we follow about our positional superiors? Clearly it's nonsense to imagine that every peasant soldier has to attempt to develop the skill of a general, for example. Primarily what we imitate is general values but in some cases we also imitate more. If you work in the accounting department, you imitate the accounting style of the head accountant, as well as the devotion to the company values. The president of the company is an executive, who came up in the legal department and doesn't know much about accounting. You conform to the president in relevant aspects, but not to her accounting style, which may be poor.

So, perhaps we could say that the closer the superior is to your level, the more concrete your imitation. We don't follow Heaven in being all knowing, just in having the same principles and values, in being all caring. Even the lowest peasant can see when the emperor is violating the will of Heaven--she doesn't have to have the skills or moral purity of an idealized official, she just has to know something is wrong. Mohism recognizes specialization, and one specialization is management.

Can we go beyond that, and recognize that the president of the company may be a bad leader, likely to lead the company to ruin? Is this the place of an accountant? The answer is that it depends. It is not the accountant's job to criticize outside of her competence. How does she know the president doesn't have a brilliant counterintuitive plan? However, if the company has established values that everyone is expected to follow, but the president is violating those values, then everyone is equally knowledgeable about that, and has a right and duty to take some form of action. The accountant could go to the head of accounting and discuss it. In that case the head of accounting would be wrong to conspire with the rank and file accountant against the president. The duty of the head of accounting, at that point, is clear. He should take the matter seriously, and tell the accountant that he will consider the complaint, and perhaps bring it up to the president within a certain time frame, but he should also instruct the accountant that in the meantime she should abide. The rank and file accountant should not be punished or rewarded, and the head of accounting should not promise to take any particular action. But the action the head of accounting should take, if she had not yet noticed the problem, is to consider what has been brought up, and if she concurs she should speak personally to her superior, within the promised time frame, who let's presume is the president of the company. The complaint should trickle up. At some point, the president of the company will be confronted in private, and either change her ways or not. If the rank and file accountant sees the problem addressed by the president, the problem may be solved by the system working. If the rank and file accountant sees no result from the complaint, alternative actions become morally acceptable.

Is it ever authorized to skip an echelon? Can the accountant skip the head of accounting and go directly to the president? Perhaps the head of accounting is even worse, or there has been no result from past complaints. At that point it is morally acceptable to take the matter higher, beyond your immediate superior. It may not be wise, but it is allowed.

At some point the accountant may realize that something is rotten in Denmark: that the company is in values chaos. Perhaps the head of accounting resigns or is fired shortly after promising to take a complaint to the president. That would be a clear sign. Perhaps the company starts losing money and the stock nosedives. Perhaps there are recriminations to the accountant for having made a complaint in the proper manner. In all these cases, it is acceptable to lose confidence in that particular hierarchy and to either abandon it or to stay and attempt to reform it by rising in it through deception. If the president is violating board policies, perhaps you take it up with the board. If the company is violating the law, perhaps you report that to the authorities.

Perhaps your state government is violating the constitution? You take the matter up with the federal government. You protest to your state government. What if the federal government is violating the constitution, but you state government is not? You adhere to the state government and ignore the federal government. But you don't ask your state government to rebel against the federal government.

It boils down to this: you have liberty to pick what level above you that you consider most virtuous, and adhere to that hierarchy. In theory every level can do this. As long as you are conforming upward, you are morally OK. Tell your jailers I said so. By appealing to the constitution, a state can morally deny the federal government. It is conforming upward, and by choosing to obey the state rather than the feds you are covered because you also are conforming upward. If no echelon above you is acceptable, you also have the liberty of lateral movement. You can go work for another company or move to a different state. The anecdote (in 35-6) about King Wen gaining power because support shifted to him applies here.

Also there's the matter of truth and merit. When you base judgments of virtue on acceptance of a nonsensical creed you base them on gullibility. What that produces is a society divided into believers and fakers. True believers will be the peasants and fakers will be the predator overlords. Such a society may or may not manage to be orderly, but it is definitely rule by the most evil. Mozi doesn't want to do that, he wants to base judgments of virtue on virtuous behavior rather than just attestations of concurrence with nonsensical doctrine, stupidity or deceptiveness. Certainly, ethical conformity is an element of virtue in the Mohist system, but there's an epistemology provided, there are stable landmarks to measure truth by, and there's the will of Heaven to trump all.

Suppose a Mohist lived in ancient Egypt. Pharaoh decides to overthrow all the ancient gods, such as Ptah the creator of the other gods, and declare the only god to be Aten, the sun disk. Despite the patina of monotheism, this is really a form of partialistic idolatry. Aten has very specific finite characteristics. But the pharaoh is the pharaoh, what do you do? You do privately make your own decision about the truth of what is being sent down to you, or you discuss it with peers. You don't want to subvert the authority of the pharaoh, but by comparing the new Aten doctrine with the received texts, the popular opinion, and effective policies, you decide the Pharaoh is misguided and remonstrate with him. If he fails to change his ways you decide the Pharaoh is not worthy to be the sovereign, and act accordingly, taking into account the importance of stability to the realm versus the importance of the Pharaoh's infraction. Freed from considerations of honor, yi, you take purely consequentialist action, concerning yourself only with ren.

More About Parochial Rites

I'll start by addressing Chinese style Heaven worship. How necessary is it for Mohism? The ancient Mohists practiced Heaven worship, and elements of Heaven worship are spoken of in The Mozi.

12-7

"... The holy kings in ancient times knew the desires of Heaven and spirits and avoided what displeased them, seeking to promote the benefit of mankind and avert disadvantages. They taught the millions of the empire to fast and purify themselves and to sacrifice only immaculate wine and vessels full of rice and millet to Heaven and spirits. In the service of spirits and souls, they dared not to use less than completely pure and clear wine and cider or full baskets of rice. The sacrificial animals had to be big and fat, the jade scepter and silk fabrics had to be exactly in accordance with the prescribed dimensions. In the spring and autumn sacrifices, one did not dare to miss the right moment, nor hit the wrong mark in judging, nor do injustice when distributing food, and at home one did not dare to indulge in idleness..."

A complicated set of rituals and traditions developed over the centuries, and the ceremonial forms of later period Heaven worship are well documented. The thing is, those aren't the forms used by Mozi, and modern Mohists can ignore them. While Mozi bowed to his contemporary formal worship forms as necessary, (1) we don't know them and (2) he clearly preferred even older and simpler forms.

48-4

"...You also cite the Zhou and not Xia. Your antiquity is not the real antiquity."

The Xia forms were probably pretty simple sacrifices. Mozi even streamlined that.

49-15

"...The spirits and ghosts are anxious for more than taking the millet and eating the lung meat. Now you were in high position and had great income, but you did not have nobility. This is the first cause of misfortune. You do not distribute much of your great wealth as assistance. That was the second reason for your tragedy. You serve the spirits and ghosts, merely by sacrificing to them, and then you wonder where the disease comes from. It's like if someone with a hundred doors only closes one and then asks how the thieves get in. You cannot earn the favor of the miraculous spirits in this way."

In contrast, the late period Heaven worship placed great ritualistic burdens on the emperor, and Mozi would have advocated delegation of those responsibilities to an official.

31-7

"...The official and priest, Guan Gu, whose job was to care for the abandoned souls, lived at the time of Prince Wen of Sung, who was named Bao. A ghost man came upon a ward from the temple and said to him: _"Guan Gu, why are the jade emblems not made to measure, wine, grain and rice in the vessels not pure and the sacrificial animals not fat and without flaw? Why isn't the right time for the victims chosen in spring, summer, autumn and winter? Are you responsible for it or Prince Bao?..."_

While Mozi believes such specialists should perform their duties very exactingly, he doesn't add much detail, I don't think the Heaven worship of his day can be reconstructed from what it evolved into, and I don't believe Mozi even really thinks the specific rituals are really important--he believed in a certain amount of cultural relativism.

25-14

_...Master Mozi replies:_ "I call that indulgence in habits, confusing of customs with expressions of righteousness..."

What's important is that whatever ritual requirements exist should be delegated to a specialist who is held to a high standard of performance of those ritual requirements as required in her culture.

Mozi is about how to be ren and yi. Speaking to a Chinese audience of his day, he said the jade emblems (whatever they are) have to be just the right dimensions. His audience then and there knew those dimensions. The point was that to be yi you must get it right. Not that to be yi those specific dimensions normal to then and there have to be adhered to. Had he been aware of the greater world and the distant future, he would have wanted his ideas applied there, and he would not have cared much about the dimensions of the jade emblems for people who had never heard of them. The point is to abide by the rules generally, not for certain specific rules of a different time and place to be applied anachronistically. You could ask "is anachronism not what we are doing resurrecting Mohism"? That would be not at all true. A basic assumption here is that fundamental ideas of Mohism are timeless, only the details differ.

Righteousness and benevolence are needed everywhere. Perfectly measured jade emblems are of much more limited necessity. On the other hand, we have our own equivalents of perfectly measured jade emblems. There is no single standard that we need to get back to. Mozi isn't exactly talking about a past golden age in the Greek sense. He doesn't have a theory that things were once great and that they are destined to get worse and worse. That would be fatalism. Further, he recognizes that things get better and worse in cycles. There are principles that work, and when things get bad enough there's a revolution and old principles are restored as the standards. Then people start forgetting those principles because leaders, insulated from reality by wealth and privilege, abandon them. The people go where the leaders lead them, so the situation decays, and a new cycle begins.

Mozi doesn't see only one half of the cycle, with things starting great and then getting worse. He sees several full cycles.

He is picking the high points and saying we should copy that, not because it is old, but because it is a high point.

He may have made errors in evaluating what made the high points high, however. He saw that simple, primitive unadorned styles coincided with the high points, and that more complex, sophisticated, and elaborate styles coincided with the decadence. Naturally he assumed that the simplicity was the cause of the excellence and the complexity was the cause of the decadence. In reality, the concurrence came from the fact that simplicity had been imposed by the traumas of decay and revolution. Both good and bad elaboration occurred during the periods of decline. He didn't see the overall trend as including elaborations that were not decay because his sample size was too small, and his records too incomplete. He didn't see that some improvements and elaborations transcend cycles. The technologies he mentions had advents, and they represent greater sophistication. They were introduced by sages, but those sages were the products of earlier stages of increasing elaboration. The foundation would be laid over time; then a revolutionary sage, desperate in a time of trauma, would take the final step. Necessity is the mother of invention, but complexity is the father.

And then again, he does speak of the value of refining and improving, which he approves of just as long as the refinements and improvements serve a purpose, rather than just being elaboration for the sake of elaboration.

46-17

"...I think that if you imitate the good old ways and also bring the good of our time to execution, you are multiplying the good as wished."

This not only applies to technology but also to yi. The social contract of Mozi's day called for population increase. Just as the technology can improve, so the social contract can adapt when something isn't working. There's a meta-yi, which is ren. Some places the population is too low, other places it is too high. It is within the remit of the state to take measures to adjust the breeding rate.

And on that note, this is the proper place to append a comment about another parochial matter: the early marriage thing.

20-2

...The ancient holy kings had a provision which said that men of twenty years should not forego founding a household and that girls of fifteen should serve a man. That was the rule at the time of the holy kings. After their demise, the population suffered a decline. Those who wished to marry early on may have established a household at twenty years, but those who wanted to marry late did so only at the age of forty. Assuming that early marriages outweigh the late, on average, the marriage age remains at ten years behind the rule set by the holy kings.

You know a how a tiny piece of dung will spoil a perfectly good pot of soup? Take this section to be similar to Swift's Modest Proposal. The context is that the author of chapter 20 is making the argument for moderate use of resources. The author says wars are killing off the population, and he's being sarcastic about what might be necessary to make up for all the death. And he finds justification in old documents, ancient ordinances for forcing early marriage and large families, which might help to make up for the lost population.

20-3

Now, if people all have children starting at the twentieth year, they can create children for twenty to thirty years. Without the citizens getting married especially early, their numbers can be doubled. But that is not the case, because today's leaders are reducing the number of people in the most manifest way. They deplete the people's power and levy excessive taxes and levies, so that the national income is insufficient and countless people are dying from cold and hunger. The great are only thinking of sending their troops to attack the neighboring states.

All this is conditional. Given the low population, this is one possible solution. The other might be to stop fighting wars. And it is an old ordinance of the prior kings, no longer relevant. After all, the words and deeds of the sages are but one of the three models; and other factors may pertain--such as public opinion and policy effectiveness.

Also, when the author does the math (figuring out how many more children would be produced) he seems to base it on starting at 20 rather than at 15. Could this mean betrothals occur earlier but breeding doesn't start until later? The different ages for males and females, also are telling. If early marriage is mandatory, everybody will marry early regardless. The consequence is that all 16 year old girls will be taken, and thus not eligible to be snatched up for harems (which Mozi disapproves of).

6-7

"...These are, in fact, cosmic forces, in which the sages of ancient times could not change anything, because even the greatest sages of the distant antiquity had their sex life, which did not in any way affect their life-changing advice, so that the people had no reason to complain. Harem women were not kept in the palaces of the princes, so there were no bachelors in the kingdom, and since there was no princely harem and there were no single men in the kingdom, the number of the population increased. The present princes satisfy their sexual needs in such a way that in the great states they hold thousands, in the smaller hundreds of harem women. As a result, there are very many unmarried men in the realm without women, and a lot of women are trapped in the harem and have no husband. Men and women have no time together, so the population is declining. If the prince really wishes that the people should multiply and not that their numbers should diminish, then he must be moderate in sex."

Mozi was dealing with barbaric warlords, trying to encourage them to have more humane policies by baiting them into policies they might fall for, but which would backfire. If you only see the barbarian bait, then you will wrongly read Mozi as the barbarian. One of the conditions of the sage kings is that the ruler is expected to force _everyone_ to marry young. If he doesn't mandate monogamy then a ruler using this idea will be violating the laws of the sage kings because he will be failing to enforce the requirement on his male subjects, who are left without wives. And the requirement is for teenage marriage, or at least betrothal. Again, if old men marry young girls, that will leave young men with no young ladies to marry. Consequently, the ruler allowing this will be in violation. What Mozi is calling for is a universal standard that would be incompatible with child marriage as it is so often abhorrently practiced. If you're going to have teenagers marrying on the pretext that it's good for fecundity, then you have to do it right, and force all the teenagers to marry other teenagers, one each. Of course nobody is going to do this. It's sarcasm.

And the early marriage thing leads into the sexism thing. One way sexism could be read in _The Mozi_ is the constant use of the word "men". Here's YP Mei's translation of 2-2:

故君子力事日彊,願欲日逾,設壯日盛

2-2

Therefore the superior men are daily more energetic in performing their duty, but weaker in their desires, and more stately in their appearance.

The actual character translated as "men" is this: 子 which is "zi" as in the second half of "Mozi. It is variously translated as child, master, and gentleman. The gentry class were presumed to be of good ancestry (children of good families) as in "please adjust the young master's bow tie, Jeeves." But they were also scholarly masters as in "masters degree" and "master craftsman." And they were also in a sense "knights", and thus each was a "gentleman and scholar." "Sir" or "Professor" might be another way of interpreting it when used as a title. Knowing that this character is in there, I don't know where Forke got this:

2-2

In angestrengter Arbeit leistet er täglich mehr, sein Wunsch ist, täglich weiter fortzuschreiten, täglich wächst er an Kraft und Fülle.

2-2

In strenuous work, he does more every day, his desire is to continue to progress daily; daily he grows in strength and abundance.

In this particular case what is often translated as "men" seems to be about members of the educated leading class. Other characters often interpreted as "men" are really words neutrally about people generally. Despite the very real sexism of ancient China, the male default wasn't actually in the language being used. But it _was_ in this language:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

\--Thomas Jefferson

And it was in this language:

Be careful not to make a show of your religion before men; if you do no reward awaits you in your father's house in heaven.

\--Jesus

Mozi worshipped a neuter deity, Heaven. While sexism may have been in the culture of Mozi's time (as reflected in men plowing and women weaving), it isn't to be taken from the default maleness of the language of _The Mozi_.

Then there's the sexual segregation thing.

6-1

"...The construction of these houses was such that the height was sufficient to protect against the moisture, the side walls to hold wind and cold, the roof to catch snow, frost, rain and dew, and the partition was high enough to divorce men and women, as customs demanded..."

This was a cultural value, Mozi wasn't inventing it and it wasn't something he was arguing for, he just accepted it as a given and used it to make his point. In ancient China there were sexually segregated areas in buildings.

In the modern world we litigated all that long ago, but Mozi had the handicap of the world he lived in. Mozi's point was that architectural elements should serve a defined purpose and not just be decorative. Privacy is one such worthwhile element.

All the sexism of his world, the sexism Mozi accepted as the norm, was pragmatic. People should be drafted to serve society in accordance with their abilities. So when society places heavy emphasis on breeding a larger population, women are homemakers. That's how it's done. But the whole fecundity thing was situational. Population density can be _too_ high.

71-19

Master Mozi said:

"There are five reasons for which a defense fails:

1) If the city is too large and there are too few people in it

2) if the city is too small and there are too many people in it

3) if a lot of people and too little food are available

4) if the markets from the city are too far away

5) if the supplies are piled up outside, and the wealthy live in the countryside..."

In abrogating the fecundity mandate we can abrogate all the sexism. It would have been entirely within the spirit of Mozi to ignore the parochial stuff and get with the main theme. Mozi would have been very happy with sexual equality, because it would have fit with meritocracy.

9-8

In this the ancient wise kings were very skilful in favoring the proficient and in the use of the capable. They took Heaven as a model. This method makes no distinction between rich and poor, highborn and low, near and distant, relatives and strangers, but it raises and favors the fittest and it pushes down the incompetent and pushes them aside...

Reading Between The Lines

Mozi says that a subordinate leader supports the leader even to the extent of taking the rap for him.

49-9

"...He improves evils and carries out good measures, holds up the idea of unity and does not interfere along with the lower layers, grants the superior glory and honor, while the subordinate receives blame and is reproached. He seeks the well-being and happiness of the superior, while the underlings take on any distress and grief. That's what I understand to be a loyal subordinate."

How much of _The Mozi_ was actually Mozi talking and how much was Mozi passing on standards he didn't personally care about? Suppose Mozi didn't really consider a policy worthwhile, remonstrated about it unsuccessfully, but didn't consider it worth kicking up a stink about. Examples might be wearing of coarse clothing or the extolling of animal sacrifice. Wouldn't he pass it on as his own idea, publically advocating stupid (but not fundamentally fatal) ideas, just to keep the peace? I'd think he would do so in such a way that smart subordinates could tell which ideas were his and which weren't. He might practice some sort of "Simon says" such as repeating his own ideas multiple times and passing on stupid mandates only once. There's no doubt that Mozi did this sort of thing. For instance, the defense chapters are mostly false information intended to mislead enemy soldiers who might capture the document. They are evidence for us only in that they tell us what Mozi might have considered plausible.

There are many ways _The Mozi_ could be parsed like this, but I've decided that we are doomed once we go down the rabbit hole of speculating about what Mozi honestly meant as part of his doctrines and what he put out as part of a required spiel. Anything could be true. Then we might as well throw the book out and make things up. Other than the defense chapters, Mozi meant everything he said in _The Mozi_. Some things were less important, and some things are more important. The management of city defense in ancient China, for example, is mostly irrelevant to us today. Some things are more fundamental (the core doctrines), and some things are side issues (fecundity). Some things were the actual words of Mozi, and some were commentary by later writers. Similarly, we can take that gem, the words of Mozi, and place it in a variety of settings, adding context to slant meaning, but never taking away.

To put it another way, the second and third models can change, but the first can only grow. For Mohists, Mozi will always be the primary standard for sages.

An Enduring Ethic for the Growing Machine: (Sugar Coated) Spinach

Any mode of thought grounded in less than infinity is incomplete and unstable and feels like it. We gravitate to infinity grounded modes of thought because they are more stable and complete.

Pleasure is grounded in a mental loop that falsely looks like infinity. Want this, have this, want this have this. It seems right, so we seek to arrive at this dead end as though it were an exit from a burning building. Displeasure is similar, grounded in another mental loop. Hate this, have this, hate this, have this. Both are subject to the spell being broken by variations. If the pleasure or pain seems declining or increasing we feel the incipient finality. It will fade, or something will break, either way this will end, which may be good or bad. But pleasure and pain are self centered motivators, one sought and one avoided. What infinity are we to ground our philosophies in if we have learned to correct for perspective? What do we wish for the world? Is it individual pleasure for all the many inhabitants? How can the world as a whole have a goal that ties into infinity?

Conservatism is another form of false infinity. Things have always been this way and will always be this way. Furthermore, it can be personally comforting as a bonus. But there are drawbacks to conservatism. Among them is its very impracticality. Unable to adapt, it will inevitably be defeated unless it fills its universe, either by conquering everything or by secreting itself and locking out challenges--both impossible. The necessity of change, either eventually through neglect or immediately through proactive ambition, defies the very foundation of conservatism itself. It is both finite and doomed to suffer, so it is unsatisfactory.

Mohism, though in many ways conservative looking, is grounded in the infinity of an eternal growth. The goal is unending growth as an ongoing process, rather than infinite size as a completed one. The ideal is for society to become a highly functional machine, and for that machine to continually improve. Thus there is connection to infinity. Pursuit of comfortable palaces and enchanting melodies is off the table _forever_. This is not deferred gratification it is a different goal altogether. The pleasures of love and benevolence will always be a part of it, but those are not the real goal either. Love enhances the function of the social machine the way oil makes the parts of a metal machine work better together, but love is not the reason. The notion is that the machine should function well, and that it should continue to function well, but also that it should continue to grow in both size and sophistication.

But people prefer personal pleasure unless they adopt some alternative ethic. No matter how sophisticated a civilization, it will become decadent and fall to the conquest of a stronger culture, whose people have endured circumstances forcing them to put an empowering ethic above personal pleasure. Mozi saw this, and to stop the cycle of decadence and conquest he proposed that sophisticated civilization turn back from decadence and adopt an improved version of the barbarian ethic. The ethic of those who originally built civilization must have been neither barbaric (sic) nor decadent (again sic), Mozi reasoned, so that ethic might be a good guide to strengthening the spines of the central Han states against the more vigorous march kingdoms of the periphery.

Mohism sought to provide an ethic that would eternally prevent both decadence and barbarism by perpetually maintaining the ways of early vigorous civilization. Mozi put together a draft of what that ethic should be, largely by wandering his world and talking to people from all walks of life, but also from reports of practical results gathered by alumni of his school. What he created filled the bill in many ways, but it failed to maintain the central states against the marcher kingdoms because it failed to sufficiently catch the imagination. This spinach was great nutrition for the machine of civilization, but it tasted bad. Mozi's plan to make the bitter vitamin pill palatable was to leave it flavored by a superficial coating of the autochthonous culture. "Keep your sacrifices," he said, "they can play a role". But this was inadequate. Truly foul spinach needs more than flavoring with whatever was handy where it was harvested, it needs powerful sugar coating.

The best possible sugar coating is one that is part of the product itself, and in the case of Mohism it is not the culture incidental to its nation of origin, but something true to the essence of the doctrine itself. The excitement for Mohists must be in the eternal pursuit of an ever increasingly sophisticated and powerful social machine. The dream must not be of a future time when we can rest on our laurels, but of all future time when we continue the pursuit of colonizing the infinite universe. Our task, as those resurrecting Mohism from the dustbin of history, must be to sell the appeal of that path. May the crystal of order, lubricated by love, grow forever.

