Pry Bar

Mo Tzu's Pry Bar

By John Taylor; 2007 Nov 12, 09 Qudrat, 164 BE

"The ability to take as analogy what is near at hand (i.e. oneself) can be called the method of benevolence." (Confucius, Analects 6:30)

On the face of it, it seems hard to object to the Confucian method of benevolence, the idea that love starts with self and then proceeds in measured steps to family, clan, city, nation and finally the world. But one man did, Mo Tzu, also known in the West as Mozi. Because his enemies suppressed his writing, only fragments remain but it is enough to turn most Confucians, libertarians and individualists on their heads.

Mo Tzu's ethics are based on Li, or benefit. He is credited with coming up with the now familiar motto, "the greatest good for the greatest number." This made him history's first known utilitarian. Because certain activities seem to offer dubious benefits and violate the principle of greatest gain for the most, Mo Tzu condemned everything from offensive warfare to lavish funerals, and even music and dance.

Mo Tzu's advocacy of an ethic of overall benefit raised the hackles of rival Confucians, who believed that it is acceptable and natural to care for others according to degrees of proximity, starting with family first. Mo Tzu objected that for all practical purposes a person who is good and kind only to those with close genetic ties is restricting rather than expanding his or her love. This cast doubt on what could be called the "trickle up" theory of love, tacitly upheld by Confucians (and, for that matter, most modern Christians). The question he asked was: If you love clan and family, will that love automatically radiate out further, to your nation and then to the wider world? There is, he held, little evidence that families, cities and broader systems of governance respond reliably, or at all, to increases in affection from below.

 It sounds inspiring to think that it might be so. Certainly, if everybody could love others flawlessly it might shake the foundations of broader loyalties. But in practice one is forced by limited time and energy to choose between clear, strong links and others further in the background, more tenuous ties that nonetheless represent greater marginal utility. Do I spend my Sunday afternoons visiting with aged relatives in nursing homes, or do I spend it volunteering, for instance feeding the indigent and homeless? Confucians would have held that the former is better, Mo Tzu the latter.

 In the same way, governments on every level are forced to make tough decisions. A politician has to choose between the few whose campaign contributions put him in office and the many he was purportedly elected to serve. In foreign policy, wealthy nations are forced to choose between serving the interests of their own small number of citizens and far greater numbers in poor nations whose need is greater.

 In place of this "trickle-up" ethics, Mo Tzu upheld a duty to universalize love. This he called "bo-ai," meaning "impartial caring," or "universal love." This idea holds that one should care for all equally, and it meant that it is moral to place clan and family after more removed but also more urgent and needful relationships. In this sense Mo Tzu was more Confucian than the Confucians, since he took Confucius quite literally when he said that, "Within the four seas, all men are brothers." (Confucius, quoted in "Confucius and the Chinese Way," p. 128) Like most people today, the followers of Confucius shunted aside this idea that all of us really are members of one family. They left the ideal to fade away into the limbo of idle dreams and poetic metaphor. For their part, both Confucius and Mo Tzu would surely have approved of the parable of the Good Samaritan, which teaches that a moral act is one that cuts across boundaries and formalistic loyalties and forges a stronger reciprocity. Such love is underlying, universal and spiritual.

 All this is by way of introduction to our last selection from the writings of Mo Tzu. I have been interspersing these passages periodically over the past few months, and I shall miss them now that they are used up. Mo Tzu in the following uses what might be called Mo Tzu's Pry Bar, a name something along the lines of occam's razor. The pry bar separates double standards by exposing their consequence in justifying criminality. Subjecting policy choices to the pry bar would allow local loyalties to fit smoothly into universal obligations. Subjecting every member state of the United Nations to the pry bar would make for us a world governing body.

Against Offensive War, by Mo Tzu

 Suppose a man enters the orchard of another and steals the other's peaches and plums. Hearing of it, the public will condemn it; laying hold of him, and the authorities will punish him. Why? Because he injures others to profit himself. As to seizing dogs, pigs, chickens, and young pigs from another, it is even more wicked than stealing peaches and plums from his orchard. Why? Because it causes others to suffer more, and it is more inhumane and criminal.
 When it comes to entering another's stable and appropriating the other's horses and oxen, it is more inhumane than to seize the dogs, pigs, chickens, and young pigs of another. Why? Because others are caused to suffer more; when others are caused to suffer more, then the act is more inhumane and criminal. Finally, as to murdering the innocent, stripping him of his clothing, dispossessing him of his spear and sword, it is even more wicked than to enter another's stable and appropriate his horses and oxen. Why? Because it causes others to suffer more; when others are caused to suffer more, then the act is more inhumane and criminal. All the people of the world know that they should condemn these things, calling them wicked. But when it comes to a great attack by a state, they do not know that they should condemn it. On the contrary, they applaud it, calling it honorable. Can this be said to be knowing the difference between honor and wickedness?

 The murder of one person is called wicked and incurs one death penalty. Following this argument, the murder of ten persons will be ten times as wicked and there should be ten death penalties; the murder of a hundred persons will be a hundred times as wicked and there should be a hundred death penalties. All the people of the world know that they should condemn these things, calling them wicked. But when it comes to the great wickedness of attacking other states, they do not know that they should condemn it. On the contrary, they applaud it, calling it honorable. And they are really ignorant of its being wicked. And they have written down their judgment in this matter for posterity. If they did know that it is wicked, then why would they record a false judgment to bequeath to posterity?

 Now, if there were a man who, upon seeing a little blackness, should say it is black, but, upon seeing much, should say it is white, then we would think he could not tell the difference between black and white.

 Mo Tzu saw the Grand Lord of Ch'i and said: Suppose here is a sword. When it is tried on a man's neck it severs it swiftly. Can it be said to be sharp? The Grand Lord said it would be sharp. Mo Tzu said: When it is tried on several men's necks, it severs them swiftly. Can it be said to be sharp? The Grand Lord said it would be sharp. Mo Tzu said: Of course, the sword is sharp, but who will take the curse of the deed upon him? The Grand Lord said that the sword reaped the benefit but he who tried it would be visited by the curse for the act.
 Mo Tzu continued: Now to capture a state, ruin an army, and destroy the people -- who will be visited by the curse for this act? The Grand Lord looked down and up and deliberated, saying: "I shall be visited with the curse for this act."

 Mo Tzu said to Prince Wen of Lu Yang: If a lord had attacked the neighboring states, killed their people, carried away their oxen and horses, grains and valuables, he might yet record it on bamboos and silk, engrave it on metal and stone. and write it up as proclamations on bells and the ceremonial vases to hand down to posterity, saying: "None possess so much as I."
 Now, suppose an unscrupulous common man attacks neighboring homes, kills their inmates, and takes the dogs and hogs, food and clothing. Would he not also like to record it on bamboos and silk and write it up into proclamations on vessels and dishes to hand down to posterity, saying: "None possesses so much as I." Is this permissible?
 Prince Wen of Lu Yang said: "According to what you have said, what the world takes for granted may not be right after all."

 (The Ethical and Political Works of Mo Tzu, tr: Yi-Pao Mei, Arthur Probsthain, London, 1929, at: http://www.humanistictexts.org/motzu.htm)