Chapter VI – Applying Phenomenology of Will to the Philosophy of Mozi
6. Mozi’s Argumentation and Individual Understanding of the “Will of Heaven”
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Mozi provides much argumentation to support his claim that there is no “fate”
and every person is free in his action and is thus responsible for the consequences of his action.
6. Mozi’s Argumentation and Individual Understanding of the “Will of Heaven”
It should be noted that according to Mozi, not only the Son of Heaven but also ordinary people are able to understand the “Will of Heaven.” He provides the methodological tool for identifying and confirming what are the laws and principles of justice vs. injustice. His basic methodological framework is based on the “three criteria”
(of truthfulness) (Chinese 三 表 ), which either support correct propositions, or not support false ones.
In describing these criteria Mozi says the following:
Mozi said: “…it is necessary to establish criteria. If one’s statements are without criteria, then …one cannot obtain clarity of knowledge in distinguishing between right and wrong, benefit and harm. For this reason it is necessary to test one’s words against three criteria [of truthfulness, K.C.]. 189
Mozi claims that it is possible for any person to “distinguish between right and wrong,” and between “benefit and harm.” Being able to make this distinction is equivalent to knowing the “Will of Heaven,” and acting accordingly, doing what is right and brings benefit to the world as a whole (not only to self) means and also preventing what is wrong and harmful means obeying the “orders of Heaven.”
It should be noted that this obeying does not mean blindly following, but it means understanding and then freely acting in accordance with these principles. Mozi
189 Sun Yirang 孫詒讓. Mozi jian gu 墨子閒詁. P. 240.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
indicates that in reality many people freely reject to obey these laws and are responsible for their actions and for the harmful consequences of these actions.
Regarding the “three criteria,” Mozi provides the following explanation:
Mozi said: “…What do we mean by the “three criteria”?”
Mozi said: “something [i.e. a proposition, K.C.] must have a basis, must be derivable, and must have application. Upon what should one base them? With regards to the highest level of the ruler, one bases them on the affairs of the ancient sage-kings. From what should one derive them? With regards to the lower levels of society, one derives them by analyzing what the people perceive through their eyes and ears. Upon what does one judge applicability? When one puts something into practice in administration, one observes whether they strike upon benefit for the state, household, hundred clans, and people. This is what we mean by saying that there are “three criteria” for one’s propositions.”190
Here we see a systematic methodology for verifying whether some propositions are true or false. These “three criteria” include the following:
2. Historical basis: a deed or saying of a sage-king, who has an authority, and the virtue and benefit of his deeds, were verified through historic consequence of these actions and through his authority, and approval from Heaven and from generations of people, which all indicate that these deeds and sayings possess authority and can be a criteria for judging other propositions or deeds.
3. General perception of the people. This is some form of empirical verification of some reality through inter-subjective perception and common sense criticism.
4. Real application results. When some proposed principles are applied in real administrative policies, they may produce either positive or negative results,
190 Sun Yirang 孫詒讓. Mozi jian gu 墨子閒詁. P. 240.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
from these results it is possible to see, whether the proposed principles are true/just/beneficial.
The above “criteria” may not seem to be very scientific and rigorous to us, it may involve much subjectivity and is subject to various interpretations, however, this was a very strong argumentation in the time of Mozi, when authority of the king-sages and
“common sense and perception” were very reliable criteria of truth and authority.
Essentially, Mozi uses the methodology of “three criteria” to find out whether some proposition or theory is in accordance with “the Will of Heaven.” For example, Scott Lowe indicates that “Mo tzu introduces three criteria, or “tests,” for use in determining the legitimacy of any doctrine and attempts to utilize them to discredit the belief in fate.”191 This methodology is available to every human being, which means that everyone is able to comprehend “the Will of Heaven.”
In any case it should be noted that all of the “three criteria” are firmly grounded in real life experience, they all have some kind of practical verification involved, nothing is accepted as “theoretically given” and unquestionable. Even the deeds and sayings of the sage-kings are historical precedents and are built upon real life experience rather than just on “holiness” of these sage-kings.
This reliance on experience and real life confirmation of validity is relevant to our research, since it has some proximity to the phenomenological approach, which was utilized for the purposes of the present research inquiry. This tendency of Mozi to rely on real life experiences makes his thought easier for us to interpret and to incorporate some of his ideas into the theoretical model on will and action, which was developed in the previous Chapters.
What is especially important in Mozi’s methodology is that it implies that every person by using these principles is able to determine what is right and wrong, what is just and unjust and ultimately what is the “Will of Heaven.” This creates a necessary
191 Lowe, Scott. Mo Tzu’s Religious Blueprint for a Chinese Utopia: The Will and the Way. P.
149.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
condition for positing autonomy and free will of an individual. If every person is able to determine what are the laws and principles of moral behaviour, he is also able to choose either to live justly or unjustly, and to take a full responsibility for his choice.
Regarding this Mohist conception of the universal ability of people to comprehend “the Will of Heaven” and to follow it, Erica Fox Brindley indicates the following:
Early Mohists believe that all people can follow and conform to Heaven’s standards. Everybody, from the Son of Heaven to the peasants below, is equally implicated in and has equal responsibility to fulfill the same standards of behavior.192
This quotation indicates not only the universal ability of people to comprehend
“the Will of Heaven” and to act accordingly, but also it points out that such action is
“following” and “conforming” to Heaven’s standards. This notion of “conformity”
should not mislead us into misinterpreting Mozi as an advocate of conformism. Rather this “conformity” is harmonized by Mozi with “freedom,” and this constitutes an important contribution of Mozi to philosophy of willing and action, which is going to be further explored later in this and in the following Chapters.
Regarding the ability of a person to “possess” (i.e. to comprehend and take as a guiding principle) the “Will of Heaven” Mozi says the following:
Mozi’s possession of the Will of Heaven is like a wheelwright’s possession of the compass or a carpenter’s possession of the square. The wheelwright and the carpenter take hold of their compass and square to measure what is round or
192 Brindley, Erica. Individualism in early China: human agency and the self in thought and politics. P. 13.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
square in the world. They say: “That which fits these measurements is right; that which does not fit them is wrong.”193
It is evident that these “compass and square” may be possessed by any human person, and there is no subjectivity with respect to “the Will of Heaven.” Mozi never speaks of himself as a “chosen one,” who gained some unique knowledge about the
“Will of Heaven,” and that this knowledge is not attainable directly by other individuals.
Mozi makes a further explanation of his conception, and claims that these laws are objective and unchangeable, and may indicate that subjective views on these matters may be erroneous and this may be seen by comparing them with the laws provided by
“the Will of Heaven.” He says the following:
…the books of the gentlemen of the world are too numerous to be listed, and their sayings too many to be examined in full. Among the highest circles the gentlemen lecture to the feudal lords, and in lower circles they expound to men of honour. And yet on matters of humaneness and justness they are far apart.
How do I know this? Because of the clear standards of the world for measuring them [i.e. individual people’s teachings, K.C.]. 194
Here Mozi indicates that there is a universal standard, which is the measure of all moral teachings, propositions and deeds. This universal standard is “the Will of Heaven,” and it is unchangeable and comprehendible by any individual. Moreover, the methodology advocated by Mozi can enable any one “to obtain clarity of knowledge in distinguishing between right and wrong, benefit and harm.” 195
193 Watson, Burton, trans. Basic Writings of Mo Tzu, Hsun Tzu, and Han Fei Tzu. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1964. P. 83.
194 Watson, Burton, trans. Basic Writings of Mo Tzu, Hsun Tzu, and Han Fei Tzu. P. 83.
195 Watson, Burton, trans. Basic Writings of Mo Tzu, Hsun Tzu, and Han Fei Tzu. P. 83.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
It should be noted that in Mozi’s moral thought “right” or “righteous” (Chinese 義) is equivalent to “benefit” (Chinese 利), meaning benefit in general. This “benefit” is close in meaning to the concept of the “good” (Greek “το αγαθόν”) in European philosophy, which denotes some value by itself, it is something which is beneficial by itself, not necessarily for some particular person. Mozi’s “benefit” is a benefit to the people of the world in general. He equates this “benefit” with the moral virtue. For this reason his moral thought is often considered utilitarian in nature. However, researching this aspect is not of much importance for our research purposes,
What is of more importance is the fact that according to Mozi every person is able to use his mental capabilities to determine what is right and what is wrong, what is beneficial and what is harmful. Thus, Mozi implies that human mind is autonomous and is potentially free, it is necessary to be willing to utilize one’s mind, and it will then be possible to comprehend the “Will of Heaven” and to act accordingly.
From the last two quotations it is also evident that Mozi sees that in the actual reality many people do not understand the Will of Heaven, and advocate their subjective principles of moral judgment and behaviour. However, despite this reality, Mozi insists that it is nevertheless possible for anyone to understand the Will of Heaven and to follow it in his actions.