Mozi’s teachings for the modern world: On Cynicism and Civilization
Are we all better off today than before? Whereas a great majority of those born before the last century answered in the affirmative, only a quarter of those in my generation believe so across developed countries.
As we witness record levels of economic output around the globe, and incredibly sophisticated research coming out of the hallowed halls of universities, the reality paints a very different picture. Chronic diseases are trending upwards, young professionals in urbanized cities around the globe are coping with a myriad of cost-of-living and stress related crises, and those who choose to opt out of city life find themselves trapped in unending poverty cycles. What can we make of this acute contradiction?
While it is easy to pin these issues on “systemic factors”, it cannot be denied that when at the end of the day these global crises culminated from the decisions of individuals. It was the decision of nutritionists to take bribes from big agriculture to create hugely misleading “food pyramids” that encouraged excessive carbohydrate consumption for people worldwide, with some being confined to dialysis for the rest of their life. It was the decision of Chinese manufacturers who substituted the baby powder formula with the cheaper melamine compound that resulted in the death and lifelong organ failure for tens of thousands of babies. It was the decision of incompetent politicians, who in a bid to win support for their nice-sounding policies undermined the welfare of the citizens they are supposed to protect.
Whereas there are judicious works examining the systemic factors that enabled these individuals to get away with such egregious acts — The Unaccountability Machine by Dan Davis comes to mind, I believe it would be amiss to not look deeply into why individuals chose to make such decisions. These individuals cannot be said to merely be acting in rational self-interest, for there are far more sustainable way to generate profit for people of their stature without resorting to degeneracy.
No, there is a motivating force far greater than simple greed lurking behind each of these irrational acts.
This potent motivator of evil, Mozi concluded 2,500 years ago, is cynicism. The presumption that everyone acts only in service of their self-interests, the fear that one will be taken advantage of by others, are what turn countrymen into enemies, well-intentioned individuals into mastermind schemers. Of all self-fulfilling prophecies that lead to tragedies, cynicism is responsible for most of the greatest acts of evil in human history.
Mozi was a social theorist and philosopher born into the heat of the Warring States era of China, a period of unprecedented agricultural and military innovation that laid the foundation of Chinese civilization, but also witnessed wars, betrayals and destruction in magnitudes never seen before in Chinese history. In the midst of this contradiction, Mozi sought to understand human nature, and searched earnestly for the origin of the society that he was born into and to restore it to order.
In this essay, I explore Mozi’s incisive social critique, and argue that the complex crises of our century similarly stemmed from the creep of pervasive cynicism across all civil sectors.
I expand on Mozi’s argumentation on the necessity of a shared moral standard to stop the tide of cynicism. Mozi endowed us with a unique perspective on the relationship between morality and human civilization, and although his words had faded into obscurity for two millennia following persecution by the rival Confucian school, his secular and logic-driven search for truth gave us the much needed framework for distinguishing right and wrong in this materialist world devoid of a common vision for humanity.
Lastly, I put forward Mozi’s insight that embracing a singular ethic: impartial care for all, is sufficient to guide us away from endless power competition towards the path of common flourishing. It is, in other words, the key innovation that sets civilization apart from tribal living.
Let us start from the beginning.
1. The great sin: cynicism 非命
If we do not do what is right because of cynicism, then nothing will ever be accomplished.
士君子，闻义则不行，见利则不为，何也？不信也。
Mozi began his critique with observations of the society around him. As someone living in the 5th century BCE, he inherited a thousand years of early Chinese civilization. The culture he was born into was a deeply superstitious one, as the early Zhou dynasty that came before his time ritualized various forms of deity worship to solidify the feudal rule imposed upon the people. Chief among them is the notion of the Mandate of Heaven, which legitimizes the political rule of a sovereign as pre-ordained by divine forces.
Such cultural innovation worked to great effect in subordinating people to their sovereigns’ will, even as the political rule of Zhou itself was disintegrating. He noted that despite their outward protestations for war, the peasants nonetheless tolerated the conscription and taxation levied upon them, out of a deeply ingrained belief that this is the way of the world.
He highlighted the tendency of warmongering kings to echo such beliefs in their quest for power. The rulers often justified their wars of aggression by alluding to the necessity of striking foes when they are weak to neutralize future threat. Mozi commented:
The chaos in the world is due to belief in fate. Thus, the thief says, ‘It is my fate,’ and the murderer says, ‘It is my fate.’
天下之乱者，以命也；故盗窃者曰：‘吾之命也’，杀人者曰：‘吾之命也。’
He further observed that this cynical mindset permeated all aspects of peasant life. Beyond state actions, people were making excuses for the undesirable conditions they find themselves in, whether it be poverty or hunger:
Some say, ‘My poverty or wealth, longevity or early death, all are determined by fate. What use is there in making an effort?’
有人曰：‘我贫富寿夭，皆命也，何益乎为？
In contrast, Mozi stated how Shun, who, despite being born into a poor and difficult family environment, worked diligently, cultivated virtue, and ultimately rose to become a revered ruler in ancient China. He argued that if Shun had believed in fate, he would not have worked to improve his circumstances and achieve greatness.
He emphasized the incredulity of the concept of fate to any objective bystander:
From ancient times to the present, has anyone ever seen the form of fate or heard the voice of fate?
自古至今，生民以来者，亦尝见命之物，闻命之声者乎？
It is easy to see through the falsehood of these beliefs as modern people. But if Mozi had any prophetic insight, it was that harmful beliefs exist regardless of the intellectual sophistication of a society. For Mozi, the telling sign of an oppressive philosophy is one that promotes cynicism. Cynicism — the belief that the trajectory of societies is set in stone instills passivity where the choice to act is all it takes to turn things around.
Consider the following beliefs in vogue in the modern intellectual circle:
- Everyone is self-motivated, hence someone engaging in compassionate acts must have ulterior motives
- Real change exists only in the material realm, hence social progress must come in the form of legislative reforms rather than spiritual enlightenment
These notions appear self-evident to many of us in today’s society in the same way that the tree spirits existed to our animist ancestors. They are not scientific facts, for the neuroscience of altruism very definitively shows that humans are innately motivated to do good. They do not explain how Nelson Mandela, Joan of Arc and the Buddha came to be and changed the world. Surely they did not walk on the same surface of the earth as us, and spoke out loud what has been murmuring in our hearts all along?
The fact is that these dogmas serve to deride, trivialize and cheapen every moral instinct.
The two beliefs listed above have particular consequences for our society. As a resident here in the U.S., I bear witness to their manifestation in extreme forms. Firstly, the narrative that everyone is self-motivated is used extensively to sow distrust against charitable individuals. Politicians who fight against the status quo must be in it to accrue power, and those who choose to throw themselves into public service must be in it for personal gains — as the detractors say. Such statements betray a worldview devoid of faith in humanity and trust in the goodwill of their fellow citizens.
Secondly, the belief that only legal reforms and material redistribution constitutes social progress leads many to fight tooth and claw for progressive policies, even if that destroys mutual trust and creates mutual resentment. The matter of fact is that legal code is only designed to protect us in unusual circumstances, but does not change the root beliefs of people that govern day to day activities.
The fixation over legal battles is fundamentally motivated by the lack of trust in the robustness of spiritual progress, and even though desirable outcomes can be achieved in the short term, reaching for them without building consensus from all parties will eventually fuel reactionary impulses to reverse course, much as a house of cards cannot stand strong.
In the Mohist lens, the entire enterprise of civilization-building is grounded upon the moral instinct inherent in each human being. It is the recognition that the hospital, the judiciary system, the public park, arose not from selfish bids for power or vicious battles over the ballot boxes, but out of the inherent goodwill of individuals who felt motivated to act upon their charitable instincts, to use their positions of influence to shape the world towards their higher ideals.
To Mozi, the awareness of our freedom to pursue our own ideals is the first step to social change. Once every individual comes to the realization that out of our disparate ideals a common thread binds us together, the world will wake up from its slumber.
What then is the common ideal of humanity?
2. The broken promise: common flourishing 天志
To answer this question, Mozi urged us to examine how civilization began in the first place. To that, Mozi pointed to the tale of Yu. Yu the Great (大禹), was ancient sage king credited with establishing the first dynasty of China. After the failure of previous kings, Yu successfully engineered a canal system to control flood, and ordered its construction in surrounding regions so that neighboring tribes could likewise be protected from flood. In doing so, he negated future incursions from surrounding tribes, who eventually adopted an agrarian lifestyle and were absorbed into the Xia administration.
The act of impartial generosity is recurrent in the founding myths of civilizations across the globe. Hammurabi, in uniting the lands of the Mesopotamian plains, declared the rule of law to apply to all citizens whether or not they were victors in prior wars. The stories of Ashoka, Solon, and Cyrus all have within them deliberate acts of compassion.
It was the conscious decision of individuals in a position of strength, to share their fruits of their labor rather than press on their position of strength for selfish gains, that thrusted humanity away from the endless cycle of tribal conflicts into the embrace of civilization.
In the complex geopolitics of today, it is easy to be blinded by national or ethnic pride in assessing contemporary events. However, without a clear moral framework for understanding the enterprise of civilization, it is very easy for citizens and the leaders they elect to once again descend into tribal power-mongering. Division and hatred after all, is what usually gets votes. The only difference this time around will be the presence of nuclear warheads.
It is thus not hard to see why Mozi searched so earnestly for an objective standard to human conduct in the midst of chaos. According to Mozi, an objective definition of morality is as essential to ensuring good and civil governance as measurement tools is to the assemblage of a furniture:
Just as a carpenter uses a compass and a straightedge to measure things, even if the craftsman is unskilled, he cannot go wrong.
若以规矩绳墨，持之而度物，虽有不肖之工匠，不能差失矣。
Just like Plato, Mozi was concerned with characterizing the ideal sovereign. What should be the job description for a ruler or governor of great stature? Unlike Plato, Mozi saw the hallmark of good governance not in the superior intellect of the ruler, but in their universal compassion for the people. Competence is important, but the moral courage to defer to the judgement of the people and to always have their best interests at heart are what truly set a good leader apart:
When those above and those below can communicate without obstruction, the state will be orderly. A ruler who consults the people and aligns with their needs ensures the country thrives.
上之为政，得下之情则治，不得下之情则乱。
Mozi extrapolated, from Yu the Great and other similarly renowned rulers of the past, that the universal compassion in a sovereign is their distinguishing quality. To this effect, Mozi found comparison in the natural world — the blue sky.
The blue sky is broad and impartial; The sky’s covering is such that it embraces all under the heavens.
天之行广而无私，天之覆也，普覆天下
A good sovereign, like the sky, seeks to benefit all of those they are entrusted with in equal earnestness, no matter their status, wealth, or kin relations. It is this commitment to buck the course that nature has set out for us, of tribalism and adversarial competition, that characterizes the civilized sovereign. To Mozi, the human striving to better the lot of others, to achieve mutual benefit, is the very definition of civilized morality.
His notion of morality differs from the philosophy of utilitarianism put forward by Jeremy Bentham, which defines a moral action as one that brings about the greatest amount of good (in terms of happiness). Mozi’s morality is less concerned with the quantification of outcome, and more on the quality of the act, i.e. its universality. This has important implications for the kind of political arrangement that results from each school of thought.
Consider the trolley problem. You happen to be at the lever when you witnessed a trolley rolling down a lane with 5 people tied to the track. If you flip the lever, the trolley will be re-directed to a different track where only a single person lays on the track. You would be able to save 5 persons, but jeopardize the life of a single innocent individual. Would that be the moral thing to do?
In the utilitarian perspective, it would be the moral choice to flip the lever since you would be saving more lives. This lends credence to communistic ideologies that seek to redistribute resources to maximize overall utility. However, in Mohist’s framework of mutual benefit, this approach runs contrary to the universal care placed on the interests of each individual (for it sacrifices an innocent life), hence cannot be considered moral. It would therefore be fair to say that Mohists will be ardent opponents to totalitarianism and communism.
On the contrary, Mohism is not overly-preoccupied with the capitalist project of self-aggrandization either. The acquisition of resources for oneself is not inherently good, since it only benefits the self. So what constitutes a good civil action?
Publicly beneficial projects, such as installing a traffic light, which increases the welfare of all motorists, or performing fundamental scientific research, which increases future developmental capacity, constitute definitive moral good. These are indubitably positive activities that are encouraged in the Mohist doctrine. This worldview is why, Mohism, anomalous of all ancient Chinese philosophies, are particularly prolific in their scientific research, producing 71 treatises on physics, geometry and logic in Mo Jing (墨经).
It is to be noted that Mohism is a fundamentally pragmatic philosophy, hence in deciding between morally ambiguous policies such as taxation and civil rights, Mozi provided us with a litmus test for distinguishing good and bad state actions:
- Knowledge (事): Does the policy take into account all that is known about a particular issue, whether or not it supports the policy’s case?
- Experience (实): Does the policy align with the lived experience of the common folk? Mozi advised the governor to talk to the laypeople about policies to assess whether it aligns with what is being experienced (下原察百姓耳目).
- Benefits (利): How does the policy lead to common flourishing?
Mozi, no doubt a highly sophisticated thinker himself, advocates for the exercise of common sense in evaluating these complex decisions. Mozi cautions against intellectualism, and true to his roots as an artisan, urges us to consider social issues with the same practical-mindedness and precision that it takes to assemble a piece of furniture. In advocating for sincere deference to the wisdom of the crowd, Mozi highlights the many nuances that evade the intellectual capacity of even the most enlightened individual.
“Tradition is heuristic and has been subjected to the rigor of time. It is often more intelligent than we are because it reflects the accumulated wisdom of generations, filtered by survival. Disrespecting it is a form of arrogance.” — Nassim Taleb, Antifragile
The common sense wisdom is echoed by the Buddha himself, who, as the story goes, became emaciated and weak after practicing extreme asceticism for years. One day, a young village woman saw him meditating under a tree and mistook him for a forest deity. Out of compassion, she offered him a bowl of rice pudding. The Buddha accepted the food, felt much better, and came to realization that this village girl inadvertently taught him an important life lesson. Thenceforth, he rejected extreme asceticism in favor of the middle path, and his teaching advocated strongly for balancing indulgence and self-denial.
This commitment to treading the middle path in worldly affairs is echoed in Mohism’s most emphasized topic: diplomacy. Let’s take a matter characterized by great moral ambiguity, war. Recognizing the destructive potential of wars, Mohists see peace as the ultimate aim, but they do not shy away from retaliatory wars. From the viewpoint of universality, the Mohists have no qualms with providing assistance to any kingdom that find themselves the receiving end of aggression.
In fact, Mozi embodied this principle himself, as upon hearing news of an impending invasion he led his disciples to construct defensive fortifications for the foreign kingdom under attack, and personally traveled to the enemy territory, convincing them to stand down and preventing a bloodshed.
Mohists are deeply engaged with worldly affairs, for it is only through direct participation in governance and production that Mohists were able to put their principles into practice. In particular, unlike the homogenous education pursued by the rival Confucian school, Mozi and his successors diligently provided tailored technical education that suited the unique skillsets of their followers so that they can take on positions of power and execute on his principles of compassion.
“It is the business of the benevolent man to seek to promote what is beneficial to the world and to eliminate what is harmful, and to provide a model for the world. What benefits he will carry out; what does not benefit men he will leave alone”.
兴万民之利，除万民之害。
It is notable that the Chinese term for talent is 天赋, which in literal translation stands for heaven’s endowment. Mozi made the point that what is endowed by the heavens ought to be used in service of the heavens, i.e. for public benefit. Much as we encourage those born into wealthy families to partake in charity efforts, Mozi encouraged those who are naturally gifted to similarly apply their talents towards the common good.
The Mohists counted in their ranks talented defense engineer and military generals who would travel from kingdom to kingdom to provide their service, should they become targets of wars of conquest. They are loyal not to any particular sovereign, but to the guiding principle of realizing common flourishing.
3. The great antidote: impartial care 兼爱
Mozi’s teachings provide a robust framework for those who seek public service. But what can it say about proper conduct in private life? A fantastic quote from the Daoist tradition highlights the deep connection between public and private conduct:
Governing a large country is like cooking a small fish. — Lao Zi, Tao Te Ching
治大国，若烹小鲜。
In other words, one should always aim to practice what they preach, from their most influential decisions to their most mundane ones. Mohism, like other Chinese philosophies of the time, is a pragmatic philosophy at heart, and Mozi was keen to provide his followers a principle to guide their daily actions. Looking into the smallest unit of a household, he made the following observation:
Consider when four people live together under one roof who do not love one another. Without love, they do not take initiative to help one another. Without mutual help, they will compete; through competition, there will be disorder.
今有四人处一室，则不相爱，不相爱则不相利，不相利则争，争则乱。
When even those who co-habit are striving for personal gains, the whole arrangement breaks down.
To Mozi, common flourishing among individuals is built upon impartial care between individuals. They are two sides of the same coin.
When people care for each other impartially, society will be guided towards common flourishing.
夫兼愛者，天下之公義也。
Impartial care means to treat strangers and adversaries with the same care as one would treat their own child. It is as radical an idea at the time when Mozi started his teaching as it is now two millennia later. But it is also an idea that permeated through all great religions of the world, as is perhaps most succinctly delivered in the Christian gospel:
You shall love your neighbor as yourself. -Matthew 22:39, ESV
Note that care does not imply indulgence. Just as a parent will not let the misdeed of their children go unpunished, the civilized person does not condone transgressions from their fellow citizens. The key distinction however, is that they take their recourse with compassion. Rather than act with punitive intent towards the wrongs of others, one acts to preserve their own livelihood and educate the transgressing party the fault in their ways.
Mozi provides multiple clarifications to the exercise of impartial care:
- Impartial care does not mean sacrificing oneself. It means to see oneself as a biological being with earthly needs, and to always strive for win-win solutions.
Caring for others does not preclude caring for oneself, and one must take one’s own interests in equal regard.
爱人不外己，己在所爱之中
2. Impartial care implies generosity without imposition. Mozi urged us to think empathetically, helping fulfill the different needs of others to the degree that one is willing to do so without expecting others to make sacrifices.
What you do not desire for yourself, do not impose on others; what others desire, provide to them.
己所不欲，勿施于人；人所欲者，施于人。
3. Impartial care does not foster dependence relationship. As much as possible, help lift others to their feet.
In all things people strive to stand on their own.
凡人之所以为事者，必将求立也。
4. Impartial care does not imply indulgence. Mozi favored the use of force against those who deliberately choose the path of power and hate over principles and care when the latter is available to them.
Elevate the people through righteousness, and prohibit exploitation through force.
以义教民，以刑禁暴。
Against “Effective Accelerationism (e/acc)”
The rejection of cynicism in elite tech circles has unfortunately produced a school of thought that blindly worships technological development without due consideration of human welfare. Its proponents believe that unrestricted and undifferentiated technological progress will naturally solve all human problems.
Such understanding of the role of technology in society misses the mark. Technology is a double-edged sword, as the use of chemical weapons and napalm bombs in wars has shown. It was the moral impulse of those that fervently championed their restriction that mitigated further technology-induced human suffering. Today, the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence bears the following risks of abuses:
- Large-scale surveillance
- Weaponization of social media towards increasing polarization
- Concentration of power through the accumulation of capital
In each of the listed examples, there exists technology that further aggravate the problem, just as there exists technology to counteract their spread. What we need is a framework for distinguishing beneficial and harmful use of technology, and that can only be found through thoughtful
Moreover, the assessment of technology takes on a civilizational dimension from Mozi’s analysis. A tribalist sees technology as a tool to solidify the grip to power by the few who possess them. A civilized person understands that technology is a means through which the fruits of progress can be shared.
Rather than losing ourselves in the blind search for fortune, or suppressing our inner compassion to gain an edge over others, Mozi urged us to pause and reflect on how we got here as a society, to consider deeply the original vision of common flourishing forsaw by our ancestors who laid the groundwork for the civilized life we have today.
With his thoughtful analysis, Mozi provided us with a fresh perspective:
- Humans are not fundamentally motivated by self-interest; the very existence of public services, laws and customs disproves that
- Impartial care is not a utopian ideal; it is the very motive that led to the creation of the state
In every decision to uplift others through our speech and action, to look beyond the confines of class or identity and share generously where it is easier to hoard, we are stoking a fire for the flame of civilization.
And to all that is struggling, help is on the way.
