Mencius said, “Yang Zhu advocates ‘for oneself’; if plucking a single hair from his body could benefit the whole world, he would not do it. Mozi advocates ‘universal love’; if rubbing his head bald and wearing out his heels could benefit the whole world, he would do it. Zi Mo advocates holding to the Mean. Holding to the Mean is closer to the truth, but if one holds to the Mean without the ability to weigh circumstances and adapt (quan), it is the same as holding to a single extreme.
The reason we detest those who hold to a single extreme is that they damage the Great Way. They grasp at one point and discard a hundred others.”
Note
This passage from the Jin Xin I chapter of the Mencius is Mencius’ concentrated critique of the three major ideological schools of the Warring States period (Yang Zhu, Mozi, and Confucianism), and also one of the most core theoretical expositions of the Confucian “Doctrine of the Mean.” Drawing on traditional commentaries and historical context, we can understand its underlying thought through the following dimensions:
- The Clash of Two Extremes: The Limitations of “For Oneself” and “Universal Love”
Mencius accurately summarizes here the two most influential non-Confucian trends of his time. Yang Zhu’s “for oneself” (extreme egoism) and Mozi’s “universal love” (undifferentiated altruism) seem completely opposed, but in Mencius’ eyes, they commit the exact same error – “holding to a single extreme” (zhi yi). Yang Zhu completely denies social responsibility, while Mozi erases natural human familial affection in the name of universal good. Mencius believed that both propositions violate the natural laws of human nature and constitute “damaging the Way”. - The True Essence of the Mean: “Holding to the Mean” Must Be Accompanied by “Adaptability”
Faced with the extremes of Yang and Mo, the sage Zi Mo of Lu proposed “holding to the Mean.” Mencius affirmed that “holding to the Mean” is better than extremism (“closer to the truth”), but he immediately introduced a profoundly deep philosophical proposition: “holding to the Mean without adaptability is the same as holding to a single extreme.” “Quan” originally means a sliding weight on a steelyard, extended to mean the ability to weigh circumstances and adapt to changing times. Mencius points out that true moderation is absolutely not a principled-less “splitting the difference” or a mechanical “50% compromise.” It requires flexible weighing in specific contexts. If one rigidly adheres to a fixed “middle point” without knowing how to adapt, this inflexible compromise is essentially another form of bias. - Opposing Dogmatism: The Systems View of “Grasping One and Discarding a Hundred”
Finally, Mencius points out the danger of “holding to a single extreme”: “grasping at one point and discarding a hundred others.” The Great Way is an all-encompassing, endlessly dynamic, and complex system. Grasping only one point – whether extreme self-interest, extreme altruism, or rigid moderation – destroys the overall balance. Mencius’ critique here is not only a refutation of Yang and Mo but also a profound warning to all forms of dogmatism and fundamentalism in later generations. It tells us that true wisdom lies in inclusiveness and open-mindedness, and in grasping the dynamic balance within the development and changes of things.
孟子曰：“杨子取为我，拔一毛而利天下，不为也。墨子兼爱，摩顶放踵利天下，为之。子莫执中，执中为近之，执中无权，犹执一也。所恶执一者，为其贼道也，举一而废百也。”
Leave a Reply