Mozi – Chapter 17

Chapter 17: Condemning Offensive War – Part I

Suppose there is a man who enters another person’s orchard and steals his peaches and plums. When the public hears of it, they condemn him; when the ruler in power catches him, he punishes him. Why is this? Because he harms others to benefit himself. As for stealing another person’s dogs, pigs, chickens, and piglets, his unrighteousness is even greater than entering an orchard to steal peaches and plums. Why is this? Because he harms others more; his lack of benevolence is greater, and his crime is heavier. As for breaking into another person’s stable and taking his horses and oxen, his lack of benevolence is even greater than stealing dogs, pigs, chickens, and piglets. Why is this? Because he harms others more. If he harms others more, his lack of benevolence is greater, and his crime is heavier. As for killing an innocent person, stripping off his fur coat, and seizing his spear and sword, his unrighteousness is even greater than breaking into a stable to take horses and oxen. Why is this? Because he harms others more. If he harms others more, his lack of benevolence is greater, and his crime is heavier. In such cases, the gentlemen of the world all know to condemn it, calling it unrighteous. Yet, when it comes to the greatest unrighteousness – attacking a state – they do not know to condemn it, but instead praise it, calling it righteous. Can this be said to be knowing the distinction between righteousness and unrighteousness?

Killing one person is called unrighteous, and it must incur one capital punishment. If we follow this reasoning, killing ten people is tenfold unrighteousness, and must incur ten capital punishments; killing a hundred people is a hundredfold unrighteousness, and must incur a hundred capital punishments. In such cases, the gentlemen of the world all know to condemn it, calling it unrighteous. Yet, when it comes to the greatest unrighteousness – attacking a state – they do not know to condemn it, but instead praise it, calling it righteous. In truth, they do not know it is unrighteous, and so they record their words to pass down to later generations. If they knew it was unrighteous, why would they record their unrighteousness to pass down to later generations?

Suppose there is a man here who, seeing a little black, calls it black, but seeing much black, calls it white; then we must say this man does not know the distinction between black and white. If, tasting a little bitterness, he calls it bitter, but tasting much bitterness, he calls it sweet; then we must say this man does not know the distinction between sweet and bitter. Today, for small wrongs, people know to condemn them; but for the greatest wrong – attacking a state – they do not know to condemn it, but instead praise it, calling it righteous. Can this be said to be knowing the distinction between righteousness and unrighteousness? Thus, we know that the gentlemen of the world are completely confused in distinguishing righteousness from unrighteousness.

Note

This chapter denounces aggressive wars. By escalating crimes from petty theft to mass killing, Mozi exposes people’s moral hypocrisy: they condemn minor crimes yet glorify invasive warfare as righteous, lacking clear justice judgment.

Condemning Offensive War:

This is one of Mozi’s most famous doctrines. Mozi makes a strict moral distinction between defensive warfare (which he supports) and aggressive, offensive warfare (which he vehemently condemns). He argues that offensive wars are essentially state-sanctioned mass murder and theft, representing the ultimate form of “partiality” and a complete violation of “universal love”.

Moral Relativism and State Propaganda:

Mozi sharply critiques the hypocrisy of the ruling class and the intellectual elite. He points out a massive cognitive dissonance in society: individuals are punished for petty theft or murder, yet rulers who commit mass murder and plunder on a national scale are glorified as heroes and recorded in history as acting “righteously.” Mozi exposes this as a failure of moral logic driven by state propaganda.

Utilitarian Ethics and Proportionality:

Mozi’s ethical framework is highly utilitarian and based on the degree of harm inflicted (the more one harms others, the greater the lack of benevolence, and the heavier the crime). He uses a mathematical, escalating scale of harm (stealing fruit → stealing livestock → murder → waging war) to logically trap his opponents into admitting that war is the ultimate crime.

The Gentlemen of the World:

In this chapter, this term refers to the Confucian scholars, aristocrats, and historians of Mozi’s time. Mozi uses them as a foil to demonstrate societal hypocrisy. He argues that these elites have abandoned objective moral standards in favor of political expediency, praising the very atrocities they would condemn if committed by an individual.

Sensory Perception Metaphor (Black/White and Sweet/Bitter):

Mozi employs a brilliant epistemological analogy. He compares moral judgment to basic sensory perception. Just as it is absurd to call a large amount of black “white” or a large amount of bitter “sweet,” it is equally absurd to call a massive crime (war) “righteous.” This reflects the Mohist school’s broader interest in logic, epistemology, and the objective categorization of reality, contrasting sharply with the subjective moral relativism of their contemporaries.

Historical Records as Unrighteousness:

Mozi makes a profound meta-historical critique when he says, “If they knew it was unrighteous, why would they record their unrighteousness to pass down to later generations?” He is attacking the traditional historical chronicles (like the Spring and Autumn Annals) that glorified the military conquests of ancient sage kings, arguing that these texts have corrupted moral standards for future generations.

今有一人，入人园圃，窃其桃李，众闻则非之，上为政者，得则罚之，此何也？以亏人自利也。至攘人犬豕鸡豚，其不义又甚入人园圃窃桃李。是何故也？以亏人愈多，其不仁兹甚，罪益厚。至入人栏厩，取人马牛者，其不仁又甚攘人犬豕鸡豚，此何故也？以其亏人愈多。苟亏人愈多，其不仁兹甚，罪益厚。至杀不辜人也，拖其衣裘，取戈剑者，其不义，又甚入人栏厩取人马牛。此何故也？以其亏人愈多。苟亏人愈多，其不仁兹甚矣，罪益厚。当此，天下之君子皆知而非之，谓之不义。今至大为攻国，则弗知非，从而誉之，谓之义。此可谓知义与不义之别乎？

　　杀一人，谓之不义，必有一死罪矣。若以此说往，杀十人，十重不义，必有十死罪矣；杀百人，百重不义，必有百死罪矣。当此，天下之君子皆知而非之，谓之不义。今至大为不义攻国，则弗知非，从而誉之，谓之义，情不知其不义也，故书其言以遗后世。若知其不义也，夫奚说书其不义以遗后世哉？ 今有人于此，少见黑曰黑，多见黑曰白，则以此人为不知白黑之辩矣；少尝苦曰苦，多尝苦曰甘，则必以此人为不知甘苦之辩矣。今小为非，则知而非之；大为非攻国，则不知非，从而誉之，谓之义。此可谓知义与不义之辩乎？是以知天下之君子也，辩义与不义之乱也。