Chapter 36: Condemnation of Fatalism – Part II
Master Mozi said: “Whenever one speaks or engages in literary pursuits, one must first establish a standard or law. To speak without a standard is like trying to tell the time on a spinning potter’s wheel; even the most skillful craftsman cannot obtain an accurate reading. Yet the truth and falsehood of the world today cannot be clearly discerned. Therefore, statements must be tested by three methods. What are these three methods? There is the test of historical origin, the test of empirical verification, and the test of practical application. How do we test historical origin? By examining the will of Heaven and ghosts, and the deeds of the sage kings. How do we test empirical verification? By validating it with the books of the ancient kings. How do we test practical application? By promulgating it as laws and penal codes. These are the three methods of testing statements.
Today, some scholars and gentlemen believe that fate exists. How do I know whether fate exists or not? I know it through the actual experiences of the ears and eyes of the masses. If someone has heard or seen it, it exists; if no one has heard or seen it, it does not exist. Why not examine the actual experiences of the common people? From ancient times to the present, since the beginning of humanity, has anyone ever seen the substance of fate or heard the voice of fate? Never. If you consider the common people foolish and unworthy, and their sensory experiences insufficient to serve as a standard, then why not examine the rumors and流传 (transmitted words) among the feudal lords? From ancient times to the present, has anyone ever heard the voice of fate or seen the form of fate? Never.
Why not examine the deeds of the sage kings? The ancient sage kings promoted filial sons to encourage serving parents, honored the worthy to encourage doing good, promulgated laws to teach, and clarified rewards and punishments to encourage and deter. By doing so, the chaotic could be made orderly, and the endangered could be made secure. If you disagree, consider this: Jie brought chaos, and Tang brought order; Zhou brought chaos, and King Wu brought order. The era did not change, and the people did not change; when the ruler changed his policies, the people became easy to govern. Under Tang and Wu, there was order; under Jie and Zhou, there was chaos. Order and chaos, security and danger, depend on the policies promulgated by the ruler. How can we say that fate exists! Those who claim that fate exists are simply wrong.
Now, the advocates of fatalism say, ‘We did not invent this in later generations; such words have been transmitted since the Three Dynasties. Why does the Master refute them now?’ I reply: Do the advocates of fatalism forget the sage and good men of the Three Dynasties? Or have they forgotten the violent and unworthy men of the Three Dynasties? How do I know? In the past, outstanding scholars and eminent ministers were careful in their words and actions. Above, they admonished their rulers; below, they taught and guided the people. Thus, above they received rewards from their rulers, and below they received praise from the people. Their reputations were not lost and have been transmitted to this day. Everyone in the world says this was due to their own efforts; they certainly cannot say, ‘I saw fate.’
Therefore, the violent kings of the Three Dynasties did not correct the indulgence of their ears and eyes, nor were they careful about the depravity of their minds. Externally, they indulged in hunting and archery; internally, they sank into wine and music, neglecting the governance of their states and people. They did many useless things and violently oppressed the people, causing the lower classes to not be attached to their superiors. Consequently, their states became ruins, and they themselves fell into punishment and execution. Yet, they would not say, ‘I am unworthy; my governance was poor.’ They invariably said, ‘My fate destined me to perish.’ Even the impoverished people of the Three Dynasties were like this. Internally, they could not serve their relatives well; externally, they could not serve their rulers well. They hated respect and frugality, loved laziness and simplicity, were greedy for food and drink, and lazy in their work. Thus, their wealth of clothing and food was insufficient, leading to the worries of hunger and cold. Yet, they would not say, ‘I am unworthy; I did not work diligently.’ They invariably said, ‘My fate destined me to be poor.’ Even the hypocritical people of the Three Dynasties were like this; they elaborately disguised the doctrine of fate to teach the foolish and simple masses.
The sage kings have long been troubled by this! Therefore, they wrote it on bamboo and silk, and carved it on metal and stone. The ancient king’s book, the Zhonghui Zhi Gao, says: ‘I have heard that the Xia people falsified the Mandate of Heaven and spread the doctrine of fate among the people. The Supreme Lord hated this and therefore destroyed their army.’ This refers to King Jie of Xia holding to fatalism, which Tang and Zhonghui jointly condemned. The ancient king’s book, the Tai Shi, says similarly: ‘Zhou lived arrogantly and refused to serve the Supreme God, abandoning his ancestral spirits and ceasing to sacrifice, yet said, “My people have a mandate.” He did not correct his conduct, and Heaven therefore abandoned and let him go, no longer protecting him.’ This refers to Zhou holding to fatalism, which King Wu condemned using the Tai Shi. In the books of the Hundred States of the Three Dynasties, it is said: ‘You must not revere the idea that Heaven has a mandate.’ This shows that the Hundred States also spoke of the non-existence of fate. In Duke Shao’s Zhi Ling, it says: ‘Ah! Exert yourself in governance; there is no mandate of Heaven! It is only we two (ruler and minister); do not create rumors, and do not say that the blessings descending from Heaven are obtained by your own doing.’ In the Poetry and Books of Shang and Xia, it is said: ‘Fate is a creation of violent kings.’
Moreover, if the scholars and gentlemen of the world today wish to distinguish the causes of right and wrong, benefit and harm, they must swiftly refute those who advocate fatalism. Advocating fatalism is a great harm to the world; therefore, Master Mozi condemns it.”
Note
This chapter continues refuting fatalism with Mozi’s three criteria. No one witnesses fate; chaos or order hinges on rulers’ policies. Ancient texts label fatalism an excuse for tyrants and lazy folks, a harmful fallacy to reject.
Tang and King Wu:
The founding kings of the Shang and Zhou dynasties. Mozi uses them as historical proof that human effort, virtue, and good governance – not predetermined fate – bring about prosperity and order.
Jie and Zhou:
The infamous last rulers of the Xia and Shang dynasties. They are cited as examples of leaders who blamed “fate” for their inevitable downfall rather than taking responsibility for their own tyranny and incompetence.
Zhonghui (仲虺) and Duke Shao (召公):
Prominent ministers and advisors in ancient China. Zhonghui assisted Tang in overthrowing Jie, and Duke Shao assisted the founders of the Zhou dynasty. Their writings are cited to show that wise ministers actively rejected fatalism.
Fatalism:
In ancient China, fatalism was often used by the ruling elite or the lazy as an excuse to avoid moral responsibility and hard work. Mozi vehemently opposes this because it undermines his core philosophy of active effort, universal love, and utilitarian governance.
The Three Methods / Three Tests:
Similar to the “Three Prongs” in Chapter 35, this is Mozi’s empirical and pragmatic framework for verifying truth: 1) Historical origin (will of Heaven and sage kings), 2) Empirical verification (books of ancient kings), and 3) Practical application (implementation as laws). This makes Mozi one of the earliest pragmatists in human history.
Zhonghui Zhi Gao《仲虺之告》and Tai Shi《太誓》:
Ancient historical texts (now largely lost or existing in fragments). Mozi cites them to show that even the foundational texts of the Zhou dynasty explicitly condemned the fatalistic excuses of tyrants, proving that “fate” was merely a rhetorical shield for wickedness.
Zhi Ling《执令》and Books of the Hundred States (百国之书):
Other ancient texts cited by Mozi to demonstrate a widespread, cross-regional consensus in ancient Chinese political thought that rejected the concept of an unchangeable, predetermined fate.
子墨子言曰：凡出言谈、由文学之为道也，则不可而不先立义法。若言而无义，譬犹立朝夕于员钧之上也，则虽有巧工，必不能得正焉。然今天下之情伪，未可得而识也。故使言有三法。三法者何也？有本之者，有原之者，有用之者。于其本之也？考天鬼之志，圣王之事；于其原之也？徵以先王之书；用之奈何？发而为刑。此言之三法也。
今天下之士君子，或以命为忘。我所以知命之有与亡者，以众人耳目之情，知有与亡。有闻之，有见之，谓之有；莫之闻，莫之见，谓之亡。然胡不尝考之百姓之情？自古以及今，生民以来者，亦尝见命之物、闻命之声者乎？则未赏有也。若以百姓为愚不肖，耳目之情，不足因而为法；然则胡不尝考之诸侯之传言流语乎？自古以及今，生民以来者，亦尝有闻命之声，见命之体者乎？则未尝有也。
然胡不尝考之圣王之事？古之圣王，举孝子而劝之事亲，尊贤良而劝之为善，发宪布令以教诲，明赏罚以劝阻。若此，则乱者可使治，而危者可使安矣。若以为不然，昔者桀之所乱，汤治之；纣之所乱，武王治之。此世不渝而民不改，上变政而民易教，其在汤、武则治，其在桀、纣则乱。安危治乱，在上之发政也，则岂可谓有命哉！夫曰有命云者，亦不然矣。
今夫有命者言曰：我非作之后世也，自昔三代有若言以傅流矣，今故先生对之？曰：夫有命者，不志昔也三代之圣、善人与？意亡昔三代之暴、不肖人也？何以知之？初之列士桀大夫，慎言知行，此上有以规谏其君长，下有以教顺其百姓。故上得其君长之赏，下得其百姓之誉。列士桀大夫，声闻不废，流传至今，而天下皆曰其力也，必不能曰我见命焉。是故昔者三代之暴王，不缪其耳目之淫，不慎其心志之辟，外之驱骋田猎毕弋，内沈于酒乐，而不顾其国家百姓之政，繁为无用，暴逆百姓，使下不亲其上，是故国为虚厉，身在刑僇之中，不肯曰我罢不肖，我为刑政不善，必曰我命故且亡。虽昔也三代之穷民，亦由此也，内之不能善事其亲戚，外不能善事其君长，恶恭俭而好简易，贪饮食而惰从事，衣食之财不足，使身至有饥寒冻馁之忧，必不能曰我罢不肖，我从事不疾，必曰我命固且穷。虽昔也三代之伪民，亦犹此也，繁饰有命，以教众愚朴人。
久矣！圣王之患此也，故书之竹帛，琢之金石。于先王之书《仲虺之告》曰：“我闻有夏人矫天命，布命于下，帝式是恶，用阙师。”此语夏王桀之执有命也，汤与仲虺共非之。先王之书《太誓》之言然，曰：“纣夷之居，而不肯事上帝、弃阙其先神而不祀也，曰：’我民有命。’毋（人＋谬的右半）其务，天不亦弃纵而不葆。”此言纣之执有命也，武王以《太誓》非之。有于三代不国有之，曰：“女毋崇天之有命也。”命三不国亦言命之无也。于召公之《执令》于然：“且！政哉，无天命！维予二人，而无造言，不自降天之哉得之。”在于商、夏之《诗》、《书》曰：“命者，暴王作之。”
且今天下之士君子，将欲辩是非、利害之故，当天有命者，不可不疾非也。执有命者，此天下之厚害也，是故子墨子非也。
Leave a Reply