Chapter 37: Condemnation of Fatalism III
Master Mozi said: “Whenever one speaks, one must have a standard and cannot speak without first establishing a rule. To speak without first establishing a rule is like trying to tell the time on a spinning potter’s wheel. Even if there is a debate about morning and evening, it will ultimately be impossible to reach an accurate conclusion. Therefore, statements must be tested by three methods.
What are the three methods? They are: the test of historical precedent, the test of empirical evidence, and the test of practical application. Where do we find historical precedent? By examining the deeds of the ancient sage kings. Where do we find empirical evidence? By investigating the actual experiences of the masses as heard and seen by their ears and eyes. Where do we find practical application? By promulgating the statement as state policies and observing the reactions of the ten thousand people. These are the three methods.
Therefore, the ancient sage kings of the Three Dynasties – Yu, Tang, Wen, and Wu – when governing the world, said, ‘We must promote filial sons to encourage serving parents, and honor the worthy to teach them to do good.’ Thus, they promulgated policies and education, rewarding the good and punishing the violent. They believed that by doing so, the world’s chaos could be governed, and the state’s danger could be stabilized. If you disagree, consider this: Jie brought chaos, and Tang brought order; Zhou brought chaos, and King Wu brought order. At that time, the era did not change, and the people did not change; when the ruler changed his policies, the people’s customs changed. Under Jie and Zhou, the world was in chaos; under Tang and Wu, the world was orderly. The world’s order was the result of Tang and Wu’s efforts; the world’s chaos was the fault of Jie and Zhou. From this perspective, security and danger, order and chaos, depend on the ruler’s governance. How can we say that fate exists! Therefore, when Yu, Tang, Wen, and Wu governed the world, they said, ‘We must ensure that the hungry get food, the cold get clothing, the weary get rest, and the chaotic get order.’ Consequently, they gained glorious reputations throughout the world. How could this be attributed to fate! It was attributed to their efforts. Today, worthy men honor the capable and love achievements and principles. Thus, above they receive rewards from kings and ministers, and below they receive praise from the people, gaining glorious reputations. How could this be attributed to fate! It is also attributed to their efforts.
However, those who advocate fatalism today either do not recognize the sage and good men of the Three Dynasties, or they have forgotten the violent and unworthy men of the Three Dynasties. Judging by their words, they are certainly not the sage and good men; they must be the violent and unworthy.
Consider the violent kings of the Three Dynasties: Jie, Zhou, You, and Li. They were noble as Sons of Heaven and rich in the world, yet they did not correct the desires of their eyes and ears or follow 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, ultimately losing their ancestral temples. Yet, they did not say, ‘I am unworthy; I did not govern diligently.’ They invariably said, ‘My fate destined me to lose the world.’ Even the unworthy commoners of the Three Dynasties were like this. Unable to serve their relatives and superiors well, hating respect and frugality while loving laziness, greedy for food and drink and lazy in work, they lacked clothing and food, falling into the worries of hunger and cold. They did not say, ‘I am unworthy; I did not work diligently.’ They invariably said, ‘My fate destined me to be poor.’ The hypocritical people of the Three Dynasties were also like this.
In the past, violent kings created this doctrine, and impoverished people transmitted it; these were all used to confuse the masses and hinder the simple-hearted. The ancient sage kings were troubled by this long ago. Therefore, they wrote it on bamboo and silk, carved it on metal and stone, and engraved it on plates and cups, transmitting it to future generations. Asking, ‘In which books is this recorded?’ Yu’s Zongde says, ‘If one does not manifest Heaven’s will, the people will not be protected. If one invites calamity, Heaven will add punishment. If one does not carefully cultivate virtue, how will Heaven’s mandate protect?’ The Zhonghui Zhi Gao says, ‘I have heard that the Xia people falsified the Mandate of Heaven below. The Supreme Lord hated this and therefore ruined their army.’ They treated what was non-existent as existent; therefore, it is called falsification. If what exists is called existent, how could it be falsification! In the past, Jie advocated fatalism and acted upon it, so Tang composed the Zhonghui Zhi Gao to refute it. The Tai Shi says regarding the campaign: ‘Alas, gentlemen! Heaven has manifest virtue, and its actions are very clear. The mirror is not far; it is that Yin King (Zhou). He said that men have a mandate, that reverence cannot be practiced, that sacrifices are of no benefit, and that violence causes no harm. The Supreme Lord was not constant, and the nine provinces perished; the Supreme Lord was not favorable, and He sent down their ruin. Only our Zhou has received this from the Supreme Lord.’ In the past, Zhou advocated fatalism and acted upon it, so King Wu composed the Tai Shi to refute it. Furthermore: Why not examine the records of Shang, Zhou, Yu, and Xia? From the ten-bamboo-slip chapters upward, none of them contain the concept of fate. What are we to make of this?
Therefore, Master Mozi said: ‘Today, when gentlemen of the world engage in literature and speak, they do not do so merely to tire their tongues or profit their lips; inwardly, they truly desire to govern the state, the villages, and the people’s administration well. Now, why do kings and ministers attend court early and retire late, hearing cases and governing, distributing fairly all day without daring to be idle? Because they believe that diligence brings order, and lack of diligence brings chaos; diligence brings peace, and lack of diligence brings danger. Therefore, they dare not be idle. Why do high ministers exhaust their physical strength and intellectual wisdom, governing offices inwardly and collecting revenues from markets, mountains, and marshes outwardly to fill the treasuries without daring to be idle? Because they believe that diligence brings nobility, and lack of diligence brings lowliness; diligence brings glory, and lack of diligence brings disgrace. Therefore, they dare not be idle. Why do farmers go out early and return late, striving to farm and plant to gather much grain without daring to be idle? Because they believe that diligence brings wealth, and lack of diligence brings poverty; diligence brings fullness, and lack of diligence brings hunger. Therefore, they dare not be idle. Why do women rise early and sleep late, striving to spin and weave to produce much cloth without daring to be idle? Because they believe that diligence brings wealth, and lack of diligence brings poverty; diligence brings warmth, and lack of diligence brings cold. Therefore, they dare not be idle. Now, if kings and ministers truly believe in fate and act upon it, they will certainly become idle in hearing cases and governing; high ministers will become idle in governing offices; farmers will become idle in farming; and women will become idle in spinning and weaving. If kings and ministers are idle in governance, and high ministers are idle in administration, I believe the world will certainly fall into chaos. If farmers are idle in farming, and women are idle in spinning and weaving, I believe the world’s wealth of clothing and food will certainly be insufficient. If one governs the world with this attitude, above to serve Heaven and ghosts, Heaven and ghosts will not assist; below to support the people, the people will not benefit and will certainly scatter, becoming unusable. Therefore, defending the city will not be firm, and attacking enemies will not be victorious. Thus, the violent kings of the Three Dynasties – Jie, Zhou, You, and Li – collectively lost their states and overturned their altars of state for this very reason.
Therefore, Master Mozi said: ‘Today, if the scholars and gentlemen of the world truly wish to promote the world’s benefits and eliminate its harms, they must strongly refute the words of those who advocate fatalism. Say: Fate is a creation of violent kings and a transmission of impoverished people; it is not the speech of the benevolent.’ Those who now wish to practice benevolence and righteousness must examine this and strongly refute it.”
Note
This final anti-fatalism chapter reaffirms Mozi’s three truth tests. It argues fate makes all groups idle, triggering poverty and chaos, citing ancient texts to prove fatalism is a false excuse invented by wicked rulers and lazy masses.
Yu, Tang, Wen, and Wu:
The founding sage kings of the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties. Mozi uses them as the ultimate historical proof that human effort, virtue, and good governance – not predetermined fate – bring about prosperity and order.
Jie, Zhou, You, and Li:
The infamous last rulers of the Xia, Shang, and Zhou 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.
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 precedent (deeds of ancient sage kings), 2) Empirical evidence (the sensory experience of the masses), and 3) Practical application (implementation as state policies). This makes Mozi one of the earliest pragmatists in human history.
Division of Labor and Social Duty:
Mozi outlines a strict, functional division of labor in ancient society: rulers govern, ministers manage administration and collect taxes, farmers grow food, and women weave cloth. Fatalism is condemned because it acts as a parasitic ideology that pulls able-bodied people away from these essential, productive roles, leading to societal collapse.
Zongde《总德》, Zhonghui Zhi Gao《仲虺之诰》, and Tai Shi《太誓》:
These are ancient historical texts (now largely lost or existing in fragments). Mozi cites them to show that even the foundational texts of the ancient dynasties explicitly condemned the fatalistic excuses of tyrants, proving that “fate” was merely a rhetorical shield for wickedness and a tool used by the “impoverished and unworthy” to justify their failures.
子墨子言曰：凡出言谈，则必可而不先立仪而言。若不先立仪而言，譬之犹运钧之上而立朝夕焉也，我以为虽有朝夕之辩，必将终未可得而从定也，是故言有三法。
何谓三法？曰：有考之者，有原之者，有用之者。恶乎考之？考先圣大王之事；恶乎原之？察众之耳目之请，恶乎用之？发而为政乎国，察万民而观之。此谓三法也。
故昔者三代圣王禹、汤、文、武，方为政乎天下之时，曰：“必务举孝子而劝之事亲，尊贤良之人而教之为善。”是故出政施教，赏善罚暴。且以为若此，则天下之乱也，将属可得而治也；社稷之危也，将属可得而定也。若以为不然，昔桀之所乱，汤治之；纣之所乱，武王治之。当此之时，世不渝而民不易，上变政而民改俗。存乎桀、纣而天下乱，存乎汤、武而天下治。天下之治也，汤、武之力也；天下之乱也，桀、纣之罪也。若以此观之，夫安危治乱，存乎上之为政也，则夫岂可谓有命哉！故昔者禹、汤、文、武，方为政乎天下之时，曰：“必使饥者得食，寒者得衣，劳者得息，乱者得治。”遂得光誉令问于天下。夫岂可以为命哉！故以为其力也。今贤良之人，尊贤而好功道术，故上得其王公大人之赏，下得其万民之誉，遂得光誉令问于天下。亦岂以为其命哉！又以为力也。
然今夫有命者，不识昔也三代之圣善人与？意亡昔三代之暴不肖人与？若以说观之，则必非昔三代圣善人也，必暴不肖人也。
然今以命为有者。昔三代暴王桀、纣、幽、厉，贵为天子，富有天下，于此乎不而矫其耳目之欲，而从其心意之辟，外之驱骋田猎毕戈，内湛于酒乐，而不顾其国家百姓之政，繁为无用，暴逆百姓，遂失其宗庙。其言不曰我罢不肖，吾听治不强，必曰吾命固将失之。虽昔也三代罢不肖之民，亦犹此也。不能善事亲戚、君长，甚恶恭俭而好简易，贪饮食而惰从事，衣食之财不足，是以身有陷乎饥寒冻馁之忧，其言不曰吾罢不肖，吾从事不强，又曰吾命固将穷。昔三代伪民，亦犹此也。
昔者暴王作之，穷人术之，此皆疑众迟朴。先圣王之患之也，固在前矣，是以书之竹帛，镂之金石，琢之盘盂，传遗后世子孙。曰：“何书焉存？”禹之《总德》有之曰：“允不著惟天，民不而葆。既防凶星，天加之咎。不慎厥德，天命焉葆？”《仲虺之诰》曰：“我闻有夏人矫天命于下，帝式是增，用爽厥师。”彼用无为有，故谓矫；若有而谓有，夫岂为矫哉！昔者桀执有命而行，汤为《仲虺之告》以非之。《太誓》之言也，于去发曰：“恶乎君子！天有显德，其行甚章。为鉴不远，在彼殷王。谓人有命，谓敬不可行，谓祭无益，谓暴无伤。上帝不常，九有以亡；上帝不顺，祝降其丧。惟我有周，受之大帝。”昔纣执有命而行，武王为《太誓》去发以非之。曰：子胡不尚考之乎商、周、虞、夏之记？从十简之篇以尚，皆无之。将何若者也？
是故子墨子曰：今天下之君子之为文学、出言谈也，非将勤劳其惟舌，而利其唇吻也，中实将欲其国家邑里万民刑政者也。今也王公大人之所以蚤朝晏退，听狱治政，终朝均分而不敢怠倦者，何也？曰：彼以为强必治，不强必乱；强必宁，不强必危。故不敢怠倦。今也卿大夫之所以竭股肱之力，殚其思虑之知，内治官府，外敛关市、山林、泽梁之利，以实官府而不敢怠倦者，何也？曰：彼以为强必贵，不强必贱；强必荣，不强必辱。故不敢怠倦。今也农夫之所以蚤出暮入，强乎耕稼树艺，多聚叔粟而不敢怠倦者，何也？曰：彼以为强必富，不强必贫；强必饱，不强必饥。故不敢怠倦。今也妇人之所以夙兴夜寐，强乎纺绩织纴，多治麻统葛绪，捆布縿，而不敢怠倦者，何也？曰：彼以为强必富，不强必贫；强必暖，不强必寒。故不敢怠倦。今虽毋在乎王公大人，蒉若信有命而致行之，则必怠乎听狱治政矣，卿大夫必怠乎治官府矣，农夫必怠乎耕稼树艺矣，妇人必怠乎纺绩织纴矣。王公大人怠乎听狱治政，卿大夫怠乎治官府，则我以为天下必乱矣；农夫怠乎耕稼树艺，妇人怠乎纺绩织纴，则我以为天下衣食之财，将必不足矣。若以为政乎天下，上以事天鬼，天鬼不使，下以持养百姓，百姓不利，必离散，不可得用也。是以入守则不固，出诛则不胜。故虽昔者三代暴王桀、纣、幽、厉之所以共抎其国家，倾覆其社稷者，此也。
是故子墨子言曰：今天下之士君子，中实将欲求兴天下之利、除天下之害，当若有命者之言，不可不强非也。曰：命者，暴王所作，穷人所术，非仁者之言也。今之为仁义者，将不可不察而强非者，此也。
Leave a Reply