Mozi – Chapter 44

Chapter 44: Major Selections (Da Qu)

On Weighing Love and Benefit
Heaven’s love for people is thinner than the love of sages for people; yet its benefit to people is thicker than the benefit sages provide. The love of superiors for inferiors is thinner than the love inferiors have for superiors; yet the benefit superiors provide to inferiors is thicker. If one treats a slave (Zang) as a parent and loves him, it is not truly loving a parent; if one treats him as a parent and benefits him, it is not truly benefiting a parent. If one loves one’s child because of joy and desires joy for the child, this is loving the child. But if one merely considers joy as the child’s benefit and forces joy upon the child, this is not truly benefiting the child.

Weighing the heavy and the light within a specific context is called “weighing” (Quan). Weighing is not for affirming the right, nor for denying the wrong; weighing is for achieving correctness. Chopping off a finger to save the wrist is taking the greater benefit among benefits, and the lesser harm among harms. Taking the lesser harm is not taking harm; it is taking benefit. What is chosen is what people hold onto. Meeting a robber is harm; chopping off a finger to save one’s life is benefit. If chopping off a finger and chopping off a wrist yield equal benefit to the world, there is no need to choose. If life and death yield equal benefit, there is no choice either. Killing one person to save the world is not killing one person to benefit the world; but sacrificing oneself to save the world is sacrificing oneself to benefit the world. Weighing the heavy and the light in practical affairs is called “seeking” (Qiu). Seeking to act is wrong. Taking the lesser harm to seek righteousness is seeking righteousness, but it is not righteousness itself.

On Necessity and the Gradation of Righteousness
Taking the greater benefit is not out of necessity; taking the lesser harm is out of necessity. Acquiring what one does not have is taking the greater benefit; abandoning what one already has is taking the lesser harm. What righteousness allows to be treated thickly, treat thickly; what it allows to be treated thinly, treat thinly. This is called “gradation” (Lunlie). Virtue, rulers, elders, and relatives are all to be treated thickly. Treating elders thickly is not for treating the young thinly. Treat close relatives thickly, and distant relatives thinly. When kinship reaches its extreme, thinness does not reach its extreme. Righteousness treats relatives thickly, not evaluating their conduct but regarding the kinship. Treating Yu thickly for the sake of the world is for the world. Loving Yu deeply for the world is because Yu loved people. The thickness added to Yu benefits the world, but the thickness toward Yu itself is not added to the world. Just as hating robbers benefits the world, but hating robbers itself is not added to the world. Loving others does not exclude oneself; oneself is within the loved. Being within the loved, love is added to oneself. Loving oneself according to gradation is also loving others. Sages detest disease but do not detest danger. Keeping the body upright and unmoving is desiring people’s benefit, not detesting people’s harm. Sages do not act for the sake of their household slaves. Sages cannot do the deeds of ordinary sons. The sage’s law of dying for relatives is for the world. Treating relatives thickly is duty; dying for them is to arouse benefit. Though there is thickness and thinness, arousing benefit for oneself according to gradation is the principle.

On Names, Reality, and Logical Inference
Talking about classics is talking about classics, not about “white horses.” Insisting on the term “foal” to seek meaning, using dance to argue, or claiming “fishing is great without greatness” are all wrong. Three elements (cause, reason, and category) must be present to generate valid arguments. A slave loving himself is not loving a “person who loves himself.” Thickness does not exclude oneself; love has no thickness or thinness. Citing oneself is not being worthy. Righteousness is benefit; unrighteousness is harm. One must distinguish between intention (Zhi) and effect (Gong). Having a horse from Qin, having a horse, and knowing the arriving horse is a horse. Loving many generations is the same as loving few generations. Universal love treats them equally. Loving past and future generations is like loving people of the present. Ghosts are not humans; but a brother’s ghost is still a brother. The world rejoices in benefit. “Sages have love without benefit” is a statement as clear as the sun, spoken by a guest. Even if there were no people in the world, Master Mo’s words would still remain.

On Cognition and Classification
Desiring out of necessity is not true desire. It is not killing a slave. Exclusively killing robbers is not “killing people.” Learning to love people universally. The roundness of a small circle is the same as that of a large circle. The “not reaching” of a square less than a foot is no different from the “not reaching” of a bell. Their sameness in “not reaching” is a matter of near and far. This is a jade pendant; this is jade. Thinking of a pillar is not thinking of wood, but thinking of the wood as a pillar. Thinking of a finger is not thinking of a person. Thinking of capturing is thinking of a bird. Intention and effect cannot be equated. Benefiting people is for the person; enriching people is not for the person, but for the act of enriching. Enriching people and governing them is like serving ghosts. Benefiting one person for reward and reputation is not benefiting people, yet it is not entirely without nobility. Knowing a small benefit to relatives is not filial piety; nor is knowing not to seek profit for oneself necessarily benefiting relatives. Knowing there are robbers in the world means loving the whole world; knowing there is a robber in a room means not loving the whole room. Knowing one of two people is a robber means not loving both. Even if one is a robber, if one does not know where he is and hates both, this is weakness.

On Sameness, Difference, and Categorical Reasoning
Sages prioritize seeking matching names and realities for people. Names and realities need not share the same name. If this stone is white, breaking it means all pieces share the whiteness. This stone is only large; it does not share the concept of “Great.” This is a convenient designation. Naming by shape and appearance requires knowing a specific entity. Naming without shape and appearance only requires knowing the category. Naming by residence and movement applies to those within, like villages, Qi, or Chu. Naming by shape applies to mountains, houses, and temples.

Knowledge and intention are different. There are various types of sameness: overlapping, complete, connected, categorical, nominal, mound, fish, affirmative, responsive, and root sameness. There are also differences of negation and non-responsiveness. Because of these differences, there is sameness; because of sameness, there is difference. Four modes of reasoning: 1. Affirming and affirming; 2. Affirming but not affirming; 3. Migration; 4. Force.

A son deepens the deep, shallows the shallow, increases the increase, and honors the honor. Investigate mountains, comparisons, and causes to reach optimal reference; investigate sounds, endpoints, names, causes, feelings, and repetitions. Ordinary people rejecting evil may achieve results through their feelings. Those captured who wish to hate life may not get their way.

The sage’s coverage is benevolent without self-interested love. Self-interested love arises from calculation. Past calculation is not present calculation; past love is not present love. Loving a slave out of calculating the slave’s benefit is different from calculating a servant’s benefit; yet loving a servant is like loving a slave. Removing this love would benefit the world, but it cannot be removed. Past frugality is not present frugality. An emperor’s benefit to people is not thicker than an ordinary person’s. Two sons serving parents may face good or bad harvests, but their filial feeling is the same; it is not increased by external conditions. External constraints cannot thicken my benefit. If a slave dies and the world suffers, even if I nourish him a million times more, my love for him does not thicken.

Tall and short people are different, but their appearance is the same, hence they are similar. Pointing to a finger and pointing to a head are different; the human body has multiple appearances, hence they differ. Holding a sword and thrusting a sword are different. Swords are named by shape; their shapes vary, hence they differ. Willow and peach trees are both trees, hence they are the same. Things not named by quantity, when broken, remain the same. Thus, a person’s finger is not a person; but a person’s finger belongs to a person. One face of a square is not a square; the face of a square wooden block is a square wooden block.

Arising from cause, growing from reason, and proceeding by category. Establishing an argument without understanding its cause is absurd. Without the Way, people cannot walk; having strong limbs but lacking the Way leads to immediate predicament. Arguments proceed by category; establishing an argument without understanding its category leads to predicament. Thus, gradual arguments belong to the category of “trembling with fear.” Sages acting for the world belong to the category of “pursuing the lost.” Whether one lives long or dies young, benefiting the world is the same, belonging to the category of “praising a stone.” A million born in a day do not thicken love, belonging to the category of “detesting harm.” Loving two generations has thickness and thinness, yet the love is equal, belonging to the category of “snake patterns.” Love being equal, choosing to kill one belongs to the category of “rats in a pit.” Small and great benevolence having similar thickness belongs to the category of “declaration.” Arousing benefit and eliminating harm belongs to the category of “a leaking vessel.” Treating relatives thickly without evaluating conduct belongs to the category of “a well on the river.” Learning “not for oneself” belongs to the category of “hunting and running.” Loving people not for reputation belongs to the category of “an inn.” Loving others’ parents like one’s own belongs to the category of “official reverence.” Universal love being equal, single love being equal, belongs to the category of “death.”

Note

This Later Mohist chapter develops utilitarian “weighing” ethics and formal logic. It defines righteousness as benefit, expounds universal love, distinguishes intent from outcome, and analyzes names, categories, and valid argument rules.

Yu the Great:

A legendary Chinese ruler credited with taming the Great Flood. In Mohist philosophy, Yu is the ultimate paradigm of self-sacrifice and universal benefit, often cited as the model for putting “universal love” into practice.

Zang (臧):

A term used in ancient China for a male slave or servant. The Mohists frequently use “Zang” in logical thought experiments to test the boundaries of concepts like love, benefit, and identity, stripping away social prestige to examine pure logic.

Utilitarian Ethics (利):

Unlike Confucianism, which often separates “righteousness” and “profit/benefit”, the Mohists equate them. This chapter explicitly defines righteousness as benefit and unrighteousness as harm, establishing a strict consequentialist ethical framework.

The Logic of Weighing (权):

The text introduces a sophisticated utilitarian calculus: “taking the greater benefit among benefits, and the lesser harm among harms.” This is one of the earliest formulations of cost-benefit analysis in Chinese philosophy, justifying seemingly harmful acts (like cutting off a finger) if they prevent greater harm.

Mohist Formal Logic:

The chapter asserts that valid arguments require three elements: Cause (故), Reason (理), and Category (类). This reflects the Mohist school’s advanced development of formal logic, semantics, and categorical reasoning, distinguishing them from other ancient Chinese philosophical schools.

Universal Love:

The text defends the controversial Mohist doctrine of impartial care, arguing that love should not be diminished by distance or relation, and that loving oneself is logically consistent with loving others since oneself is part of the “world.”

Chopping off a finger to save the wrist:

A famous Mohist metaphor for utilitarian decision-making, illustrating the principle of minimizing harm when a negative outcome is inevitable.

Rats in a pit (坑下之鼠):

An analogy used to describe the tragic necessity of choice when love is equal but resources or circumstances force a fatal selection, highlighting the tension between universal love and practical reality.

　　天之爱人也，薄于圣人之爱人也；其利人也，厚于圣人之利人也。大人之爱小人也，薄于小人之爱大人也；其利小人也，厚于小人之利大人也。以臧为其亲也，而爱之，非爱其亲也；以臧为其亲也，而利之，非利其亲也。以乐为爱其子，而为其子欲之，爱其子也。以乐为利其子，而为其子求之，非利其子也。

　　于所体之中，而权轻重之谓权。权，非为是也，非非为非也，权，正也。断指以存腕，利之中取大，害之中取小也。害之中取小也，非取害也，取利也。其所取者，人之所执也。遇盗人，而断指以免身，利也；其遇盗人，害也。断指与断腕，利于天下相若，无择也。死生利若，一无择也。杀一人以存天下，非杀一人以利天下也；杀己以存天下，是杀己以利天下。于事为之中而权轻重之谓求。求为之，非也。害之中取小，求为义，非为义也。

　　为暴人语天之为是也而性，为暴人歌天之为非也。诸陈执既有所为，而我为之陈执；执之所为，因吾所为也。若陈执未有所为，而我为之陈执，陈执因吾所为也。暴人为我为天之。以人非为是也，而性不可正而正之。

　　利之中取大，非不得已也。害之中取小，不得已也。所未有而取焉，是利之中取大也。于所既有而弃焉，是害之中取小也。义可厚，厚之；义可薄，薄之。谓伦列。德行、君上、老长、亲戚，此皆所厚也。为长厚，不为幼薄。亲厚，厚；亲薄，薄。亲至，薄不至。义厚亲，不称行而顾行。为天下厚禹，为禹也。为天下厚爱禹，乃为禹之爱人也。厚禹之加于天下，而厚禹不加于天下。若恶盗之为加于天下，而恶盗不加于天下。爱人不外已，已在所爱之中。已在所爱，爱加于已。伦列之爱已，爱人也。圣人恶疾病，不恶危难。正体不动，欲人之利也，非恶人之害也。圣人不为其室臧之故，在于臧。圣人不得为子之事。圣人之法死亡亲，为天下也。厚亲，分也；以死亡之，体渴兴利。有厚薄而毋，伦列之兴利为己。

　　语经，语经也，非白马焉。执驹焉说求之，舞说非也，渔大之无大，非也。三物必具，然后足以生。臧之爱已，非为爱已之人也。厚不外己，爱无厚薄。举己，非贤也。义，利；不义，害。志功为辩。有有于秦马，有有于马也，智来者之马也。爱众众世与爱寡世相若。兼爱之，有相若。爱尚世与爱后世，一若今之世人也。鬼，非人也；兄之鬼，兄也。天下之利驩。“圣人有爱而无利，”伣日之言也，乃客之言也。天下无人，子墨子之言也犹在。

　　不得已而欲之，非欲之也。非杀臧也。专杀盗，非杀盗也。凡学爱人。小圜之圜，与大圜之圜同。方至尺之不至也，与不至钟之至，不异。其不至同者，远近之谓也。是璜也，是玉也。意楹，非意木也，意是楹之木也。意指之也也，非意人也。意获也，乃意禽也。志功，不可以相从也。利人也，为其人也；富人，非为其人也，有为也以富人。富人也，治人有为鬼焉。为赏誉利一人，非为赏誉利人也，亦不至无贵于人。智亲之一利，未为孝也，亦不至于智不为已之利于亲也。智是之世之有盗也，尽爱是世。智是室之有盗也，不尽是室也。智其一人之盗也，不尽是二人。虽其一人之盗，苟不智其所在，尽恶，其弱也。

　　诸圣人所先，为人欲名实。名实不必名。苟是石也白，败是石也，尽与白同。是石也唯大，不与大同。是有便谓焉也。以形貌命者，必智是之某也，焉智某也。不可以形貌命者，唯不智是之某也，智某可也。诸以居运命者，苟人于其中者，皆是也，去之因非也。诸以居运命者，若乡里齐荆者，皆是。诸以形貌命者，若山丘室庙者，皆是也。

　　智与意异。重同，具同，连同，同类之同，同名之同，丘同，鲋同，是之同，然之同，同根之同。有非之异，有不然之异。有其异也，为其同也，为其同也异。一曰乃是而然，二曰乃是而不然，三曰迁，四曰强。

　　子深其深，浅其浅，益其益，尊其尊。次察山比因，至优指复；次察声端名因情复，匹夫辞恶者，人有以其情得焉。诸所遭执，而欲恶生者，人不必以其请得焉。

　　圣人之附覆也，仁而无利爱。利爱生于虑。昔者之虑也，非今日之虑也。昔者之爱人也，非今之爱人也。爱获之爱人也，生于虑获之利。虑获之利，非虑臧之利也；而爱臧之爱人也，乃爱获之爱人也。去其爱而天下利，弗能去也。昔之知啬，非今日之知啬也。贵为天子，其利人不厚于正夫。二子事亲，或遇孰，或遇凶，其亲也相若，非彼其行益也，非加也。外执无能厚吾利者。藉臧也死而天下害，吾持养臧也万倍，吾爱臧也不加厚。

　　长人之异，短人之同，其貌同者也，故同。指之人也与首之人也异，人之体非一貌者也，故异。将剑与挺剑异。剑，以形貌命者也，其形不一，故异。杨木之木与桃木之木也同。诸非以举量数命者，败之尽是也，故一人指，非一人也；是一人之指，乃是一人也。方之一面，非方也，方木之面，方木也。

　　以故生，以理长，以类行也者。立辞而不明于其所生，妄也。今人非道无所行，唯有强股肱而不明于道，其困也，可立而待也。夫辞以类行者也，立辞而不明于其类，则必困矣。故浸淫之辞，其类在鼓栗。圣人也，为天下也，其类在于追迷。或寿或卒，其利天下也指若，其类在誉石。一日而百万生，爱不加厚，其类在恶害。爱二世有厚薄，而爱二世相若，其类在蛇文。爱之相若，择而杀其一人，其类在坑下之鼠。小仁与大仁，行厚相若，其类在申。凡兴利除害也，其类在漏雍。厚亲，不称行而类行，其类在江上井。“不为己”之可学也，其类在猎走。爱人非为誉也，其类在逆旅。爱人之亲，若爱其亲，其类在官苟。兼爱相若，一爱相若。一爱相若，其类在死也。