Against War I

Mozi said: The ancient kings, dukes, and great men truly desired benefit and disliked harm, sought safety and feared danger. Therefore, they could not but oppose offensive warfare. Now, suppose there is a man who enters another’s orchard or vegetable garden and steals someone’s peaches or plums. When people hear of it, they condemn him; when the authorities catch him, they punish him. Why is this? Because he harms others to benefit himself. As for those who steal another’s dogs, pigs, or piglets, their unrighteousness exceeds that of those who steal peaches and plums from an orchard. What is the reason? Because they harm others more; the greater the harm, the greater their unkindness, and the deeper their guilt. As for those who enter another’s cattle shed or stable and steal horses or oxen, their unkindness and unrighteousness exceed that of those who steal dogs, pigs, or piglets. What is the reason? Because they harm others more; if the harm is greater, their unkindness is more severe, and their guilt deeper. As for those who kill an innocent person, strip off his clothes and fur garments, and seize his spear, halberd, or sword, their unrighteousness exceeds that of those who enter another’s cattle shed or stable and steal horses or oxen. What is the reason? Because they harm others more. If the harm is greater, their unkindness is more severe, and their guilt deeper. In these cases, the gentlemen of the world all know to condemn them, calling them unrighteous. Yet now, when it comes to the great matter of attacking another state, they do not know to condemn it; on the contrary, they praise it, calling it righteous. Can this be said to understand the distinction between righteousness and unrighteousness?

Killing one person is called unrighteous and must incur one death penalty. If we reason by analogy, killing ten people is ten times as unrighteous and must incur ten death penalties; killing a hundred people is a hundred times as unrighteous and must incur a hundred death penalties. In these cases, the gentlemen of the world all know to condemn them, calling them unrighteous. Yet now, when it comes to the great unrighteous act—attacking another state—they do not know to condemn it; on the contrary, they praise it, calling it righteous. They truly do not know it is unrighteous, so they record these words of praise to hand down to posterity. If they knew it was unrighteous, what reason would they have to record such unrighteous words for posterity?

Now suppose there is a man here: seeing a little black, he says it is black; seeing a lot of black, he says it is white. Then people would surely consider that this man does not know the difference between black and white. Tasting a little bitterness, he says it is bitter; tasting a lot of bitterness, he says it is sweet. Then people would surely consider that this man does not know the difference between sweet and bitter. Now, in small wrongs, they know to condemn them. In great wrongs—attacking another state—they do not know to condemn them; on the contrary, they praise them, calling them righteous. Can this be said to understand the distinction between righteousness and unrighteousness? Therefore, we see that the gentlemen of the world are indeed confused in distinguishing righteousness from unrighteousness.