TY - JOUR
T1 - Assessment of Li 利 in the Mencius and the Mozi
AU - CHIU, Wai Wai
PY - 2014/6
Y1 - 2014/6
N2 - The attitude toward li 利 is often identified as a key difference between the Mencius 孟子 and the Mozi 墨子. A common view is that for the Mencius, rightness (yi 義) and li are incompatible; but for the Mozi they are not necessarily so. In this paper I argue that the Mencius and the Mozi are in broad agreement on the issue of li, and their attitudes toward li are not as different as may seem at first glance. If we take a finer-grained understanding of li in two ways, namely the self-regarding li and the other-regarding li, then both the Mencius and the Mozi would criticize the former but encourage the latter. The term li in the Mencius has a range of meanings, and it is not clear whether the Mencius actually opposes all li-pursuing activities. Mencius would agree with Mozi that, at least in some cases, one is obligated to seek li for others. Furthermore, despite their criticism of self-regarding li, both Mencius and Mozi allow that in some cases it is morally permissible to act from the motive of self-regarding li, as long as this motive coexists with the motive of rightness. That is, self-regarding li and rightness are not always mutually exclusive, even for Mencius, who seems to be more critical of li.
AB - The attitude toward li 利 is often identified as a key difference between the Mencius 孟子 and the Mozi 墨子. A common view is that for the Mencius, rightness (yi 義) and li are incompatible; but for the Mozi they are not necessarily so. In this paper I argue that the Mencius and the Mozi are in broad agreement on the issue of li, and their attitudes toward li are not as different as may seem at first glance. If we take a finer-grained understanding of li in two ways, namely the self-regarding li and the other-regarding li, then both the Mencius and the Mozi would criticize the former but encourage the latter. The term li in the Mencius has a range of meanings, and it is not clear whether the Mencius actually opposes all li-pursuing activities. Mencius would agree with Mozi that, at least in some cases, one is obligated to seek li for others. Furthermore, despite their criticism of self-regarding li, both Mencius and Mozi allow that in some cases it is morally permissible to act from the motive of self-regarding li, as long as this motive coexists with the motive of rightness. That is, self-regarding li and rightness are not always mutually exclusive, even for Mencius, who seems to be more critical of li.
KW - Benefit
KW - Ethics
KW - Mencius
KW - Mozi
UR - http://commons.ln.edu.hk/sw_master/2063
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84901840700&doi=10.1007%2fs11712-014-9372-3&partnerID=40&md5=a1f3488569a0aa6256a195adfc8a6fd5
U2 - 10.1007/s11712-014-9372-3
DO - 10.1007/s11712-014-9372-3
M3 - Journal Article (refereed)
SN - 1540-3009
VL - 13
SP - 199
EP - 214
JO - Dao : A Journal of Comparative Philosophy
JF - Dao : A Journal of Comparative Philosophy
IS - 2
ER -