Assessment of Li 利 in the Mencius and the Mozi

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)

Abstract

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)199-214
Number of pages16
JournalDao : A Journal of Comparative Philosophy
Volume13
Issue number2
Early online date4 Apr 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2014

Fingerprint

Mencius
Mozi
Glance
Criticism

Keywords

  • Benefit
  • Ethics
  • Mencius
  • Mozi

Cite this

@article{88808669874e4b0098b221b6750fbe8e,
title = "Assessment of Li 利 in the Mencius and the Mozi",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Benefit, Ethics, Mencius, Mozi",
author = "CHIU, {Wai Wai}",
year = "2014",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1007/s11712-014-9372-3",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "199--214",
journal = "Dao",
issn = "1540-3009",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "2",

}

Assessment of Li 利 in the Mencius and the Mozi. / CHIU, Wai Wai.

In: Dao : A Journal of Comparative Philosophy, Vol. 13, No. 2, 06.2014, p. 199-214.

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)

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)

VL - 13

SP - 199

EP - 214

JO - Dao

JF - Dao

SN - 1540-3009

IS - 2

ER -