Mozi identifies two classes of harms: power relations, and lacking of virtues. The unifying source of these harms is partiality, so the solution is impartiality:
“For one would do for others as one would do for oneself.”
(Mozi 16; p. 68)
Thus, Mozi is an objective consequentialist. In order to explain objective consequentialism, we should first define and explain some terms. Consequentialists try to care about everyone equally, while egoists prioritize their own wellbeing. Consequentialists care about the result of their action, or, what happens due to the action they take. These philosophers ask, does the action I am taking promote what’s beneficial, or eliminate what’s harmful? These are typically the guidelines they use to frame “goodness” through. An objective consequentialist believes that actions shouldn’t be viewed with the goal of making people “happy” per se, but rather if said actions contribute to the objective goods. “…one must regard the well-being of one’s friends as one regards one’s own well-being; one must regard the parents of one’s friends as one regards one’s own parents.” (p. 70)
Mozi provides the following framing for how to assess moral goodness. Three objective goods: (Mozi 25, 32):
- The enrichment of the poor
- The increase of population
- The making of a well ordered world
Mozi believes that humans are inherently good. This differs from Xunzi’s branch of objective consequentialism, that states that humans need rituals to act good.
A Response to Homophobia
Read the original post here. The situation is that a person commented on the OP’s same-sex relationship saying “hate the sin, not the sinner” and this person has regularly implied their belief that same-sex relationships are immoral. The OP responded “yeah, well, hate the belief, not the believer” in order to communicate that they disagreed with the religion that tells them that their relationship is inherently immoral. But the religious person then got incredibly upset and many are telling the OP that what they said was much worse than what the person had said.
Since Mozi believes that “the business of a benevolent person is to promote what is beneficial to the world and eliminate what is harmful” (Mozi 16; 68) then any actions that promote what is beneficial to the world would be viewed by Mozi as moral and praiseworthy. Therefore, the question is whether or not this person speaking out against a person who was disparaging their relationship was beneficial to the world. I would argue that this person speaking out was beneficial to the world due to the fact that homophobia and prejudice as a whole does a great deal of harm in this world. Moreover, this person went out of their way to comment on the poster’s relationship without being asked and had previously implied “the need of spiritual help with [the poster’s] condition.” This person is clearly not only prejudiced against same-sex relationships but goes out of their way to express this prejudice to people.
The OP speaking against this behavior is beneficial as hopefully it promotes the fact that bias is unacceptable and harmful and this person’s comments are offensive and need to stop. The poster even mentioned “hope that my words would put what she’s being doing to me into perspective for her.” Even though what was said did upset this person, since this action was done out of hope of making her see the error in her ways and eliminate bias in this world that is harmful then overall Mozi would likely state this action is beneficial to the world and therefore moral.
Health vs. Religious Views
“Meet Amy. Amy is a 22-year-old who has a degenerative brain condition. Left untreated, this brain condition has symptoms similar to Alzheimer’s, beginning with the gradual loss of memory and advancing to loss of more basic functioning, and ultimately death. In the later stages of this disease, Amy will have no memories of who she is. Unlike Alzheimer’s, however, this disease is treatable, and ultimately reversible. If the condition is reversed, the patient will regain memories prior to the onset of the disease, but not any memories from the later stages of the disease.
Treatment is covered by insurance and has relatively minimal side effects. However, Amy is a member of a religious sect with strong views on modern medicine. Members of this sect are prohibited from any medical treatment beyond the most basic (think first aid, aspirin, etc). Although the sect’s guiding text does not specifically mention this disease, it can be clearly inferred from what the text does say, as well as the practices of the sect, that treatment of the condition would violate Amy’s religious beliefs. Amy is not interested in treatment for this reason, and refuses to consider it. Amy’s parents want her to be treated, but know that Amy’s religious convictions mean that this would be impossible. However, they believe that it would be acceptable to compel her to be treated once she has forgotten these religious beliefs as a consequence of her disease.
Disregarding any legal factors, would it be morally acceptable for Amy’s parents to convince her to seek treatment in her memory-less state? Why or why not? Is no-memory Amy the same person as memory-Amy?”
This would not be a morally acceptable action for Amy’s parents to take. Mozi, a classical Chinese philosopher, stated “that If people regarded other people’s states in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own state to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself” (68). Mozi is saying that the way to act morally is for you to hold another person in equal regard when compared to yourself, if you consider everyone the same way you consider yourself you would never cause any type of ill will to them. This is because no person would intentionally cause themselves harm or go against their own beliefs. This is applicable to Amy’s situation because her parents need to put themselves into her shoes, by doing so they will be sympathetic to her beliefs and would most likely not follow through with this decision. Based on Mozi’s philosophy this is the case due to the fact one should always do unto others as they would do unto themselves, and it is safe to say they would not want their wishes to be disrespected.
To strengthen this point of view Mozi gives a short anecdote about a man who takes control of a city. After this Mozi examines his motivation for doing so and the conclusion reached was he did it “not because he wanted to increase his wealth and honor, earn for himself additional favors and blessings, or because it pleased his eyes and ears, but rather because he wanted to contribute to the benefit of the world and eliminate what is harmful to it” (73). Based on this Mozi would tell Amy’s parents that even though they are able to get their daughter back the choices they make should not be for their benefit, the same way the man from the story could have received rewards of all types his actions were not seeking them. Her parents need to consider what is harmful to their daughter, if they choose to coerce her then they would be causing her harm as they would be disrespecting her wishes. So it becomes clear that Amy’s parents need to act in a way that is beneficial for her and not for them, this might mean sacrificing their daughter, but in doing so they are combating the greatest evils in the world.
