Overview of Mozi’s views:
Mozi is an objective consequentialist which means in order to conclude if one’s action is moral or not, the results of the action must be looked at. The central theory of his moral philosophy is inclusive care, also known as impartial care. Mozi states that “the business of a benevolent person is to promote what is beneficial to the world and eliminate what is harmful” (Mozi 68). This quote summarizes the whole idea behind inclusive care. To put this quote in other words, it means that an action is moral if the effect it has on the world is beneficial and if it reduces harms. In addition to this theory, Mohists examines actions based on three objective goods: enrichment of the poor, increase of population, the making of a well-ordered world (Mozi 80). If the action results in one of these goods, then it is a good and moral action.
He is not a subjective consequentialist and therefore does not look at subjective states such as happiness or sadness to determine if something is morally right. Within his argument, Mozi clears up questions that may come up, such as how does inclusive care work with filial piety, the virtue of respecting elders in your family. He states that his theory does not contradict filial piety, in fact it promotes it. To better understand this claim, he brings up a scenario in which asks the question of whether or not a filial son would want someone to steal from his parents or have them show his parents the same love and respect he does. Mozi responds by saying, “according to the very meaning of filial piety, he must want other people to care for and benefit his parents” (Mozi 74). With this said, Mozi argues that his theory of inclusive care guarantees that elders are treated the same by everyone by benefiting other people first which will in turn benefit his parents. He also goes on to say that those who are not filial impose a great harm on the world (Mozi 68).
Prompt 1:
The first prompt we are discussing concerns a politically active member of society who wishes to be a part of the BLM protests however they are living with an immuno-compromised grandparent and juggles the morality of their responsibility for both the movement and their families health. Within Mozi’s view of this moral dilemma he would say that said person should do both. However, he would form caveats around how the person would lend themselves to the BLM movement to keep their family safe.
Mozi is fundamentally an objective consequentialist which means he doesn’t care of others’ subjective wants but rather how the consequences are evaluated through the objective goods. The three objective goods include: enrichment of the poor, increase of population, and making of a well-ordered world. As well, Mozi identifies two classes of harms which are power relations and someone lacking in virtues. Ultimately, Mozi’s fundamental belief is impartiality as he said “If people regarded other people’s states in the same way that they regard their own, who would then incite their own state to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself (68)”.
Concerning the prompt and following along the lines of the objective goods, the great harms, and the significance of impartiality Mozi would believe that the person should lend themselves to the BLM movement however not through the protest because the person would be committing the two great harms. Thinking within the lense of impartiality if said person posing the question is “regard[ing] other people’s states in the same way they regard their own” then this person would lend themselves to the BLM movement but not through protest to keep their family’s health safe. Mozi believes that going to the protest and risking the health of the grandparents would be wrong because it would violate both of the great harms. Mozi said that the great harms included; “the noble acting arrogantly toward the humble […], and children who are not filial (68)”. If this person were to go to the protest, though their wants of lending themselves to the movement is “noble”, they would be “acting ignorant” towards their immuno-compromised grandparents. Furthermore, this person would be doing the opposite of being “filial” by not lending their respect to their elders.
However, Mozi would believe that the person should lend themselves to the movement due to the three objective goods. Mozi says that one of “the ways that benevolent people plan on behalf of the world (80)” is to “do what they can to make it well ordered (80)”. If the person where to lend themselves to the BLM movement through circulating resources, donating, education, and discussions with others then they would not only be doing “what they can to make [the world] well ordered” but are also following the virtues of filial piety and the objective goods by keeping their grandparent safe. Mozi would say to this person to not go to the protest to keep their grandparents safe but to still do what they can through benevolence towards the BLM movement.
Prompt 2:
TLDR: Should the father of a 25yr old woman with diagnosed antisocial personality disorder tell her future fiance about the diagnoses?
For this moral quandary we are concerned with whether someone’s father should reveal her diagnosed sociopathy to her future fiance. The sociopath daughter has decided not to tell the man who is expecting to marry her. The daughter is self aware, in therapy, and is successful, but has little deep emotional connection to the people. She masks her true lack of emotional connection by performing emotions at funerals or other important moments. The father does not believe that she loves her future fiancé in the way people normally love one another.
There are several components to this, first it is important to examine the basic character of the daughter as of now. It is not the case that Mozi is overly concerned with the emotions we have towards others rather than the actions we take that impact them and society as a whole. In this text post, the father details how the daughter was violent to her sister when she was much younger. Mozi might say that this goes against one of the three objective goods, namely the “well-ordered world” (Mozi 80). You should not act violently towards your family 1) because it violates filialpiety and 2) because this action does not show inclusive care (Mozi 80). However based on the meaning of filial piety, individuals should want other people to “care for” the people they love in the same way as that they do (Mozi 74). If this care was about ‘love’ then it would be debatable whether the daughter could truly offer the fiance care, but care seems to be more of a mark of deference rather than a mark of love, so a sociopath isn’t blocked from doing it, there might just be more hurdles to get over in order to motivate them. So, the daughter is capable of caring for her future fiance but it doesn’t appear that this unfolds naturally from her character.
At the same time, Mozi would probably be less concerned with the way she feels about her partner than he is about how she treats him. One issue that could emerge here is the issue of partiality, sociopaths are not an entirely uniform category but some tend to do what benefits them most, with little consideration for promises, agreements, or social connections. The daughter might tend towards partiality towards herself in almost all cases. Mozi condemns partiality, and father would certainly be acting impartially in this case if he went to the future fiance with this information as he would likely want to be personally aware of this fact. On the other side, it might be that he is doing harm to the daughter by disclosing this information because there is a chance that her partner will leave her, but that would only matter to Mozi because the potential for population increase would be slightly reduced. Mozi’s other two objective goods include “enriching the poor [and] increasing the population” (Mozi 80). If the father blocks the engagement and wedding, and possibility for children, then he will have worked against one of Mozi’s actions.
If the daughter is committed to being a healthy law abiding citizen to the best of her ability, why does she need to disclose that she is diagnosed with a mental illness? Some of the strongest arguments came from people who talked about how she could be dangerous in the future if things don’t go well or how the but plenty of people marry people who turn out to be addicts or cheaters, who simply ruin their marriage in other ways. These problems are not always so hard to see coming, especially if couples are putting the work in regular therapy appointments before huge problems arise rather than after the damage is done. The association between criminality and personality disorders is common, and misleading. The example of her harming her sister when she was young is disturbing, but probably not all that common and also not exclusive to sociopathic children.
Overall, Mozi would support the father telling the fiance about the daughter’s mental illness. The fiance does deserve to know, not because of future hypothetical children or because of the daughters complex past, but because it’s part of her as a person and keeping it from him prevents him from knowing her as fully as he should. A consequence of keeping it a secret might be that he could only love her partially, denying the daughter the experience of being loved by someone who is not outside her family and preventing him from being fully in contact with reality.
Conclusion of Mozi’s views:
Mozi is interested in increasing the population, bettering the lives of the poor, and contributing to a well-balanced society through action, these are the concrete objective goods. Mozi values filial piety, but not only in the traditional sense where individuals must show deference to their family but also such that care is inclusive of other people’s family members and we treat them as we treat our own. This is a consequence of Mozi’s value of impartiality, in which Mohists should not show special consideration for their own desires over others.
One objection to this view is external consequences are not sufficient to building a good morality. Moral motivation might be a challenge here, if people do not believe that the poor deserve aid, etc. Moral desert seems to be pretty compelling though, we would be very motivated to be impartial if we believed that this impartiality would help us in the future as well. What is right and good depends on the consequence of the action, not exclusively what kind of action it is, so there is a lot of space for people of all walks of life and levels of education to participate in this moral system without having to ponder maxims or universality, which can be pretty extensive and critical.
