The end of the Spring and Autumn period of the Eastern Zhou marked a time when the king had no real control over his feudal lords. Along with the collapse of the feudal system and the rise of the Five Hegemons, the nobles no longer obeyed the king, leading to the subsidence of the rituals and music system (禮樂制度). The once peaceful land was now engulfed in recurring wars and chaos induced by seizures of power. In this era of jumbled rules and ideas, three great thinkers in Chinese history ––– Confucius, Laozi, and Mozi ––– each with unique visions of an ideal world were born. Their battle of ideas had continued through their successors until today. Nevertheless, an ideal world that seems plausible and desirable, is best constituted by a blend of Confucius’ and Mozi’s philosophy. 

 

Confucius was a Chinese philosopher of the late Spring and Autumn period. Although he was born in the era of the Eastern Zhou, his prestigious philosophy, Confucianism, can be traced back 500 years ago to 1046 BCE, the year King Wu of Zhou had overthrown the Shang and established the Zhou. Different from the Shang, the Zhou had instituted the feudal system, and more importantly, the rituals and music system, which consists of two elements: the ritual shapes the appropriate social behaviors and responsibilities, justifying the hierarchical society; the music emotionally unites the social psychology in the empire by developing a harmonious atmosphere through joint music performances. In response to the chaotic social disturbance during the late Spring and Autumn period, Confucius, as an expert in ritual and music who adored the Duke of Zhou, the man who introduced the rituals and music system, decided to reconstruct the ritual traditions and bring harmony to the chaotic society. He considered himself as a guardian of the Zhou culture.

Pursuing the true color of the rituals and music, Confucius advocated that humaneness (仁) should be the spiritual core of the rituals and manners. “Looking at nothing contrary to ritual; listen to nothing contrary to ritual; say nothing contrary to ritual; do nothing contrary to ritual,” said Confucius, “if one can master oneself and return to ritual, the whole world will return to humaneness.” (Analects 12:1) Humaneness and ritual mutually support one another: humaneness is the spiritual core of ritual, and ritual is the conveyors of humaneness. “If one is human yet not humane –– what can one have to do with rites? If one is human yet not humane –– what can one have to do with music?” (Analects 3:3). In describing how one can behave humanely, Confucius illustrated, “When going abroad, treat everyone as if you were receiving a great guest; when employing the people, do so as if assisting in a great sacrifice. What you do not want for yourself, do not do to others. There should be no resentment in the state, and no resentment in the family.” (Analects 12:2). “It is humaneness that brings beauty to one’s surroundings,” (Analects 4:1) Confucius said. Eager to restore a harmonic society, Confucius had built his philosophy upon the most pivotal element in Confucianism, humaneness, that can be linked to his motive ––– to restore the collapse of the ritual and music system ––– and his love in rituals and music.

 

In contrast to the society near the end of the Spring and Autumn period, when people exerted strength for their own advantage, lords used the rules of propriety to constraint and secure their hierarchy, dukes built walls and cities to guard their properties, and those unable to comply were removed from positions, Confucius visualized his perfect world as a moral community where individuals follow public order to realize a common good. He especially adored the world under the three dynasties, Xia, Shang, and Zhou, when the Way was pursued. Back then, sincere men of talents, virtue, and ability were chosen as rulers. Men didn’t love their parents and children only. The young, the grown, and the old were all taken care of. People showed kindness and compassion to the weak and the disabled. Males had their proper work and females had their homes. People worked for common advantage. Robbers, traitors, and men of crimes were gone from existence. Confucius based his vision of a perfect world on high moral codes of people and credit and goodwill between people. It is a world full of “Good” people, people who are humane, people “who would carry out the five ––– respect, liberality, trustworthiness, earnestness, and kindness ––– everywhere under Heaven” (Analects 17:6). It is a world full of noble persons.

 

Confucius’ Way for a perfect society can be summarized into “loyalty and reciprocity” (Analects 4:15). He believed that “a human being can enlarge the Way, but the Way cannot enlarge a human being;” therefore, throughout his words, he portrayed a noble person (君子) who possesses the qualities ––– humaneness (仁), filial devotion (孝), virtue (德), and righteousness (義) ––– required to bring society back to harmony. “The noble person is inclusive, not exclusive” (Analects 2:14). “The noble person is concerned with rightness” (Analects 4:16). He was convinced that through the proper transformation of oneself to a noble person, society will be harmonious. 

 

In regard to how one should govern, Confucius conveyed the importance of virtue: “One who governs through virtue may be compared to the polestar, which occupies its place while the host of other stars pay homage to it” (Analects 2:1); “Lead them through moral force and keep order among them through rites, and they will have a sense of shame and will also correct themselves” (Analects 2:3). Furthermore, Confucius emphasized the how king’s attitude towards governing can have a benevolent impact on the society if it was accompanied by personal virtue: “If you, sir, want goodness, the people will be good. The virtue of the noble person is like the wind, and the virtue of small people is like grass. When the wind blows over the grass, the grass must bend” (Analects 12:19). This also explained Confucius’ attempt of talking the kings around the Four Seas into utilizing Confucianism to rule the country; he believed that if “the uprights are raised up and put over the crooked, they are able to cause the crooked to become upright” (Analects 12:22) and thus, bring peace and rightness to the world.

 

“Filial and fraternal,” Confucius maintained, “is the root of humaneness” (Analects 1:2). Confucius expressed his emphasis on hierarchical society in accordance to how one should treat his/her parents: “When one’s parents are alive, one serves them in accordance with the rites; when they are dead, one buries them in accordance with the rites and sacrifices to them in accordance with the rites” (Analects 2:5); “If for three years one does not alter the ways of one’s father, one may be called filial” (Analects 4:20). He also made clear how treating parents should be very different than treating others: “A young man is to be filial within his family and respectful outside it. He is to be earnest and faithful, overflowing in his love for living beings and intimate with those who are humane” (Analects 1:6).

 

While Confucianism concerned with the qualities of family and society, Daoism envisioned a Way that constituted the source of all being. Laozi, the founder of Daoism, was a Chinese philosopher of the late Spring and Autumn period. Just like Confucius, Laozi wanted to free the world from the chaotic insurgencies and wars. The perfect society he pictured was, however, very different from that depicted by Confucius: “Let the state be small and the people be few,” he said, “let the people not travel far. Let the people return once more to the use of knotted ropes. Though neighboring states are within sight of one another, and the sound of cocks and dogs is audible from one to the other, people will reach old age and death and yet not visit one another” (Daodejing 80). People in his ideal society lives with simple, plain, and natural lifestyle; countries peacefully coexist without war and conflicts.

 

Hence, what Laozi wanted to free the world from were desires. He was convinced that desire was the source of all evil. If people didn’t desire, there wouldn’t be envies for power and wars induced by seizures of land; therefore, throughout Daodejing, Laozi based his theory on “doing nothing” (無為). He believed that only when the natural way was not interfered with, harmony and peace were achieved. The ideal ruler, or “the sage,” he envisioned “accomplishes things by doing nothing” (Daodejing 2), because “the Way is empty” (Daodejing 4) and “constant: by doing nothing, nothing is left undone” (Daodejing 37). For people to not desire, comparative standards and artificial values attached to all beings must be eliminated: “When everyone in the world knows beauty as beauty, ugliness appears. When everyone knows good as good, not-good arrives. Therefore being and non-being give birth to one another” (Daodejing 2). Only “through not desiring one becomes tranquil, and the empire, of itself, becomes settled” (Daodejing 37). 

 

To desire means to break the natural balance between pairs of all beings, such as the balance of yin and yang; therefore, when the sage is governing his people, he “empties their minds, fills their bellies, weakens their ambitions, strengthen their bones. He always causes the people to be without knowledge, without desire” (Daodejing 3). “Do not exalt the worthy,” Laozi warned, “and the people will not compete. Do not value goods that are hard to come by, and the people will not steal”  (Daodejing 3). “The Way of Heaven is to bring benefit and not to harm. The Way of the sage is to do things without contending” (Daodejing 81); “thus the sage rejects the excessive, the extravagant, the extreme” (Daodejing 29). Instead of the gain brought by certain actions, Laozi acknowledged the loss that always accompanies the gain. Unable to be sure that the loss will not cause suffering, he concluded that it was best to do nothing.

 

To learn is to desire for knowledge. While Confucius valued learning as the only way for one to reflect and to think, “to learn without thinking is unavailing; to think without learning is dangerous” (Analects 2:15), Laozi reckoned otherwise. The people were best to be kept ignorant: “The people become difficult to govern as their knowledge increases” (Daodejing 65). He believed that “devotion to learning means increasing day by day, devotion to the Way means decreasing day by day. Decreasing, and decreasing still more, one arrives at doing nothing.” (Daodejing 48). If all people were ignorant, one would not utilize knowledge to outsmart and deceive others; hence, by doing nothing, peace and stability could be achieved. 

 

The divergence of the two worlds continued. Confucius valued ritual and humaneness as the fundamental factors to bring harmony and urged that rulers shall display rituals and kindness whenever they could. He said, “If one can govern a state through rites and yielding, what difficulty is there in this? If one cannot govern through rites and yielding, of what use are the rites?” (Analects 4:13). Laozi did not seem to buy this. Laozi figured, “One of superior humaneness does things, but has no motive for doing them; therefore after the Way was lost there was virtue, after virtue was lost there was humaneness, after humaneness was lost there was rightness, and after rightness was lost there was ritual propriety. Now ritual is the wearing thin of fidelity and trustworthiness and the beginning of chaos” (Daodejing 38). One who apprehended the empty Way and possessed virtue and humaneness had no need to explicitly express them through rituals; performance of rituals was done by those who didn’t possess these qualities yet are eager to demonstrate they did. Therefore, when the world abandoned the natural way and abided by the rituals invented by men, virtue and humaneness were lost.

 

In terms of Confucius’ emphasis on rituals and ceremonies, Mozi, a Chinese philosopher of the Warring States period, felt similarly to Laozi. Mozi was a man of science. Instead of putting family and personal cultivations as priorities like Confucius, he promoted what he considered the most efficient for the good of the state, eliminating all forms of activity that do not contribute to the feeding, clothing, and housing of the people. In Mozi’s ideal society, the government honors the worthy (尚賢) and employs the capable. He believed “when the state is well ordered, the laws and punishments will be justly administered, and when the treasury is full, the people will be well off” (Mozi 9). Similar but different to what Confucius had wished for ––– governors with sincere, humane personal qualities ––– Mozi asked for men with ability and capability. In great contrast to Confucianism, Mozi asserted that there should be universal love (兼愛) and mutual benefit. “Partiality should be replaced by universality,” he said, “it is partiality with one another that gives rise to all the great harms in the world” (Mozi 16). If sons were to regard the parents of others as they regard their own, if kings were to regard the states of others as they regard their own, men would not induce any harm on others, because it would be like harming their own. Confucius thought otherwise. He believed that there should be a difference between treating one’s own parents and treating others: kindness and humaneness are shown to all, but above that, filial piety and sacrifice to one’s parents, because one’s every hair and bit of skin are received from them; therefore, one should exert all strength to serve one’s parents in return.

 

There should also be a clear and strict “recognition of an ever-ascending hierarchy of command”(尚同), where at the top of the hierarchy was “the most worthy and able man in the world selected and set up as the Son of Heaven” (Mozi 11). Mozi reckoned that “chaos came about because of the absence of rulers and leaders,” and “the world was well ordered because the Son of Heaven was able to unify the standards of judgment throughout the world.” To justify his hierarchy of command, Mozi introduced the Will of Heaven (天志). He pointed out that “the gentlemen of the world have no difficulty in perceiving that the Son of Heaven decides what is right for the three high ministers, the feudal lords, the gentlemen, and the common people. But the people of the world are unable to perceive that Heaven decides what is right for the Son of Heaven” (Mozi 26). With Heaven desiring that “among men those who have strength will work for others, those who understand the Way will teach others, and those who possess wealth will share it with others” (Mozi 27), people should comply with the desires of Heaven to achieve harmony. If this is to be put in other words, Mozi advanced the idea of uniformity of thought, implementing an elaborate form of thought control, if necessary, to achieve social order. Confucius was in favor of a hierarchical society, and he furthered this concept to include family relations, particularly in his emphasis on children’s filial devotion to their parents; however, he welcomed the freedom of thought, as it aided self-reflection and personal transformation.

 

Though maintaining that the Will of Heaven must be satisfied, Mozi did not believe in fate. He criticized Confucius’ saying of “the noble person has three objects of awe: he is in awe of the ordinances of Heaven; he is in awe of the great man; and he is in awe of the words of the sage” (Analects 16:8), explaining that this will lead to officials lazing in their duties and people neglecting their tasks. In terms of Confucian rituals and music, that “the noble person, throughout the period of mourning, derives no pleasure from the food that he eats, no joy from the music that he hears, and no comfort from his dwelling” (Analects 17:21), Mozi condemned further. He claimed that “the Confucians corrupt men with their elaborate and showy rites and music and deceive parents with lengthy mournings and hypocritical grief. They propound fatalism, ignore poverty, and behave with the greatest arrogance” (Mozi 39). He characterized the Confucians as pretentious with high pride, that the extravagant ceremonies and the rituals and music were fundamentally unnecessary to satisfying the basic material needs of people and to achieving the social goals and were simply a waste of time and effort.

 

Through examining the modern history of the last 200 years, one can conclude that neither of the three ideal worlds proposed by Confucius, Laozi, and Mozi was realized. In fact, the authoritarian state pictured by Mozi mimics the world portrayed in 1984, by George Orwell, that was once feared by the world to ever come true. Indeed, there are ideas throughout the three that are overly ideal and impractical if one considers from hindsight: The Way of Laozi, to do nothing, to not desire, and to not learn, is unfeasible if human pursues technological advances at the same time, one may even consider that the Way goes against the competitive nature of human; the ideas of rituals, music, and humaneness from Confucius may be achievable, and indeed achieved, in a feudal-monarch society but lost in the materialistic, meritocratic, and fast-paced modern lifestyle with people drifting further apart from each other; the universal love from Mozi is simply unrealistic even in ancient China, proven by the ruthless replacements of dynasties that cost millions of lives. 

 

Nevertheless, this does not indicate that their philosophies aren’t constructive. An ideal modern world that seems achievable is a merge and compromise between Confucius’ and Mozi’s philosophy. In such a world, “one should abide in loyalty and trustworthiness and should have no friends who are not his equal. If one has faults, one should not be afraid to change” (Analects 1:8). “In private life, courtesy; in the conduct of affairs, reverence; in relations with others, loyalty” (Analects 13:19). One shall be responsible for one’s words, be loyal to one’s friends and family, and be proud to embrace one’s mistake. “If the superior commits any fault, his subordinates shall remonstrate with him; if his subordinates do good, the superior shall recommend them” (Mozi 11). One shall admit what is right to be right, what is wrong to be wrong, what is worthy to be laudable, and what is unacceptable to be shameful, for it is believing in the rightness of one’s work that defines one’s principle. Let there be freedom of thought, of speech, and of difference, for it is diversity that differentiates one from another. Officials “shows no special consideration for their own kin, no partiality for the eminent and rich, no favoritism for the good-looking and attractive” (Mozi 9) but approval for the kind and innocent, guidance for the determined and reflective, and pity for the corrupt and illicit. One shall “respond to injury with uprightness and to virtue with virtue” (Analects 14:36). Let there be sympathy in replacement of universal love. One shall only be compassionate of the surroundings if one has fulfilled their responsibilities as an offspring, a parent, and a colleague. Let there be an emphasis on “how” and not “what” in fulfilling these responsibilities, so one can take pride and duty as a comrade in realizing the common good.

​

​

​

​

​

 

Bibliography

 

Analects: de Bary, William Theodore, et al. “Confucius and the Analects.” Sources of Chinese Tradition, 2nd ed., vol. 1, Columbia University Press, 1999, pp. 44–63.

 

Daodejing: de Bary, William Theodore, et al. “The Way of Laozi and Zhuangzi.” Sources of Chinese Tradition, 2nd ed., vol. 1, Columbia University Press, 1999, pp. 77–94.

 

Mozi: de Bary, William Theodore, et al. “Mozi: Utility, Uniformity, and Universal Love.” Sources of Chinese Tradition, 2nd ed., vol. 1, Columbia University Press, 1999, pp. 65–76.