, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 199–214 | Cite as

Assessment of Li 利 in the Mencius and the Mozi

  • Wai Wai Chiu


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.


Mozi Mencius Ethics Benefit 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Chen, Ying 陳瑛, ed. 2002. History of Chinese Ethical Thought 中國倫理思想史. Changsha 長沙: Hu’nan Jiaoyu Chubanshe 湖南教育出版社.Google Scholar
  2. Cua, Antonio S. 2002. “Xin and Moral Failure: Notes on an Aspect of Mencius Moral Psychology.” In Mencius: Contexts and Interpretations, edited by Alan K. L. Chan. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
  3. Defoort, Carine. 2008. “The Profit That Does Not Profit.” Asia Major 21.1: 153–181.Google Scholar
  4. Duda, Kristopher. 2001. “Reconsidering Mo Tzu on the Foundations of Morality.” Asian Philosophy 11.1: 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Feng, Youlan. 1952. A History of Chinese Philosophy, vol. 1. Trans. by Derk Bodde. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fraser, Chris. 2008. “Moism and Self-Interest.” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 35.3: 437–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ____. 2010. “Mohism.” In The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 ed.), edited by Edward N. Zalta. <>
  8. Graham, Angus C. 1989. Disputers of the Tao. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  9. Guwenzi Gulin Bianzuan Weiyuanhui 古文字詁林編纂委員會. 2003. Explanatory Dictionary of Ancient Chinese Characters 古文字詁林, vol. 6. Shanghai 上海: Shanghai Jiaoyu Chubanshe 上海教育出版社.Google Scholar
  10. Hansen, Chad. 1992. A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Huang, Chun-chieh. 2010. “East Asian Conceptions of the Public and Private Realms.” In Taking Confucian Ethics Seriously, edited by Kam-Por Yu, Julia Tao, and Philip J. Ivanhoe. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  12. Im, Manyul. 2011. “Mencius as Consequentialist.” In Ethics in Early China: An Anthology, edited by Chris Fraser, Dan Robins, and Timothy O’Leary. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Johnston, Ian, trans. 2010. The Mozi: A Complete Translation. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Karlgren, Bernhard. 1972. Grammata Serica Recensa. Stockholm: Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities.Google Scholar
  15. Lai, Whalen. 1993. “The Public Good That Does the Public Good: A New Reading of Mohism.” Asian Philosophy 3.2: 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lau, D. C., trans. 1979. Confucius: The Analects. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  17. ____, trans. 2003. Mencius. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lao, Siguang 勞思光. 2002. History of Chinese Philosophy 新編中國哲學史, vol. 1. Taipei 台北: Sanmin Shuju 三民書局.Google Scholar
  19. Legge, James, trans. 1960. The Chinese Classics, vol. IV, The She King. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Li, Minghui 李明輝. 1990. Confucianism and Kant 儒家與康德. Taipei 台北: Lianjing 聯經.Google Scholar
  21. Lu, Xiufen. 2006. “Understanding Mozi’s Foundations of Morality: A Comparative Perspective.” Asian Philosophy 16.2: 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Radice, Thomas. 2011. “Manufacturing Mohism in the Mencius.” Asian Philosophy 21.2: 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Robins, Dan. 2012. “Mohist Care.” Philosophy East and West 62.1: 60–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schwartz, Benjamin I. 1985. The World of Thought in Ancient China. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Van Norden, Bryan W. 2007. Virtue Ethics and Consequentialism in Early Chinese Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ____, trans. 2008. Mengzi: With Selections from Traditional Commentaries. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  27. Wang, Weihe 黃偉合, and Zhao Haiqi 趙海琦. 1992. Conflict of the Good: Distinction between Rightness and Benefit in Chinese History 善的衝突:中國歷史上的義利之辨. Hefei 合肥: Anhui Renmin Chubanshe 安徽人民出版社.Google Scholar
  28. Wang, Yunping. 2005. “Are Early Confucians Consequentialists?” Asian Philosophy 15.1: 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang, Zhao 黃釗 et al. 2000. The Culture of Chinese Morality 中國道德文化. Wuhan 武漢: Hubei Renmin Chubanshe 湖北人民出版社.Google Scholar
  30. Yuan, Baoxin 袁保新. 1992. Historical Introspection and New Interpretation of the Three Distinction Doctrines in the Mencius 孟子三辨之學的歷史省察與現代詮釋. Taipei 台北: Wenjin Chubanshe 文津出版社.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyLingnan UniversityTuen MunHong Kong

Personalised recommendations