Anti-Mohism in the New York Times

The very title of Stephen Asma's piece, "The Myth of Universal Love," has a particular connotation for students of ancient Chinese philosophy: it prepares us for a discussion of Mozi, inspiration for the Mohist school of thought, who emphasizes the notion of jianai - 兼愛 - which is often translated as "universal love," but might better be understood as "impartial care" or "inclusive care."  Indeed, most of the points made in Asma's piece resonate with the classic debate between Mohists and Confucians on whether we can and should extend our good will to all people equally.  But, alas, there is no reference to these foundational exchanges in the Asma article. He, like so many philosophers, draws only on Western sources to make his points.  And the piece is rather impoverished as a result.

Asma is, essentially, but without reference, a Confucian when he argues:

All people are not equally entitled to my time, affection, resources or moral duties — and only conjectural assumption can make them appear so. (For many of us, family members are more entitled than friends, and friends more entitled than acquaintances, and acquaintances more than strangers, and so on.) It seems dubious to say that we should transcend tribe and be utilitarian because all people are equal, when the equal status of strangers and kin is an unproven and counterintuitive assumption.

This is pretty much the point Mencius makes against the Mohists in 3A.5.  A Mohist says to him that we should "love without distinctions (之則以為愛無差等), to which Mencius replies with a rhetorical question:

Does Master Yi [the Mohist] believe that a man's affection for his brother's child is just like his affection for a child of a neighbor? (Bloom)

夫夷子，信以為人之親其兄之子為若親其鄰之赤子乎? (China Text Project)

The answer, for Menicus, is so obvious it does not need to be stated.

Asma's article is helpful in that it draws out the logic and psychology of these arguments more extensively than Mencius and Mozi.  But attention should be paid to these earlier expressions of basically the same ideas.  Interestingly, when Asma shows how Peter Singer's utilitarianism ultimately fails to persuasively demonstrate that loving care can be extended to all people, he is also reminding us of the weaknesses of Mohist thinking, which is also utilitarian. 

If he had made a link to ancient Chinese thought, Asma might also have been able to highlight something notable about Confucius: the way that he recognizes fundamental emotional attachments - such as those between parent and child -  and uses those to build a moral theory.  And it seems that, as Asma suggests, recent science supports this Confucian understanding:

Finally, my case for small-circle care dovetails nicely with the commonly agreed upon crucial ingredient in human happiness, namely, strong social bonds. A recent Niagara of longitudinal happiness studies all confirm that the most important element in a good life (eudaimonia) is close family and friendship ties — ties that bind. These are not digital Facebook friends nor are they needy faraway strangers, but robust proximate relationships that you can count on one or two hands — and these bonds are created and sustained by the very finite resource of emotional care that I’ve outlined. As Graham Greene reminds us, “one can’t love humanity, one can only love people.”

We build our commitments and our moral lives from the inside out, forged from our closest loving relationships and extending outward to the world, but never, perhaps, encompassing the whole world because to make that move would require us to limit the time and attention required to maintain our closest loving relationships: that is what Confucians would argue, at any rate.

Asma includes a nice quote from Cicero: “society and human fellowship will be best served if we confer the most kindness on those with whom we are most closely associated.”  He could have easily mentioned Analects 1.2 (Hinton):

Master Yu said: "It's honoring parents and elders that makes people human.  Then they rarely turn against authority.  And if people don't turn against authority, they never rise up and pitch the country into chaos.

"The noble-minded cultivate roots.  When roots are secure, the Way is born.  To honor parents and elders - isn't that the root of Humanity?"

And I wonder, now that they have run an obviously anti-Mohist piece, if the New York Times will give space to a defender of Mozi in the interest of balanced reporting....

兼愛

Comments

[melektaus]

Singer has made many contributions in the NYTs but I'm not sure he has defended the utilitarian indiference principle there.

[Ngok Ming Cheung]

If you read on the comments to the article, you would have find many disagree with Stephen Asma's position on universal love, some even quoted Mozi. I would agree more with one commenter on this question;

"I prefer Einstein to Asma, Cicero and co. “A human being is a part of the whole, called by us ‘Universe,’ a part limited in time and space… Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security.”

As I see it Confucious is by no means the dominant sage of Chinese philosophy. He would rank below Laozi and Han Feizi. He had a view of past utopia and the Confucian scholar since has essentially frozen his doctrine to stasis.
After all Asma prefer nepotism which you have condemned as unConfucian. Looking at today's global turmoils, aconomic and natural ones, one wonder whether universal love for humanity is needed to solve those related problems if we are to survive as a specie.

[Ngok Ming Cheung]

Whether one is a Christian or a Confucian, one can always find quotes from the Bible or Analect to support their positions even if you are opposed to their philosophies. I find the quoting of sages unenlightening. As for the question of universal love I find that you misread it completely, for Confucius considered loyalty to emperor/state above loyalty to family/filial piety, and they above self love. To Asma we possess limited amount of empathy or love, thus we are like misers counted out coins of love to those close to us and rebut those farther out. This is the philosophy of present age, of individualism, of libertarianism, and of course Tea party. For what is closest to us but our self, self love above all. It consider tax as a burden and any sharing anathema, our jobs more important than global warming, our immediate wants more important than future generation. Very unConfucian if you ask me.

[Sam]

While I agree that simply quoting passages from classics can sometimes devolve into a parlor game, the statement, "...Confucius considered loyalty to emperor/state above loyalty to family/filial piety," is, on the face of it, untenable without some sort of textual support. Can you provide some references to demonstrate how this interpretation is rooted in pre-Qin texts?

[Ngok Ming Cheung]

Although Mencius put love bewteen father and son before justice between ruler and subject, Zhongyong reverse the order. History is full of stories of conflict between filial piety and obligation to law, most resolve the irreconcilable conflict by commiting suicide. Confucians since Han dynasty have put Zhung/loyality over Hsia/filial piety. Myth has Yu who became emperor by engineering water diversion for flood control passing his house but never stopped to see his wife and son put priority of flood control/common good over family and personal interests.

[Sam]

As you likely know, Zhongyoung is generally understood to have been produced in the Han Dynasty, i.e. after Qin, a time when Confucian ideas are being appropriated by the state, and melded into a statecraft that includes Legalism (儒表法里). It is not surprising that then we will find interpretations which try to reverse the sense of the Analects and Mencius for purposes of the state. Thus, I think the characterization that I have "misread it completely" is itself based on an incomplete consideration of the political context of the classics.