Utilitarianism and the Westernization of Modern Mohist Studies

Tao Nie,Manyi Wu

doi:10.1163/23521341-12340106

Abstract

Abstract The term “utilitarianism” in English translates into Chinese as gongli zhuyi. When Liang Qichao and Hu Shi first imported the concept of utilitarianism into the study of Mohist thought, the term was initially translated as shili zhuyi or leli zhuyi. The use of gongli zhuyi in Mohist studies was established only through the efforts of Yan Fu and Wu Yu to break down the negative connotations of gongli in traditional Chinese culture and through the systematic research and scholarly influence of Feng Youlan. The study of Mohist thought within the framework of utilitarianism as gongli zhuyi is now common practice throughout academia with few scholars objecting to the use of this term.

Highlights

In the hundred years before and after Hu Shi’s 胡適 [1891–1962] call from the pulpit of the New Culture movement to understand the issues of the times, incorporate Western ideas, systematically reorganize China’s past, and recreate Chinese civilization, the study of pre-Qin [before 221 BCE] thinkers has, under the battle cry of “importing Western theories to achieve democracy,” become a via free access fertile breeding ground for the proliferation of Western philosophical concepts in China
When Liang Qichao and Hu Shi first imported the concept of utilitarianism into the study of Mohist thought, the term was initially translated as shili zhuyi or leli zhuyi
The Mohist theories on the origins of the state and society were utilitarian in their nature.”55. In his explication of Mohist understanding of li in A Comparative Study of Life Ideals, Feng built on the work on the shili utilitarianism and leli utilitarianism in Mohist thought by Liang Qichao and Hu Shi, while following the gongli utilitarian turn that emerged in China around the time of the New Culture movement

Summary

A Matter of Benefit

In an article titled “Is Mozi a Utilitarian Philosopher? The Significance of Mohist Ethical Thought in a Modern Context,” Hao Changchi 郝長墀 once expressed the hope that he could free Mohist studies from the concept of utilitarianism, to which it had been attached by the likes of Feng Youlan 馮友蘭 [1895–1990] and Li Zehou 李澤厚 [1930–2021] to give back to Mozi his true voice. Even before the work of Feng Youlan and Li Zehou, the concept of utilitarianism had permeated Mozi studies. These two concepts, like the two wheels of a chariot or the two wings of a bird, are the central driving force for the entire Mohist doctrine.” That is, as far as Liang was concerned, in Mohist thought, the metaphysical benefits characterized by religion were in contrast to the material benefits characterized by shili utilitarianism. This is because over four years before Liang’s publication of A Record of Mozi and His Teaching, Hu Shi’s Outline of the History of Chinese Philosophy [Zhongguo zhexue shi dagang 中國哲學史大綱] – which was basically an expansion of his PhD dissertation – was already in wide circulation throughout China In his outline, Hu Shi divided the section on Mohist thought into two chapters, “Mozi” and “Neo-Mohism [Bie Mo 別墨],” and it was in this second chapter that, in his hands, leli utilitarianism formed one of the central tenets of neo-Mohism. (Shanghai: Sanlian shudian, 1984), 1:77. 19 Liu Bannong 劉半農, “Shili zhuyi yu zhiye jiaoyu 實利主義與職業教育 [Utilitarianism and Vocational Education],” in Laoshi shuole: Liu Bannong suibi 老實說了: 劉半農隨筆 [Honestly Speaking: Informal Essays by Liu Bannong] (Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, 2010)

A Humanist Approach

Differences in the Chinese and Western Understanding of Gongli and “Utility”

Conclusion