David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Asian Philosophy 11 (1):23 – 31 (2001)
Dennis Ahern and David Soles raise substantial problems for the conventional interpretation of Mo Tzu as a utilitarian. Although they defend different interpretations, both scholars agree that Mo Tzu is committed to a divine command theory in some form, citing the same key passages where, supposedly, Mo Tzu explicitly endorses the divine command theory. In this paper, I defend the orthodox interpretation, insisting that Mo Tzu is a utilitarian. I show that the passages cited by Ahern and Soles do not explicitly endorse the divine command theory and are compatible with the utilitarian interpretation; in fact, I argue that many of these passages must be understood in light of a utilitarian interpretation if they are to be rendered intelligible at all. After showing that motivation for the divine command interpretation is lacking, I argue that the only satisfactory alternative is to understand Mo Tzu as a consistent utilitarian.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Thomas Radice (2011). Manufacturing Mohism in the Mencius. Asian Philosophy 21 (2):139 - 152.
Hui-Chieh Loy (2011). The Word and the Way in Mozi. Philosophy Compass 6 (10):652-662.
Similar books and articles
Cecilia Wee (2007). Hsun Tzu on Family and Familial Relations. Asian Philosophy 17 (2):127 – 139.
Robert Audi (2007). Divine Command Morality and the Autonomy of Ethics. Faith and Philosophy 24 (2):121-143.
Charles Wei-hsun Fu (1973). Lao Tzu's Conception of Tao. Inquiry 16 (1-4):367 – 394.
Simin Rahimi (2008). Divine Command and Ethical Duty: A Critique of the Scriptural Argument. Journal of Islamic Philosophy 4:77-108.
Kwong-Loi Shun (1991). Mencius and the Mind-Inherence of Morality: Mencius' Rejection of Kao Tzu's Maxim in Meng Tzu 2a:2 1: I. Kao Tzu's Maxim. [REVIEW] Journal of Chinese Philosophy 18 (4):371-386.
Irving Goh (2011). Chuang Tzu's Becoming-Animal. Philosophy East and West 61 (1):110-133.
David E. Soles (1999). Mo Tzu and the Foundations of Morality. Journal of Chinese Philosophy 26 (1):37-48.
Xiufen Lu (2006). Understanding Mozi's Foundations of Morality: A Comparative Perspective. Asian Philosophy 16 (2):123-134.
Dennis M. Ahern (1976). Is Mo Tzu a Utilitarian? Journal of Chinese Philosophy 3 (2):185-193.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #96,066 of 1,096,265 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #41,639 of 1,096,265 )
How can I increase my downloads?