Why is loving a thief not the same as loving all men for the Mohists?

Asian Philosophy 28 (3):215-223 (2018)
Authors
Chaehyun Chong
Sogang University
Abstract
ABSTRACTThe purpose of this article is to explain the Mohists’ perceived inconsistences of the following three propositions in the Mojing since we attribute to them an unconditional love toward human beings: A thief is a man. Killing a thief is not killing men. A thief is a man. Loving a thief is not loving men. Zang is a man. Loving Zang is loving men. The attribution of unconditional love toward human beings is not unusual to the Mohists when we render the Mohist idea of jian’ai as universal love. My interpretation first suggests that we can consistently interpret the Mohist ethical position as intentional utilitarianism. Second, I claim that Mohist universal love includes some generality, though it does not have to mean universality without exception. This Mohist generality will be explained through the generic use of nouns.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/09552367.2018.1467364
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 34,425
External links

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

Mohist Care.Dan Robins - 2012 - Philosophy East and West 62 (1):60-91.
Mencius.D. C. Lau - 1972 - Philosophy East and West 22 (1):113-114.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

On a Paradox of Christian Love.Qingping Liu - 2007 - Journal of Religious Ethics 35 (4):681-694.
Aquinas's Unsuccessful Theodicy.Eric Roark - 2006 - Philosophy and Theology 18 (2):247-256.
Does Loving Every Mean Loving Every Every, Even Non-Existent Ones?Laurent Cesalli - 2012 - In Mora-Márquez Ana María, Fink Jakob Leth & Hansen Heine (eds.), Logic and Language in the Middle Ages. Brill. pp. 305--336.
Aquinas’s Unsuccessful Theodicy.Eric Roark - 2006 - Philosophy and Theology 18 (2):247-256.
Loving Near—Loving Far.Ellen T. Charry - 2012 - Augustinian Studies 43 (1-2):89-107.
Loving My Neighbour, Loving Myself.Oswald Hanfling - 1993 - Philosophy 68 (264):145 - 157.
Loving Near—Loving Far.Ellen T. Charry - 2012 - Augustinian Studies 43 (1-2):89-107.
Mindfulness and Loving-Kindness.Sharon Salzberg - 2011 - Contemporary Buddhism 12 (1):177--182.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-06-14

Total downloads
10 ( #504,868 of 2,267,161 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
10 ( #38,025 of 2,267,161 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature