How to End Wars with Words: Three Argumentative Strategies by Mozi and his Followers

In Carine Defoort & Nicolas Standaert (eds.), The Mozi as an Evolving Text: Different Voices in Early Chinese Thought. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. pp. 69–94 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The Mozi contains at least three distinct arguments against offensive warfare. The "moral argument" claims that offensive warfare is morally wrong. The "economic argument" calculates that the foreseeable costs of a military campaign inevitably outweigh its possible benefits. The "religious argument" warns that military aggression harms the interests of Heaven. This paper discusses these three lines of argumentation, with extensive reference to the original text in translation. The paper explores what the arguments entail, to whom they may have been addressed, and how persuasive they are from a modern academic perspective. It shows not only how Mozi and his followers theorized about offensive warfare, but also how their arguments were used in practice, at least according to anecdotes in the latter part of the received Mozi. The ultimate goal of this paper is to show how the Mohists actively adapted their argumentative strategies so as to find the best words to end wars.

Author's Profile

Paul van Els
Leiden University

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-07-23

Downloads
193 (#66,591)

6 months
100 (#34,503)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?