Against Offensive War

S uppose a man slips into someone's orchard and steals the peaches and plums. Everyone who hears of it condemns him, and the authorities, if they catch him, punish him. Why? Because he harmed another to benefit himself. Now take the man who steals a neighbor's dogs and pigs and chickens. His wrong is greater than the orchard thief's. Why greater? Because he harmed someone more; the more he takes, the crueler the act, the heavier the crime. Now suppose there is a man who enters another's orchard and garden and steals his peaches and plums. The crowd, hearing of it, condemns him, and those above who govern, if they catch him, punish him. Why is this? Because he harmed another to benefit himself. As for one who takes another's dogs, pigs, chickens, and piglets, his unrighteousness is again greater than entering another's orchard to steal peaches and plums. What is the reason? Because he harms another the more; and the more he harms another, the more inhumane it is, and the heavier the crime.

Go further. The man who breaks into a stable and takes the horses and oxen has done a worse wrong than the one who took the dogs and pigs. Why? Because he harmed someone more still. And the man who kills an innocent person, strips the clothes off his back, and carries away his dagger and sword — his wrong is greater than all of them, because the harm is greatest of all. Every gentleman in the world knows to condemn these acts and calls them wrong. But when it comes to the greatest wrong of all — attacking another country — they do not condemn it. They fall in line and praise it, and call it right. As for one who breaks into a stable and seizes another's horses and oxen, his inhumanity and unrighteousness are again greater than taking another's dogs, pigs, chickens, and piglets. What is the reason? Because he harms another the more. And as for one who kills an innocent man, strips off his robe and furs, and takes his dagger-axe and sword, his unrighteousness is again greater than breaking into a stable and seizing another's horses and oxen. What is the reason? Because he harms another the more; and the more he harms another, the more inhumane it is, and the heavier the crime. In this case, all the gentlemen of the world know to condemn it and call it unrighteous. But now, when it comes to the great matter of attacking a state, they do not know to condemn it; they go along and praise it, and call it right.

Kill one man and they call it a crime, and there is a death sentence for it. By that reasoning, to kill ten men is ten times the crime, and to kill a hundred is a hundred times the crime. Every gentleman in the world knows to condemn that and calls it wrong. But the greatest wrong of all — attacking a country — they do not condemn. They fall in line and praise it and call it right. They genuinely cannot see that it is wrong; that is why they write down their praise of it to hand on to later generations. If they knew it was wrong, why would they record their own wrongdoing to pass down to those who come after? To kill one man is called unrighteous, and there must surely be one death-penalty for it. If one reasons this out, then to kill ten men is ten times the unrighteousness, and there must surely be ten death-penalties for it; to kill a hundred men is a hundred times the unrighteousness, and there must surely be a hundred death-penalties for it. In this case, all the gentlemen of the world know to condemn it and call it unrighteous. But now, when it comes to the great unrighteousness of attacking a state, they do not know to condemn it; they go along and praise it, and call it right. Truly they do not know it is unrighteous, and so they write down their words to leave to later ages. Were they to know it was unrighteous, what reason would there be to write down their unrighteousness and leave it to later ages?

“Kill one man and they call it a crime, and there is a death sentence for it. By that reasoning, to kill ten men is ten times the crime, and to kill a hundred is a hundred times the crime.”

Picture a man who, shown a little black, calls it black, but shown a great deal of black, calls it white. You would say he cannot tell black from white. Or a man who tastes a little bitterness and calls it bitter, but tastes a great deal of bitterness and calls it sweet. You would say he cannot tell bitter from sweet. This is exactly how people reason about wrong. A small wrong they recognize and condemn. A great wrong — attacking a country — they do not recognize as wrong at all; they fall in line and praise it and call it right. So you can see that the gentlemen of the world have their right and their wrong completely confused. Now suppose there is a man here who, seeing a little black, calls it black, but seeing much black, calls it white — then we would take this man as not knowing the distinction between white and black. One who, tasting a little bitterness, calls it bitter, but tasting much bitterness, calls it sweet — we would surely take this man as not knowing the distinction between sweet and bitter. Now when a small wrong is done, people know to condemn it; but when the great wrong of attacking a state is done, they do not know to condemn it — they go along and praise it, and call it right. Can this be called knowing the distinction between the right and the unrighteous? By this we know that the gentlemen of the world are in confusion as to the distinction between the right and the unrighteous.

Turn to the actual cost of a war. An army cannot move in winter — too cold — nor in summer — too hot. So it goes out in spring or autumn. March in spring and you pull the farmers off the sowing and planting. March in autumn and you pull them off the harvest. Lose even a single season and the common people go hungry and cold, and countless of them die of it. So why do rulers still do it? Their answer: I want the fame of the victor and the spoils that come with winning. That is why I do it. Now when the army is raised — in winter the marching is feared for the cold, in summer the marching is feared for the heat — so it can be done in neither winter nor summer. In spring it takes the people from their plowing, sowing, and planting; in autumn it takes them from their reaping and gathering. If they lose even a single season, then the people go hungry and cold, and those who die of it cannot be counted. So why is it done? The answer is: I covet the fame of conquest and the gains to be had from it; that is why I do it.

So tally it honestly. Reckon up the bamboo arrows and feathered banners, the tents, the armor and shields, that go out with the army and are smashed, rotted, and never come back — past counting. Reckon up the spears and halberds, the dagger-axes and swords and war-chariots, that go out and are splintered and worn to nothing and never come back — past counting. Reckon up the oxen and horses that go out fat and come back lean, or go out and die and never come back at all — past counting. And on the long roads, with the rations running out and never resupplied, the ordinary people who die — past counting. The bamboo arrows, feathered banners, tents and curtains, armor, shields, and shield-handles that go forth and are worn out and broken and do not return cannot be counted. The spears, halberds, dagger-axes, swords, and chariots that go forth and are splintered, worn out, and broken and do not return cannot be counted. The oxen and horses that go forth fat and come back lean, or that go forth and die and do not return, cannot be counted. And with the roads long and far, the provisions cut off and not resupplied, the common people who die cannot be counted.

And the side that wins? Add up what it actually gains, and it comes to less than what it lost. The most warlike states of our day — Qi, Jin, Chu, Yue — even if you multiplied their people tenfold they could not work all the land they already hold. They are short of people and have land to spare. Yet they wreck their people fighting over more land. This is to drain away the thing you lack and pile up the thing you already have too much of. There is no benefit in it for anyone. Calculate what is gained, and it turns out to be not as much as what is lost. The most war-loving states in the world today are Qi, Jin, Chu, and Yue. Even if the people of these states were increased tenfold, they still could not work all of their land. This is to be short of people while having land to spare. Yet now, for the sake of contending over land, they harm one another. This is to drain away what is insufficient and to double what is already in surplus.

Someone may object: but Mozi, you say attack is wrong and brings no benefit — then how do you explain the great kings? Yu marched against the Miao, Tang overthrew the tyrant Jie, King Wu overthrew the tyrant Zhou, and all three are honored as sages. How do you square that? Mozi answered: you have not looked carefully at the kind of thing I am talking about, and you do not understand the reason for it. What those kings did is not what I call attack. It is what I call punishment. Now the rulers who love attack and assault again dress up their argument to refute Mozi, saying: Do you take attack and assault to be unrighteous and without benefit? But of old Yu made war on the Miao, Tang overthrew Jie, and King Wu overthrew Zhou — and all of these were established as sage-kings. What is the reason for this? Mozi said: You have not examined the category of my words, and you do not understand the reason behind them. What they did is not what is called attack; it is what is called punishment.

The difference, Mozi held, is everything. The Miao were in chaos and Heaven had marked them for destruction; the tyrant Jie had thrown the realm into ruin and Heaven had withdrawn its trust from him; the tyrant Zhou was so cruel that Heaven decreed his fall. In each case a sage acted on Heaven's own mandate, to remove a ruler the world could no longer bear — and Heaven rewarded them, the people praised them, and their names last to this day. That is punishment, carried out for the people against a tyrant. It is not one state falling on an innocent neighbor to seize what is his. Look at the three sage-kings that way, Mozi said, and what they did is not attack at all; it is punishment. Anciently the three Miao were in great disorder, and Heaven ordered their destruction... Having conquered the Miao, Yu set apart the hills and rivers, ordered things high and low, and neither spirits nor people rebelled, and the world was at peace; this was why Yu made war on the Miao. When it came to Jie of Xia, Heaven sent down a stern decree... and so Tang led his host and punished him; this was why Tang punished Jie. When it came to Zhou of Shang, his conduct was not acceptable to Heaven... and so King Wu attacked him; this was why King Wu punished Zhou. Looking at these three sage-kings, then, what they did is not what is called attack; it is what is called punishment.

And if a ruler truly wants a name in the world, let him earn it by justice, not by war. When a great state acts unjustly, grieve with the wronged. When a great state attacks a small one, go to the rescue. When a small state's walls lie broken, help rebuild them; when its cloth and grain run out, send your own; when its money falls short, share what you have. Befriend the small states this way and their rulers will be glad of you. Let others wear themselves out while you stay at ease, and your own arms grow stronger. Trade aggression for good government at home, and the gains multiply many times over. If the rulers and gentlemen of the world genuinely want to bring benefit to the world and drive out what harms it, then this endless making of war is the world's single greatest harm — and the case against offensive war is the one thing they cannot afford to leave unexamined. If there were one who could establish a righteous name in the world and draw the feudal lords to him by virtue, the submission of the whole world to him could be awaited while standing. When some great state acts unrighteously, he joins in grieving over it; when a great state attacks a small one, he joins in the rescue; when the small state's walls are not whole, he has them repaired; when its cloth and grain are exhausted, he supplies them; when its money and silk fall short, he shares his own. To befriend the great states in this way, the great state is pleased; with others toiling and oneself at ease, one's armor and weapons grow strong. Therefore Mozi said: If the rulers, gentlemen, and officers of the world sincerely wish to raise up the world's benefit and remove the world's harm, then this constant waging of attack and assault is truly the world's greatest harm. If they wish to do humaneness and righteousness, this doctrine of condemning offensive war must not be left unexamined.

非攻 The original Chinese · honored as an artifact

今有一人，入人園圃，竊其桃李，眾聞則非之，上為政者得則罰之。

Opening lines, classical Chinese · The Mozi 墨子