以言止戰: 墨子及其後學的三種辯論策略

Abstract

The Mozi presents at least three distinct arguments against offensive warfare. The "moral argument" holds that offensive warfare is morally wrong. The "economic argument" maintains that the foreseeable costs of a military campaign inevitably outweigh its potential benefits. The "religious argument" warns that military aggression runs counter to the interests of Heaven. Drawing extensively on translated passages from the original text, this paper examines these three lines of argumentation. It considers what each argument entails, the audiences to which it may have been addressed, and its persuasiveness from a modern academic perspective. The paper shows not only how Mozi and his followers theorized about offensive warfare, but also how, at least according to anecdotes preserved in the latter part of the received Mozi, they put these arguments into practice. Ultimately, it argues that the Mohists actively adapted their argumentative strategies in their search for the most effective words with which to bring wars to an end.