“强不执弱,众不劫寡”:墨子秩序理念的内涵及其对当代国际治理的启示
“Not Dominating the Weak by Strength, Not Plundering the Few by Majority”: The Connotation of Mozi’s Order Philosophy and Its Enlightenment for Contemporary International Governance
摘要: 本文旨在讨论墨子在先秦时期的哲学观念内蕴含的精华思想,并将其与现代国际秩序观相联系,识别其共同点,并从墨子哲学思想中探索对当代国际秩序观的启发。其观点核心原则非常明确,为“强不执弱,众不劫寡”。本文认为,墨子的思想并非空想,而是一个建立在“兼爱”、“天志”和“义利合一”的实用哲学。本文采用文献分析与历史材料重构相结合的方法。首先,回顾了春秋战国时期的历史背景,分析“礼崩乐坏”与宗法制的瓦解,从而明确墨子思想产生的历史与制度背景。其次,剖析了“兼爱”、“天志”等核心概念。最后,将墨家与儒家、法家进行对比,进一步说明墨子思想内涵的独特性。研究发现,墨子将社会表现失序归因为“别”,即“有差等的爱”,并提出了具体的解决方案。以“兼爱”为伦理要求、以“天志”为道德要求、以“互利”为导向。在构建秩序方面,墨子主张的“非攻”蕴含了“互不侵犯”的原则,在“尚同”中蕴含了道德机制的建立。以此实现“强不执弱”的理想秩序。墨家思想展现了强烈的平等主义与契约精神。这与维护血缘的儒家和崇尚权力的法家不同。墨子哲学不仅务实地回应了当时的社会危机,更蕴含着长远的智慧。此外,墨子提倡“节用”的思想。这为当代应对资源枯竭提供了启示。这对推动全球可持续发展具有重要的生态伦理意义。
Abstract: This paper aims to explore the essential ideas embodied in the philosophical concepts of Mozi in the pre-Qin period, connect them with the modern view of international order, identify their commonalities, and probe into the enlightenment of Mozi’s philosophical thought for the contemporary view of international order. The core principle of his view is very clear: “the strong do not control the weak, and the many do not plunder the few.” This study argues that Mozi’s thought is not an empty fantasy. Instead, it is a practical political philosophy built on “Universal Love”, the “Will of Heaven”, and the unity of righteousness and benefit. This study adopts a method combining literature analysis and historical reconstruction. First, it traces the historical background of the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods. By analyzing the collapse of rites and music and the disintegration of the patriarchal clan system, it clarifies the historical and institutional premises of Mozi’s thought. Second, it analyzes the logical connections between core concepts such as “Universal Love” and the “Will of Heaven”. Finally, it compares Mohism with Confucianism and Legalism to highlight the uniqueness of the Mohist solution and further explain the implications of Mozi’s thought. The study finds that Mozi attributed the root of social disorder to “partiality”, meaning love with distinctions. He proposed specific solutions for this. These solutions use “Universal Love” as the ethical cornerstone, the “Will of Heaven” as the moral requirement, and “mutual benefit” as the guide. Regarding the construction of order, Mozi advocated establishing the principle of non-aggression through “Non-Offense”. He also advocated establishing a moral mechanism through “Identification with the Superior”. These measures aim to realize the ideal order where “the strong do not control the weak”. Mohist thought demonstrates a strong spirit of egalitarianism and contract. This differs from Confucianism, which maintained blood-based hierarchies. It also differs from Legalism, which worships absolute power. Mozi’s philosophy not only pragmatically responded to the social crises of that time but also contains enduring wisdom. Furthermore, Mozi advocated the idea of “Frugality”. This provides inspiration for addressing modern resource depletion. This has important ecological ethical significance for promoting global sustainable development.
参考文献
|
[1]
|
李泽厚. 中国古代思想史论[M]. 北京: 人民出版社, 2015.
|
|
[2]
|
冯友兰. 中国哲学简史[M]. 第2版. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2013.
|
|
[3]
|
魏义霞. “兼以易别”——儒家仁爱与墨家兼爱比较[J]. 江淮论坛, 2012(2): 79-85.
|
|
[4]
|
盖立涛. 兼爱与墨子之仁——以儒、墨“仁” “爱”之争为线索[J]. 中国哲学史, 2024(6): 44-51.
|
|
[5]
|
丁为祥. 命与天命: 儒家天人关系的双重视角[J]. 中国哲学史, 2007(4): 11-21.
|
|
[6]
|
谈琰. 论墨家的功利主义伦理观[J]. 理论观察, 2014(6): 50-52.
|
|
[7]
|
田宝祥. “爱”“利”与“义”“法”: 墨家政治哲学的主要概念及其结构[J]. 国学论衡, 2025(1): 66-76+353-354.
|
|
[8]
|
崔亚珍. 儒墨人格理论的分野与互补: 从仁爱到兼爱的伦理重构[J]. 嘉应文学, 2025(21): 50-52.
|
|
[9]
|
金羽佳. 墨子“兼爱”思想对构建人类命运共同体的现实启示[J]. 哈尔滨学院学报, 2025, 46(11): 20-23.
|
|
[10]
|
马彦涛. 墨家思想中的“治理观”及现代启示[J]. 中国领导科学, 2024(5): 122-128.
|
|
[11]
|
胡适. 中国哲学史大纲[M]. 上海: 上海古籍出版社, 2000.
|
|
[12]
|
墨翟. 墨子今注今译[M]. 李渔叔, 译. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2019: 86.
|
|
[13]
|
李雷东. 先秦墨家的义利观[J]. 西北大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2009, 39(3): 47-51.
|
|
[14]
|
窦赫卓, 全鑫. 儒墨思想比较研究: “仁爱”与兼爱[J]. 国学, 2023, 11(3): 272-277.
|
|
[15]
|
Ivanhoe, P.J. and Van Norden, B.W. (2001) Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy. Seven Bridges Press.
|
|
[16]
|
Wang, P. (2018) From Hierarchy to Anarchy: A Study of Order and Systemic Changes in Ancient China. University of Bristol.
|