Over the course of history it was commonplace for two minds to disagree, so when presented by writings of polar opposite views we are not puzzled in the least. In this case, both Mo Tzu and Hsun Tzu make clear and coherent analyses of their societies to formulate their ideas. Mo Tzu argued that making music is erroneous, and entirely contrary to that, Hsun Tzu declared that music is joy. The former spoke of the significance of the well-being of the state and bases his opposition on the fact that music does not contribute to - but rather hinders - the state’s advance. Hsun Tzu’s response, however, was in favor of music and highlighted its concord within itself and with the desires of a human being.
As was Plato, Mo Tzu was overly protective of the state and said that an inefficient allocation of raw materials that,…show more content… Mo Tzu revealed that he did not oppose music because he did not find music delightful, or that he could not understand one’s affinity for it, but because music – and other art forms alike – “were not in accordance with the way of the sage kings”. Alluding to ships and carts – items with specific physical values unlike music - he condoned the payment of taxes for things as such for they were sure to benefit the majority of the people. Thus Mo Tzu appears to construct an argument that is largely utilitarian in nature, although it should be noted that referencing Mo Tzu as a utilitarian is anachronistic. Throughout his argument, he makes harsh matter-of-fact statements through deduction; of particular notice is his idea of the three matters that the masses in a culture are preoccupied with; ”…when they are hungry they will have no food, when they are cold they will have no clothing, and when they are weary