Mozi wrote several arguments on impartial caring, one of which is the “two ruler” argument. This paper intends to focus on and summarize the said argument and discuss the explanations and counterarguments that provide a basis of how it fails. Readers should expect a simplification of Mozi’s statements, analyses of Mozi’s erroneous generalizations and impractical idea, and a defense against possible questions raised against the analyses.
Mozi starts by dichotomizing rulers into partial ones and impartial ones and explicitly identifies their behaviors. He states that a partial ruler is one who “[w]hen his subjects are hungry … does not feed them. [w]hen his subjects are cold … not clothe them. [w]hen his subjects are ill … does not nurture them. And when his subjects die … does not bury them.” Contrastingly, he states that an impartial ruler is one who “[w]hen [his] people are hungry … feeds them. When his people are cold … clothes them. When his people are ill … nurtures them. And when his people die…show more content… One of his earlier arguments on impartial caring states: “If one takes impartiality as the correct standard and truly seeks to promote and procure what is beneficial to the world, then … men who reach old age without finding a wife and having children will get the support they need to live out their years. Young and helpless orphans … will find the support they need in order to reach maturity.”(Ivanhoe & Van Norden, 2005, p. 69) This basically states that every single person will benefit from one another if everyone is impartial. However, if we take a hermit who only knows one other person, if the hermit’s acquaintance were to be changed into a partial person, then the hermit will not be taken care of by others. This challenges Mozi’s claim of universal care for one