Effort makes order

Introduction

非命中 and 非命下 are two further versions of the first chapter, broadly similar, so we read them together and look at two things the first chapter does not have.

First, another wording of the three tests. 非命中 says: "In putting forward speech and argument, one cannot fail to first establish a standard." Its three are: "examine it against the will of Heaven and the spirits and the deeds of the sage kings," "verify it against the writings of the former kings," and "put it into law and policy and observe whether it benefits the state and the people." 非命下 repeats: "to ground it, examine the will of Heaven and the spirits and the deeds of the sage kings; to trace it, verify it in the writings of the former kings; to apply it, put it into policy and observe the people." Both versions replace the second test's "ears and eyes of the people" with "the writings of the former kings": not what people have witnessed, but what the records say. The differences among the three versions show that the three tests were revised inside the Mohist school itself. It is a method, not a creed.

Second, the argument for effort. 非命下 is very concrete: "Why do farmers go out early and come home late, striving at plowing and planting, gathering much grain, and not daring to slacken? Because they believe that effort brings wealth and no effort brings poverty; effort brings a full stomach and no effort brings hunger. So they do not dare to slacken." Why do women rise early and sleep late at spinning and weaving? The same. Why do rulers hold court early and retire late, hearing cases and governing? Because they know "effort brings order; no effort brings disorder." If everyone believed in fate, "farmers would slacken at plowing and women at weaving," and the world would be finished.

Note the structure of the argument. Mozi does not say effort always succeeds. He says people who believe effort matters will make effort, and a society that makes effort is better off than one that does not. It is a third-test argument: judged by consequences, rejecting fate beats accepting it. He is talking about what belief does to behavior, not guaranteeing success.

The difference matters. There is a view today that blames every failure on insufficient effort and uses it against the poor and the sick. Mozi's rejection of fate is not that. In the chapters on impartial care he said the hungry must be fed, the cold clothed, the weary given rest. Effort is a demand on oneself; impartial care is a duty to others. Both together are Mozi.

One more line from 非命下 worth keeping: the tyrant "will not say, 'I was weak and unworthy, my government was bad'; he says, 'my fate was to perish.'" The other face of rejecting fate: fate may not be used as an excuse.

The three tests

Like the first chapter, these two demonstrate the tests themselves. What to notice is the different wording of the second test across the three versions, "the facts of the people's ears and eyes" versus "the writings of the former kings." Which is more reliable?

The Community follows the first chapter's version (the people's ears and eyes), because it can be observed again. But discuss: when is a record more reliable than a witness?

For families

• Tell the farmer's story: why do farmers go out early and come home late? Because they believe effort puts food on the table. Ask: do you believe that?
• Ask a child: have you ever said "there's no point, I can't"? Pick one such thing and take one small step together.
• Tell the tyrant's line, "my fate was to perish," and ask: when you make a mistake, is it better to say "bad luck" or "I was wrong"?

For chapters

• Reading: from 非命下 the passage "why do farmers go out early and come home late," and the passage "my fate was to perish."
• Debate: focus on whether rejecting fate is the same as blaming those who fail. Ask a Mohist who works in social services or health care to speak first.
• Three-tests review: compare the three versions of the second test. Which does the chapter use, and why? Record it.