非攻上Against Aggression I

子墨子言曰：古者王公大人情欲得而惡失，欲安而惡危，故當攻戰而不可不非。今有一人，入人園圃，竊其桃李，衆聞則非之，上爲政者得則罰之。此何也？以虧人自利也。至攘人犬豕雞豚者，其不義又甚入人園圃竊桃李。是何故也？以虧人愈多，其不仁茲甚，罪益厚。至入人欄廏，取人馬牛者，其不仁義又甚攘人犬豕雞豚。此何故也？以其虧人愈多，苟虧人愈多，其不仁茲甚，罪益厚。至殺不辜人也，扡其衣裘，取戈劒者，其不義又甚入人欄廄、取人馬牛。此何故也？以其虧人愈多。苟虧人愈多，其不仁茲甚矣，罪益厚。當此，天下之君子皆知而非之，謂之不義。今至大爲攻國，則弗知非，從而譽之，謂之義。此可謂知義與不義之別乎？

Master Mozi said: In antiquity the kings, dukes, and great men truly desired to gain and hated to lose, desired security and hated danger; therefore aggressive warfare cannot but be condemned. Suppose now there is a man who enters another's orchard and steals his peaches and plums. When the crowd hears of it they condemn him, and if those above who govern catch him they punish him. Why is this? Because he injures others to benefit himself. As for one who carries off another's dogs, pigs, chickens, and piglets, his unrighteousness is greater still than that of one who enters another's orchard to steal peaches and plums. Why is this? Because he injures others more, his lack of benevolence is greater, and his crime is heavier. As for one who enters another's stable or pen and takes his horses and cattle, his lack of benevolence and righteousness is greater still than that of one who carries off another's dogs, pigs, chickens, and piglets. Why is this? Because he injures others more; and if he injures others more, his lack of benevolence is greater, and his crime is heavier. As for one who kills an innocent man, strips him of his clothes and furs, and takes his spear and sword, his unrighteousness is greater still than that of one who enters another's stable or pen and takes his horses and cattle. Why is this? Because he injures others more; and if he injures others more, his lack of benevolence is greater still, and his crime is heavier. In all these cases the gentlemen of the world know to condemn them and call them unrighteous. But now when it comes to the greatest of all, attacking a state, they do not know to condemn it; instead they follow along and praise it, calling it righteous. Can this be called knowing the difference between righteousness and unrighteousness?

殺一人謂之不義，必有一死罪矣。若以此說往，殺十人十重不義，必有十死罪矣；殺百人百重不義，必有百死罪矣。當此，天下之君子皆知而非之，謂之不義。今至大爲不義攻國，則弗知而非，從而譽之，謂之義。情不知其不義也，故書其言以遺後世。若知其不義也，夫奚說書其不義以遺後世哉？

To kill one person is called unrighteous, and must carry one capital offense. If we reason onward from this, to kill ten people is ten times as unrighteous and must carry ten capital offenses; to kill a hundred people is a hundred times as unrighteous and must carry a hundred capital offenses. In all these cases the gentlemen of the world know to condemn them and call them unrighteous. But now when it comes to the greatest unrighteousness of all, attacking a state, they do not know to condemn it; instead they follow along and praise it, calling it righteous. Truly they do not know that it is unrighteous, and so they write down their words to hand down to later generations. If they knew it was unrighteous, how could one explain their writing down their unrighteousness to hand down to later generations?

今有人於此，少見黑曰黑，多見黑曰白，則以此人不知白黑之辯矣；少嘗苦曰苦，多嘗苦曰甘，則必以此人爲不知甘苦之辯矣。今小爲非，則知而非之。大爲非攻國，則不知非，從而譽之，謂之義。此可謂知義與不義之辯乎？是以知天下之君子也，辯義與不義之亂也。

Suppose there is a man here who, seeing a little black, calls it black, but seeing a great deal of black, calls it white; we would take this man not to know the difference between white and black. If, tasting a little bitterness, he calls it bitter, but tasting a great deal of bitterness, calls it sweet, we would surely take this man not to know the difference between sweet and bitter. Now when a small wrong is done, people know to condemn it. But when the great wrong of attacking a state is done, they do not know to condemn it; instead they follow along and praise it, calling it righteous. Can this be called knowing the difference between righteousness and unrighteousness? From this we know that the gentlemen of the world are confused in distinguishing righteousness from unrighteousness.