非攻上Against Aggression I

子墨子言曰：古者王公大人情欲得而恶失，欲安而恶危，故当攻战而不可不非。今有一人，入人园圃，窃其桃李，众闻则非之，上为政者得则罚之。此何也？以亏人自利也。至攘人犬豕鸡豚者，其不义又甚入人园圃窃桃李。是何故也？以亏人愈多，其不仁兹甚，罪益厚。至入人栏廏，取人马牛者，其不仁义又甚攘人犬豕鸡豚。此何故也？以其亏人愈多，苟亏人愈多，其不仁兹甚，罪益厚。至杀不辜人也，扡其衣裘，取戈劒者，其不义又甚入人栏厩、取人马牛。此何故也？以其亏人愈多。苟亏人愈多，其不仁兹甚矣，罪益厚。当此，天下之君子皆知而非之，谓之不义。今至大为攻国，则弗知非，从而誉之，谓之义。此可谓知义与不义之别乎？

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?

杀一人谓之不义，必有一死罪矣。若以此说往，杀十人十重不义，必有十死罪矣；杀百人百重不义，必有百死罪矣。当此，天下之君子皆知而非之，谓之不义。今至大为不义攻国，则弗知而非，从而誉之，谓之义。情不知其不义也，故书其言以遗后世。若知其不义也，夫奚说书其不义以遗后世哉？

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?

今有人于此，少见黑曰黑，多见黑曰白，则以此人不知白黑之辩矣；少尝苦曰苦，多尝苦曰甘，则必以此人为不知甘苦之辩矣。今小为非，则知而非之。大为非攻国，则不知非，从而誉之，谓之义。此可谓知义与不义之辩乎？是以知天下之君子也，辩义与不义之乱也。

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.