Skip to content
Coordinates of ThoughtHome of Philosophy
Join
Question · Explain Newcomer-friendly

What were Mozi’s three tests for judging whether a doctrine is right?

Vikram Sethi Fellow
· 3 replies
Moral theoriesChineseIndianMohismMozi#early-chinese-philosophy#evidence#mohist-method#three-standards
Follow

I've been reading about early Chinese philosophy for fun. Several books mention that Mozi proposed "three tests" or "three standards" for judging a doctrine, and one claims this was the first explicit methodology in Chinese thought.

I'd like to know what the three tests actually were, where in the Mozi they appear, and how he used them. Did they work, by his own lights? As a maths teacher I'm always interested in where people first tried to say what counts as a good argument.

LikeAnswer
Follow3 answers

Join the conversation: members reply here, and joining is free. Reading is always free.

Join free to reply Sign in

3 answers

Accepted answer

  1. Chen Yuting

    ✓ Accepted answer Fellow

    They're usually called the three biao, gauges or standards, and the clearest statement is in the chapters titled "Against Fatalism". A doctrine must be tested by:

    1. Its root (ben): does it accord with the deeds of the ancient sage kings? This is an appeal to precedent and accumulated experience.
    2. Its source (yuan): is it supported by the evidence of the eyes and ears of ordinary people? An appeal to observation.
    3. Its use (yong): when it is put into practice in government, does it benefit the state and the people? An appeal to consequences.

    In "Against Fatalism", Mozi argues that fatalism fails all three: the sage kings didn't act as if outcomes were fixed, nobody has ever seen or heard "fate", and believing in it makes people lazy and rulers negligent, which harms everyone.

    Did it work? Partly. The third test is the heart of Mohism: judge practices by their benefit to all. The second can be turned against him. In the chapters "On Ghosts" he uses the same appeal to what ordinary people report seeing to argue that ghosts and spirits exist. So the method is real and impressive, but it's only as good as the testimony fed into it. The Later Mohists went much further, analysing terms, definitions and inference with real precision.

    Helpful · 2

Other answers

  1. Meera Kulkarni

    Fellow

    A tempting comparison is with the Nyāya pramāṇas: perception, inference, comparison and testimony. But I'd be careful. Nyāya is asking what the sources of knowledge are; Mozi is asking how to test a doctrine someone proposes for government, and his third test, practical benefit, has no counterpart among the pramāṇas at all. They overlap on observation and testimony and then go different ways.

    Helpful · 3
  2. Vikram Sethi

    Fellow

    Thank you, Yuting. The ghosts example is exactly what I needed to show my students why "test it against observation" isn't enough without asking whose observation and how reliable. Meera, fair warning taken. I was about to write "Mozi's pramāṇas" on the board.