"Suppose one must put on one's armor and helmet and go to war in a vast and open wilderness where life and death are uncertain; or suppose one was sent by one's ruler or high minister to the distant states of Ba, Yue, Qi, or Jing and could not be sure of either reaching them or ever returning from one's mission."
"Under such conditions of uncertainty, to whom would one entrust the well-being of one's parents, wife, and children? Would one prefer that they be in the care of an impartial person or would one prefer that they be in the care of a partial person? I believe that under such circumstances, there are no fools in all the world. Even though one may not advocate impartiality, one would certainly want to entrust one's family to the person who is impartial."
The Mohist doctrine of impartial caring (jian'ai) argues that people should show equal concern for all rather than privileging kin. The Caretaker Argument claims that in uncertain life-or-death situations people rationally prefer impartial caretakers for their families, revealing a practical endorsement of impartial concern even when rhetorically rejected. The Filial Piety Argument probes what genuine filiality requires and whether impartial caring undermines filial duties. Interpretations range from a minimal don't-harm reading to a stronger equal-concern ideal. Reciprocity, psychological plausibility, and practical applicability determine how impartial caring compares with the Confucian model of graded, distinction-based familial love.
Read at Warpweftandway
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]