X. The Double Attainment of Ritual and Righteousness, and the Distinction Between Confucians and Mohists

10.1 "Unifying Oneself with Li and Yi Brings a Double Attainment"

Thus if a person is guided only by concern for bare survival, such a person will surely die; if guided only by concern for profit, such a person will surely come to harm; if guided by idleness, laziness, and cowardice as a form of ease, such a person will surely fall into danger; if guided by the indulgence of feeling and desire as pleasure, such a person will surely be destroyed. Thus if a person unifies himself with li and yi (righteousness), he attains both — but if he unifies himself with bare feeling and nature alone, he loses both.

— Xunzi, "Discourse on Ritual Propriety," Passage 4

"If a person seeks only bare survival, such a person will surely die; if a person seeks only profit, such a person will surely come to harm; if a person takes idleness, laziness, and cowardice as ease, such a person will surely fall into danger; if a person takes the indulgence of desire and feeling as pleasure, such a person will surely be destroyed. Thus, if a person unifies himself with li and yi, he attains both things at once (life and desire); if he unifies himself with bare feeling and nature (unrefined, uncultivated natural desire), he loses both."

This is a profound piece of paradoxical reasoning:

• One who pursues survival alone will, in fact, die.
• One who pursues profit alone will, in fact, come to harm.
• One who pursues ease alone will, in fact, fall into danger.
• One who pursues sensory pleasure alone will, in fact, be destroyed.

Why is this$1 Because pursuing any single goal without regard for anything else causes one's conduct to lose all restraint, ultimately leading to the very opposite of that goal. A person who thinks only of survival, heedless of righteousness, might betray a companion out of fear of death, and end up abandoned or even killed by others. A person who thinks only of profit, without regard for good faith, may gain in the short term, but will in the long run become isolated through loss of trust.

By contrast, if a person takes "li and yi" as the guiding standard of their conduct — even if this means, on occasion, foregoing immediate advantage or enduring temporary inconvenience — then, in the long run, that person's life and desires will both be better secured. This is because "li and yi" help that person to establish good cooperative relationships with others, allowing them to gain respect and support within the group, and thereby to enjoy a life both safer and richer.

This is the meaning of "double attainment": one who follows "li and yi" both preserves their life and satisfies reasonable desire. Whereas one who indulges "bare feeling and nature" (unrefined, natural desire) loses both — losing the security of life, while desire, too, cannot be sustainably satisfied.

10.2 The Distinction Between Confucians and Mohists

Master Xun then extends this argument directly to one of the most important disputes in pre-Qin intellectual history — the distinction between Confucians and Mohists:

Thus the Confucians are those who cause people to attain both; the Mohists are those who cause people to lose both. This is the distinction between Confucians and Mohists.

"Thus the Confucians (the Ru school) are those who bring about 'double attainment' for people; the Mohists (the Mo school) are those who bring about 'double loss' — this is the fundamental distinction between Confucians and Mohists."

This judgment is, admittedly, unfair to the Mohists — Mozi's own purpose, of course, was likewise to give the people under Heaven a better life. But Master Xun's criticism points to an inherent tension within Mohist thought:

Mozi advocated "moderation in expenditure," "moderation in funerals," and "condemnation of music" — cutting all unnecessary consumption, simplifying funeral rites, and opposing the social function of music and art. Mozi held that such "extravagant" activities (elaborate ceremony, lavish funerals, moving music) were a waste of social resources, consuming wealth and labor that could otherwise be used to "benefit the people."

Master Xun's rebuttal is this: Mozi's "moderation in expenditure" appears reasonable, but it neglects people's emotional and spiritual needs. If a society attends only to material efficiency, while wholly disregarding people's need for beauty, for a sense of ceremony, for spiritual expression, then that society, even if materially sufficient, will be spiritually impoverished. And spiritual impoverishment will, in the end, corrode the very fabric of social order — for human beings are not merely animals in need of food and shelter, but beings in need of meaning and belonging.

From the standpoint of li: the trouble with Mohism is that it sees only "nurture" (satisfying material needs) while neglecting "distinction" (bie — satisfying spiritual needs and maintaining social order through differentiated ceremony). Confucian li, by contrast, is the unity of "nurture" and "distinction" — satisfying material needs ("the two sustaining and increasing each other") while also satisfying spiritual needs ("giving full expression to the pattern of love and reverence").

10.3 A Comparison with Daoism: A Different Path to "Double Attainment"

Interestingly, although Daoism, too, criticizes Confucian li, the ideal state of Daoism is, in its own way, also a kind of "double attainment" — a state of natural harmony in which both life and desire can be satisfied. Laozi describes an ideal society of "a small state with few people":

"Let their food be sweet, their clothing beautiful, their dwelling peaceful, their customs a joy. Though neighboring states are within sight of one another, and the sound of cocks and dogs is heard between them, the people grow old and die without ever visiting one another." (Daodejing, Ch. 80)

— people delight in fine food, wear fitting clothes, dwell peacefully in comfortable homes, and take joy in their own customs. Is this not, too, a kind of "double attainment"$2

The difference lies in the path taken:

• Confucianism (Master Xun) holds that this "double attainment" must be achieved through "li and yi" — humanly constructed institutions and norms.
• Daoism (Laozi) holds that this "double attainment" already existed naturally, before human institutions ever arose — and that li, far from helping, disrupts this natural harmony.

The root of this disagreement lies in differing judgments about human nature. Master Xun holds that human nature tends toward contention and disorder (nature is "bad"), and therefore requires the external constraint of li. Laozi implicitly holds that human nature (before being contaminated by civilization) is harmonious, and that external institutions instead distort this natural disposition.