Introduction: A Clash of Ideals in Warring States China

In the turbulent era of China’s Warring States period , philosophical debates shaped the intellectual landscape with unprecedented intensity. Among the most compelling dialogues was the exchange between Mozi, founder of Mohism, and Cheng Fan, a scholar versed in both Confucian and Mohist traditions. Their confrontation over music’s role in governance reveals not just philosophical differences but fundamental questions about human nature, statecraft, and the purpose of artistic expression in society. This debate, preserved in Mohist texts, demonstrates how abstract philosophical concepts translated into practical governance questions during a time of constant warfare and social upheaval.

The Historical Stage: China’s Philosophical Crucible

The Warring States period represented both chaos and opportunity for Chinese thinkers. As centralized Zhou dynasty authority collapsed, regional states competed through military might and administrative innovation. This environment created unprecedented demand for philosophical solutions to practical problems of governance, leading to the Hundred Schools of Thought. Mohism emerged as one of the most influential movements, advocating utilitarianism, universal love, and opposition to wasteful rituals. Mozi himself, having originally studied Confucianism, broke away to establish a philosophy focused on practical benefit to society rather than traditional rituals.

Music held particular significance in this philosophical landscape. Confucians viewed properly performed music as essential to social harmony and moral cultivation. The concept of “li” formed twin pillars of Confucian social order. Against this background, Mozi’s radical rejection of music represented not merely an aesthetic preference but a fundamental challenge to established cultural and political norms.

The Contenders: Mozi and Cheng Fan

Mozi founded a highly organized philosophical movement that competed directly with Confucianism. His followers lived ascetically, practiced technical skills, and were prepared to defend states against aggression. Mohism’s pragmatic approach extended to all aspects of life, with music seen as an unnecessary luxury that diverted resources from essential needs.

Cheng Fan, the questioner in the dialogue, represented a different intellectual approach. As someone familiar with multiple philosophical traditions, he embodied the synthetic thinking that would later characterize much of Chinese philosophy. His ability to argue from multiple perspectives made him a formidable interlocutor, able to identify weaknesses in Mozi’s arguments by applying Mohist principles against themselves.

The Core Debate: Music as Benefit or Burden

The exchange begins with Cheng Fan challenging Mozi’s assertion that sage kings did not create music. Cheng Fan presents a naturalistic argument: all levels of society, from feudal lords to common farmers, use music for rest and recuperation. His analogy proves particularly powerful—just as horses need rest from harnesses and bows require relaxation from tension, humans need musical recreation. This argument appeals to universal human experience and biological necessity, suggesting that music serves a fundamental human need.

Mozi’s response reveals his rhetorical strategy. Rather than addressing the psychological or biological arguments directly, he shifts to historical comparison. He cites a progression from Yao and Shun through the Zhou dynasty, noting that as music grew more elaborate, governance allegedly deteriorated. His examples include:
– Yao and Shun’s simple rituals with a figure named Diqi
– King Tang of Shang creating the “Hu” music after defeating the Xia dynasty
– King Wu of Zhou composing the “Xiang” music after conquering the Shang
– King Cheng of Zhou developing the “Zouyu” music

Mozi arranges these examples to show a clear regression: each successive ruler created more music while achieving worse governance outcomes than their predecessors.

The Philosophical Underpinnings: Mohist Utilitarianism

Mozi’s position stems from his core philosophical principle: that all activities must be judged by their material benefit to society. In his view, music represented several problems simultaneously. First, it consumed resources that could be used for practical needs like food, clothing, and defense. Second, it required time that could be devoted to productive labor. Third, it created desires that distracted people from more important concerns.

This utilitarian calculus extended to Mohist epistemology. Mozi advocated a theory of knowledge that privileged practical application over abstract speculation. The value of any knowledge or practice was measured by its contribution to wealth, population growth, and social order. By these standards, music failed the test of utility.

Cheng Fan’s Counterattack: Exposing Logical Flaws

Cheng Fan’s response demonstrates sophisticated philosophical reasoning. He identifies the central contradiction in Mozi’s position: how can Mozi claim sage kings created no music while simultaneously describing the music they created? This apparent paradox forces Mozi into a defensive position.

The brilliance of Cheng Fan’s argument lies in its internal critique. He doesn’t challenge Mohist principles but applies them consistently to reveal inconsistencies. If Mohism values benefit to society, and music provides psychological restoration that enables better governance, then music should be considered beneficial by Mohist standards.

Mozi’s Evasive Maneuver: The Semantics of Absence

Faced with this logical challenge, Mozi resorts to semantic argumentation. He redefines “having no music” to mean “having little music,” comparing it to the relationship between eating and knowledge. Just as knowing to eat when hungry doesn’t constitute true wisdom, having small amounts of music doesn’t constitute truly “having music.” This rhetorical move allows him to maintain his position while avoiding the logical contradiction.

This argumentative strategy reveals much about Mohist rhetorical practices. When faced with compelling counterarguments, Mohists often shifted definitions or employed analogies that sounded persuasive but upon examination proved questionable. The eating analogy particularly fails logically—while eating is necessary for survival, Mozi hasn’t established that music is unnecessary for psychological well-being.

Cultural Context: The Role of Music in Ancient China

To fully appreciate this debate, we must understand music’s central place in ancient Chinese culture. Unlike modern Western conceptions of music as entertainment, traditional Chinese music was deeply integrated with cosmology, politics, and social order. The Yue Ji states that “music represents the harmony of heaven and earth” while “rites represent the order of heaven and earth.”

Different musical forms corresponded to social hierarchy. The bronze bells mentioned by Cheng Fan were extremely expensive to produce and represented feudal lords’ power. The yu and se instruments required significant training and resources, making them appropriate for scholar-officials. Even farmers’ percussion on clay pots reflected the integration of music into all levels of life.

Confucians believed properly performed music could cultivate moral character and social harmony. The concept of “shengjiao” held that the right kinds of music could literally make people better. Mozi’s rejection of this position therefore attacked not just an aesthetic preference but an entire philosophy of moral education.

Social Implications: Class and Resource Allocation

Beneath the philosophical debate lay practical concerns about resource allocation. Mohism particularly appealed to lower social classes and practical technicians who saw traditional rituals as wasteful. The resources required for proper musical performance—from casting bronze bells to training musicians—represented significant investment.

During the Warring States period, with constant warfare and economic instability, questions of resource allocation became urgent. States that invested heavily in ritual music might field smaller armies or have less grain stored for emergencies. Mozi’s argument resonated with rulers who needed practical solutions to immediate problems rather than elaborate cultural performances.

At the same time, Mohism’s radical utilitarianism threatened the cultural foundation of the aristocratic class. Music and rituals weren’t just entertainment but markers of status and legitimacy. A lord who abandoned traditional music might lose credibility among other nobles, regardless of practical benefits.

Comparative Perspectives: Global Philosophical Parallels

Mozi’s critique of music finds interesting parallels in other philosophical traditions. Plato’s Republic similarly questions certain musical modes for their effect on character, though unlike Mozi, Plato preserves music’s educational function. Various religious traditions have oscillated between embracing and rejecting musical expression, from Islamic debates about music’s permissibility to Christian controversies over instrumentation.

What makes Mozi’s position distinctive is its thoroughgoing utilitarianism. Unlike religious objections that focus on music’s spiritual dangers, Mozi objects primarily to its material costs. His concern isn’t that music leads to sin but that it wastes resources that could feed the hungry or protect the state.

The Debate’s Resolution: Surface Victory and Substantive Defeat

Though Mozi appears to win the exchange through rhetorical cleverness, modern readers may judge otherwise. Cheng Fan’s arguments from human nature and logical consistency remain compelling, while Mozi’s historical narrative seems questionable and his analogies weak. The exchange demonstrates how skilled rhetoricians can prevail in debate through techniques that don’t necessarily reflect stronger reasoning.

This dynamic resonates beyond ancient China. In modern political and philosophical debates, similar patterns emerge where compelling narratives and clever analogies sometimes trump more substantive arguments. The Mozi-Cheng Fan exchange serves as an early example of how philosophical debates can turn on rhetorical skill rather than logical strength.

Legacy and Modern Relevance

The music debate illustrates broader tensions in political philosophy between efficiency and tradition, between material needs and cultural expression. These tensions remain relevant today as societies balance economic development with cultural preservation, practical governance with artistic support.

Modern research has largely validated Cheng Fan’s intuition about music’s psychological benefits while acknowledging Mozi’s concerns about resource allocation. Studies confirm that music reduces stress and improves productivity, suggesting it might actually serve utilitarian goals. At the same time, societies still debate appropriate funding for the arts versus more immediate material needs.

Mohism itself gradually declined after the Qin unification, though its influences persisted in Chinese legalism and folk religious practices. The music debate represents one of Mohism’s most enduring contributions, raising perennial questions about how societies should balance practical needs with cultural development.

Conclusion: Enduring Questions from an Ancient Dialogue

The exchange between Mozi and Cheng Fan transcends its historical context to address fundamental questions about human flourishing. How do we balance immediate material needs with less tangible cultural goods? What constitutes true utility in governance? How should leaders address both the physical and psychological needs of their people?

While Mozi’s specific position on music may seem extreme, his insistence on evaluating cultural practices by their concrete benefits continues to influence utilitarian thinking. Cheng Fan’s defense of music as meeting authentic human needs anticipates modern understandings of psychology and work-life balance.

This ancient dialogue reminds us that many contemporary debates about arts funding, work conditions, and quality of life have deep historical roots. The tension between Mozi’s rigorous utilitarianism and Cheng Fan’s holistic view of human needs continues to play out in modern politics, economics, and cultural policy. As we navigate these ongoing challenges, this 2,300-year-old exchange still offers valuable insights into the perpetual balancing act between practical necessity and human expression.