墨子與孟子論「義」

本文以《墨子》與《孟子》兩部文獻的內容來省思與回應孟、告論辯中有關義內與義外的爭辯。本文首先從孟、告論辯的對話脈絡來說明「義內」與「義外」所涉及的內容及其爭辯的焦點。孟、告之爭的爭點可詮釋為，孟子認為，道德心理動機的來源是人心內在的真實情感（義內）；而告子認為，道德心理動機的來源只可以從人心之外的外在因素而來（義外）。因此「義內」的說明是，道德心理動機的來源是人心內在的真實情感；而「義外」的說明是，道德心理動機的來源只可以從人心之外的外在因素而來。本文接著從思想史的脈絡來呈現墨、孟論義的思想結構——分別從義的具體內容、鍛鍊與培養、實踐與應用的角度來呈現墨、孟論義皆兼及人心「內」在的真實情感與人心之「外」的外在因素的面向。接著本文說明墨子對於孟子的影響，盈天下的墨子思潮對於孟子構成了巨大的挑戰與威脅，而藉由對於墨子思潮的反動與反思，促成了孟子獨創的巧思——提出以羞惡之心為人性的具備推廣力的義內說。藉由孺子入井的思想實驗，孟子論證了人心之中包含可以推廣於陌生他者身上的普遍情感。而這也補充說明了墨子的兼愛理念所缺乏的對於內在真實情感的論證說明，從而解決了兼愛理念之難以說明如何從情感的層面來加以推廣的難題。接著本文反省與檢討前人研究文獻中偏重於墨子論義之外在因素的面向，以及偏重於孟子論義之內在心性的面向之具代表性的論點，以此來更進一步的釐清墨、孟論義皆兼及內在情感與外在因素的面向。接著本文經由以上的分析來重新省思與回應孟告論辯中的義內與義外之爭的議題，並以此來反思儒、墨之別。本文以為，從《墨子》與《孟子》兩部文獻的內容中可詮釋出其皆兼具有「義內」與「義外」的思想內容。從「義內」的角度來看，藉由區別出墨子之「心內」與孟子之「性內」，有別於過往從墨子之義缺乏內在於道德主體之自覺意識的角度來詮釋儒、墨之分，本文以為或可由周代的禮制對於儒者的治國之道來說實有不可忽視的必要性的這個「義外」的角度來重新思索儒、墨之別。

關鍵字

墨子；孟子；告子；儒墨；義；義內；義外

並列摘要

This dissertation uses the Mozi and the Mencius to clarify and evaluate the disagreement between Mencius and Gaozi about the question whether righteousness (yi) is internal or external (義內與義外之爭). This dissertation first points out that the dispute between Mencius and Gaozi is that Mencius thinks that the moral motivation of righteousness can come from one’s inner true emotions, while Gaozi thinks that the moral motivation of righteousness can only come from the outside. “Righteousness is internal (義內)” means that the moral motivation of righteousness arises from one’s inner true emotions, and “righteousness is external (義外)” means that it can only arise from outside external factors. Then the dissertation illustrates the structure of righteousness in the Mozi and the Mencius based on the history of thought. I will use these three points of view: concrete content of yi, strength and cultivation of yi, and practice and application of yi. Using these, I will reveal they all have the nature of true inner emotions rooted in one’s heart and the external factors instilled into us from outsides. Mozi had an influence on Mencius’ theory of yi, challenging Mencius at the time and contributing Mencius’ original ideas, in particular the idea of a shameful heart (羞惡之心) that is rooted in one’s human nature. This challenge made Mencius bring up the example of the thought experiment that a child falls into a well (孺子入井) and that this gives rise to a universal feeling. This example gave support to Mozi’s idea of universal love (兼愛). Then the dissertation reviews previous research literature that emphasizes the external factors in Mozi’s theory of yi and the inner emotions in Mencius’s theory. The literature on Mozi and Mencius usually emphasizes Mozi on external factors and Mencius on inner emotions. But I claim that this is onesided and does not do justice to the text. I show that there is more inner emotion in the Mozi and there are more external factors in the Mencius than is usually seen. Then I will apply the result of the above analysis to reconsider the dispute between Mencius and Gaozi about the question whether righteousness is internal or external as well as the difference between Confucianism and Mohism (儒墨之別). I will show that in the Mozi and the Mencius righteousness is both internal and external. Within internal righteousness there is “true inner emotions rooted in one’s heart (心內)” and “true inner emotions rooted in one’s human nature (性內)”. We should distinguish “true inner emotions rooted in one’s heart” and “true inner emotions rooted in one’s human nature”. Both play a role in internal righteousness. Then we can see that Mozi has much to say about true inner emotions rooted in one’s heart (心內) and therefore also about internal righteousness (義內). The difference between Confucianism and Mohism is not so much in the aspect of internal righteousness (義內), but more regarding external righteousness (義外). It also follows that Confucianism strongly depends on ritual in Zhou (周) Dynasty.