Confucianism and Daoism became the most enduring Chinese traditions, but in the age of the “Hundred Schools of Thought,” during the Warring States period (about 475 to 221 BCE), they had serious rivals. Two of the most important were the Mohists and the Legalists.

Mozi and impartial care

Mozi (Mo Di, fifth century BCE) may have come from a craftsman background, and his followers were organized, disciplined and practical. He was the first major critic of Confucianism.

His central teaching is jian ai, usually translated impartial care or universal love. Confucians taught graded love: we owe most to family, then to neighbors, then to strangers. Mozi argued that this partiality is the root of the world's harm. Thieves love their own households and rob others; states love their own state and attack others. If people regarded others' families as their own, and others' states as their own, there would be no reason to steal or invade.

Mozi justified his views by their benefit to the people: does a practice increase wealth, population and order? For this reason he is often compared to Western consequentialists. On those grounds he condemned offensive war as the greatest of crimes, and his followers became experts in defensive engineering, helping small states resist attack. He also criticized lavish funerals, long mourning periods and expensive court music, all valued by Confucians, as wasteful when common people went hungry. He believed in Heaven as a moral will that desires people to care for one another.

The Mohists also did important work in logic and argument. Their critics, especially Mencius, said impartial care was against human nature: a person who treats his father as he treats a stranger, Mencius argued, effectively has no father. The Mohist school disappeared as a living tradition after the Qin and Han dynasties, though its texts survived and were rediscovered by later scholars.

The Legalists

The Legalists (Fajia, “school of law”) took a very different approach. Statesmen such as Shang Yang (died 338 BCE), who reformed the state of Qin, and the philosopher Han Feizi (died 233 BCE), a student of Xunzi, argued that a strong state needs clear laws, applied equally, backed by rewards and punishments. Han Feizi called rewards and punishments the ruler's “two handles.”

Legalists rejected the Confucian hope of governing by virtue. Virtuous rulers are rare, they said, and a system must work with ordinary ones. People are moved by self-interest, so the state should channel it. Laws should be public and impartial, applied to nobles as well as commoners. The ruler should keep his own intentions hidden and judge officials by whether their results match their words.

The Legalist program helped the state of Qin defeat its rivals and unify China in 221 BCE. Its ruler took the title First Emperor (Qin Shi Huang). The Qin standardized weights, measures and writing, but its rule was harsh, with heavy labor demands and the burning of many books. The dynasty collapsed within about fifteen years. The following Han dynasty kept much of the Qin's administrative structure but made Confucianism the official state philosophy, a mix sometimes described as Confucian on the outside, Legalist on the inside.

Weighing them

Both schools raise lasting questions. Mohism asks whether morality should be impartial, a question still debated in modern ethics. Legalism offers an early argument for the rule of law and for institutions that do not depend on good rulers. Yet Legalism served an autocrat rather than limiting him: the law bound the people, not the ruler. Its record warns that law without humaneness or accountability can become a tool of tyranny.

Worked example: a flood and four advisers

Imagine a small Warring States kingdom struck by a flood. The king calls four advisers.

The Confucian says: “Show your virtue. Open the granaries, mourn the dead with proper ritual, and set an example of frugality at court. Your ministers will follow, and the people will trust you.”

The Mohist says: “Ask what benefits the people most. Cancel the expensive funeral planned for your uncle, and stop the music at court; use that money for dikes and grain. Treat the flooded villages across the border as you would your own, and do not attack your weakened neighbor, since offensive war is the greatest of crimes.”

The Legalist says: “Publish clear laws. Every family must send one worker to rebuild the dikes. Reward those who finish early with land; punish those who shirk. Apply the rules equally, even to nobles. Do not count on anyone's virtue.”

The Daoist says: “Your ancestors fought the river with ever higher walls, and each flood was worse. Water is soft but always wins. Move the villages to higher ground and let the river have its plain.”

Each adviser has a point. The Legalist plan might rebuild fastest but breed resentment and fear. The Mohist plan helps the poor and keeps peace but may seem cold to those who value mourning. The Confucian relies on a king who may not be virtuous. The Daoist offers wisdom about nature but less about who pays. Chinese history arguably blended all four, which is why later rulers spoke like Confucians while governing with Legalist tools.