Editing Consequentialism (section)

===State consequentialism===
{{Main|State consequentialism}}

{{blockquote|It is the business of the benevolent man to seek to promote what is beneficial to the world and to eliminate what is harmful, and to provide a model for the world. What benefits he will carry out; what does not benefit men he will leave alone ([[Chinese language|Chinese]]: 仁之事者, 必务求于天下之利, 除天下之害, 将以为法乎天下. 利人乎, 即为; 不利人乎, 即止).<ref name="Mozi">{{cite book|author1=Di Mo|author2=Xunzi|author3=Di Mo Xunzi Fei Han|author4=Professor Burton Watson|title=Basic Writings of Mo Tzu, Hsün Tzu, and Han Fei Tzu|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TotJdL_zx9YC&pg=PA110|year=1967|publisher=Columbia University Press|isbn=978-0-231-02515-7|page=110}}</ref>|[[Mozi]], ''Mozi'' (5th century BC) (Chapter 8: Against Music Part I)|title=|source=}}
''[[State consequentialism]]'', also known as ''Mohist consequentialism'',<ref name="readings">{{Cite book| title = Readings in classical Chinese philosophy | year = 2005 | last1 =Ivanhoe | first1 = P.J. | last2= Van Norden | first2= Bryan William |publisher = [[Hackett Publishing]] | isbn = 978-0-87220-780-6|page=60|quote="he advocated a form of state consequentialism, which sought to maximize three basic goods: the wealth, order, and population of the state}}</ref> is an [[ethical theory]] that evaluates the moral worth of an action based on how much it contributes to the welfare of a state.<ref name="readings"/> According to the ''[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', Mohist consequentialism, dating back to the 5th century BCE, is the "world's earliest form of consequentialism, a remarkably sophisticated version based on a plurality of [[intrinsic good]]s taken as constitutive of human welfare."<ref>Fraser, Chris. [2002] 2015. "[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mohism/ Mohism]." ''[[The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', edited by [[Edward N. Zalta|E. N. Zalta]].</ref>

Unlike utilitarianism, which views [[utility]] as the sole moral good, "the basic goods in Mohist consequentialist thinking are...[[Social order|order]], [[material wealth]], and [[Population increase|increase in population]]."<ref name="Cambridge">{{Cite book| title = The Cambridge History of Ancient China | year = 1999 | last1 =Loewe | first1 = Michael | last2= Shaughnessy | first2= Edward L. |publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]] | isbn = 978-0-521-47030-8|page=[https://archive.org/details/cambridgehistory00loew/page/n791 761]| title-link = The Cambridge History of Ancient China }}</ref> The word "order" refers to Mozi's stance against [[war]]fare and [[violence]], which he viewed as pointless and a threat to social stability; "material wealth" of Mohist consequentialism refers to [[Maslow's hierarchy of needs|basic needs]], like shelter and clothing; and "increase in population" relates to the time of [[Mozi]], war and [[famine]] were common, and population growth was seen as a moral necessity for a [[Harmonious Society|harmonious society]].<ref name="Norden">{{Cite book| title = Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy | year = 2011 | last = Van Norden | first = Bryan W. | publisher = [[Hackett Publishing]] | isbn = 978-1-60384-468-0 | page = 52}}</ref> In ''[[The Cambridge History of Ancient China]]'', [[Stanford University|Stanford]] [[sinologist]] [[David S. Nivison|David Shepherd Nivison]] writes that the moral goods of Mohism "are interrelated: more basic wealth, then more [[reproduction]]; more people, then more production and wealth...if people have plenty, they would be good, [[Filial piety|filial]], kind, and so on unproblematically."<ref name="Cambridge"/>

The Mohists believed that morality is based on "promoting the benefit of [[All Under Heaven|all under heaven]] and eliminating harm to all under heaven." In contrast to [[Jeremy Bentham]]'s views, state consequentialism is not utilitarian because it is not [[Hedonism|hedonistic]] or [[Individualism|individualistic]]. The importance of outcomes that are good for the community outweigh the importance of individual pleasure and pain.<ref name="Handbook">{{cite book|author1=Jay L. Garfield|author2=William Edelglass|title=The Oxford Handbook of World Philosophy|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=F06FKmKKIXwC&pg=PA62|date=9 June 2011|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-532899-8|page=62|quote=The goods that serve as criteria of morality are collective or public, in contrast, for instance, to individual happiness or well-being}}.</ref> The term ''state consequentialism'' has also been applied to the political philosophy of the [[Confucian philosopher]] [[Xun Kuang|Xunzi]].<ref name="Chatterjee">{{cite book|author=Deen K. Chatterjee|title=Encyclopedia of Global Justice|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2swUg4ZKTgsC&pg=PA1170|date=6 October 2011|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-1-4020-9159-9|page=1170|quote=in this sense, one can interpret Xunzi's political philosophy as a form of state utilitarianism or state consequentialism}}</ref> On the other hand, [[Legalism (Chinese philosophy)|"legalist"]] [[Han Feizi|Han Fei]] "is motivated almost totally from the ruler's point of view."<ref>{{cite journal |first=Chad |last=Hansen |title=Fa (Standards: Laws) and Meaning Changes in Chinese Philosophy |journal=Philosophy East and West |volume=44 |issue=3 |year=1994 |pages=435–488 |jstor=1399736 |doi=10.2307/1399736 |url=http://hub.hku.hk/bitstream/10722/45241/1/3006.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221010/http://hub.hku.hk/bitstream/10722/45241/1/3006.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-10 |url-status=live |hdl=10722/45241 }}</ref>