In Mencius: Jin Xin I, Mencius remarked:
“Yang Zhu advocated self-interest, refusing to pluck a single hair to benefit the world. Mozi promoted universal love, willing to endure any hardship for the greater good.”
It is said that Mozi’s student Qin Huali once confronted Yang Zhu directly, asking, “If plucking a single hair from your body could benefit everyone in the world, would you do it?” Yang Zhu shook his head and replied, “The problems of the world cannot be solved by a single hair.” Qin Huali pressed further: “This is only a hypothesis. If plucking one hair could bring peace to the world, would you do it?” This time, Yang Zhu remained silent.
Mencius sharply criticized Yang Zhu’s philosophy of self-interest as narrow-minded and praised Mozi’s selfless dedication. He noted that Yang Zhu’s doctrine of “for myself” meant he would not pluck a single hair for the good of all, whereas Mozi’s principle of “universal love” led him to willingly endure great personal sacrifice for the benefit of humanity.
If you were faced with this choice, would you pluck a hair or hold fast to not plucking even one?
—
A Different Perspective from Liezi
In contrast to Mencius’ critique, the Liezi: Yang Zhu Chapter offers a more nuanced explanation of Yang Zhu’s philosophy:
“The ancients would not sacrifice even a single hair for the world, nor would they take the whole world for themselves. If everyone refrains from losing even a hair, and no one seeks to profit the world at others’ expense, the world will be in order.”
Yang Zhu emphasized the importance of maintaining clear boundaries and respecting individual rights:
“What is mine cannot be taken by others; what is not mine, I will not take.”
He believed that if everyone respected these boundaries without coercion or exploitation, even under the guise of benefiting the greater good, harmony would naturally follow.
—
The Core of Yang Zhu’s Philosophy: “Not Plucking a Hair”
Yang Zhu’s idea of “not plucking a hair to benefit the world” can be summarized as follows:
The Fallacy of Idealism:
The notion of plucking a hair to save the world is purely hypothetical and lacks real significance.
Autonomy of Rights:
Even if the scenario were possible, who has the right to decide? If others can coerce someone to sacrifice for the greater good, it violates individual rights and sets a dangerous precedent.
The Risk of Slippery Slopes:
Today it may be a single hair; tomorrow, it could be more. Who can guarantee that the demands won’t escalate to life itself? For Yang Zhu, this isn’t just about a single hair but about safeguarding the boundaries of personal rights.
—
The Philosophy of Boundaries: Individual vs. Collective
Yang Zhu’s core belief revolves around the “boundary between self and others.”
- “If no one sacrifices even a hair, and no one imposes their will on others in the name of benefiting the world, order will prevail.”
Yang Zhu argued that the chaos of the world arises because people, under the guise of benefiting humanity, actually pursue personal gain at the expense of others. Instead of lofty ambitions to govern the world, he advocated focusing on personal integrity and respecting the rights of individuals. Grandiose claims of “saving the world” often serve as tools to infringe on personal autonomy.
—
Harmony Lies in Respect, Not Sacrifice
In reality, the debate over “plucking a hair” often translates to a conflict between “greater good” and “personal interest.” True harmony does not come from sacrificing individuals for the collective but from mutual respect for personal rights and boundaries. As Yang Zhu said:
“If no one sacrifices even a hair, and no one seeks to profit the world, the world will naturally be at peace.”
If I were to choose, I would firmly adhere to the principle of “not plucking a hair.” This is not indifference but a recognition that the stability of the world begins with respecting individual rights. These rights are too precious to be casually dismissed for a hypothetical benefit.
