Mozi#
Mozi was a Chinese philosopher who lived roughly during 470–391 BCE. Mozi came from a relatively modest background and founded the Mohist school, which became one of the most influential intellectual movements of early Chinese philosophy.
Unlike Confucians, who emphasized ritual, hierarchy, and tradition, Mozi focused on practical ethics, social utility, and the reduction of suffering. His philosophy was deeply concerned with the political instability and constant warfare of his time.
Mozi’s ethical teachings are preserved in the text Mozi (5th-3rd centuries BCE), a compilation assembled by his followers over time. The book contains 71 chapter which include ethical, political, military, and logical writings.
Engineers#
The Mohists were highly skilled technical experts, specialising in mechanical devices, construction, and logistics. Although Mozi does not explicitly theorise about engineers as a distinct social role, his followers clearly acted as such specialists, organised in ways that resemble a professional category.
For Mozi, advanced technical skill exists in the service of society. Actions involving technical expertise are moral insofar as they benefit people, reduce harm, increase material welfare, or promote peace. Good intentions alone are insufficient: those who apply technical skills must master their craft, study its principles, and develop the ability to anticipate the consequences of their choices. Where established standards do not exist, they must observe outcomes, measure results, and incorporate lessons learned into future work.
Practising technical craft well is therefore a moral obligation. Mohist texts repeatedly stress the importance of accurate measurement, the development and application of standards, and consistency in execution. Poor workmanship or careless application risks causing harm or undermining the effectiveness of otherwise well-intentioned interventions.
Good practitioners of technical arts are also expected to be frugal. Mozi strongly criticises waste, extravagance, and the pursuit of prestige without social benefit. Accordingly, technical work should optimise the use of resources, avoid unnecessary complexity, and favour durable solutions that can be maintained or improved over time. Simplicity is not merely an aesthetic preference but a moral one, particularly in historical contexts where scarcity and famine were common. Waste either causes direct harm or diminishes the benefits that an intervention might otherwise provide.
Although Mozi does not explicitly single out technical experts as a distinct moral class, his ethical framework implies that those with greater capacity to affect others bear greater responsibility. Those who possess specialised skills and knowledge therefore carry a heavier moral burden, as their decisions can benefit or harm large numbers of people.
Mozi is also aware that powerful tools can be used for harmful ends. His condemnation of aggressive warfare establishes clear moral limits on the application of technical skill. Mohist practitioners famously applied their expertise to defensive purposes, assisting cities under attack, while rejecting participation in wars of conquest. While Mozi does not articulate a general theory of technological risk, his ethics clearly reject the use of technical knowledge in service of unjust violence, oppression, or coercion.
Finally, technical work should not serve only a privileged few, whether rulers, elites, or their families. Central to Mohist ethics is the principle of impartial concern, which demands that all people be given equal moral consideration. Partiality breeds conflict and undermines social order. Only when technical expertise is applied fairly and inclusively can it fulfil its moral purpose of improving society as a whole.
Mozi’s ethical guidelines#
This is a contemporary interpretation of Mozi’s ethical guidelines.
Design and build only what produces real benefit for people: Define explicit human-benefit criteria (e.g. safety, reliability, health, material welfare) at project start. Require and seek evidence that the problem addressed reflects genuine social need.
Use technical skill for protection: Reject work whose primary purpose is to enable aggression, domination, or unjustified coercion. Prefer applications that strengthen defence, safety, resilience, or the reduction of suffering. Exercise restraint where uses are ambiguous or easily misapplied.
Hold expertise to a higher moral standard: Take responsibility for understanding the foreseeable consequences of work within one’s domain. Do not treat obedience, custom, or compliance with authority as sufficient moral justification. Accept personal responsibility for technical choices that significantly affect others.
Judge engineering success by outcomes: Define success in terms of actual effects on people rather than declared goals. Monitor real-world performance and treat harmful or ineffective outcomes as failures requiring correction.
Maintain rigorous standards of accuracy, measurement, and reliability: Apply consistent standards and careful measurement in design and execution. Avoid exaggeration, omission, or distortion of technical results. Recognise that inaccuracy and carelessness risk direct harm and undermine the purpose of technical skill.
Reject unnecessary complexity and extravagance: Choose the simplest design capable of delivering the intended benefit safely and reliably. Avoid wasteful use of materials, energy, or labour that does not proportionally increase benefit. Favour durability, repairability, and long-term usefulness over novelty or display.
Respect impartial concern for all affected parties: Give equal moral weight to all who may be affected by technical decisions, not only patrons, elites, or insiders. Avoid shifting risks or burdens onto less powerful groups. Do not privilege particular interests at the expense of general welfare.
Actively correct harmful systems when possible: Challenge claims that harmful outcomes are unavoidable. Consider alternative designs or actions instead of accepting harm. Propose redesign, mitigation, or abandonment when systems cause harm or fail to deliver benefit.