ABSTRACT The purpose of this article is to explain the Mohists’ perceived inconsistences of the following three propositions in the Mojing since we attribute to them an unconditional love toward human beings: (A) A thief is a man. Killing a thief is not killing men. (B) A thief is a man. Loving a thief is not loving men. (C) Zang is a man. Loving Zang is loving men. The attribution of unconditional love toward human beings is not unusual to the Mohists when we render the Mohist idea of jian’ai as universal love. My interpretation first suggests that we can consistently interpret the Mohist ethical position as intentional utilitarianism. Second, I claim that Mohist universal love includes some generality, though it does not have to mean universality without exception. This Mohist generality will be explained through the generic use of nouns.

中文翻译：

---

为什么爱贼和爱墨家不一样？

摘要本文的目的是解释墨家在以下《墨经》中对以下三个命题的不一致性，因为我们将其归因于对人类的无条件的爱：（A）小偷是人。杀贼不是杀人。（B）小偷是男人。爱小偷不是爱男人。（C）ang是男人。爱Z是爱男人。当我们将墨家关于建爱的普遍性思想转化为墨家思想时，无条件的爱对人的归属在墨家中并不罕见。我的解释首先表明，我们可以始终如一地将墨家的道德立场解释为故意的功利主义。其次，我声称墨家普遍的爱包括某种普遍性，尽管它不一定意味着普遍性。这种墨家的普遍性将通过名词的一般用法来解释。