Editing Mohism (section)

===Consequentialism===
{{Main article|Mohist consequentialism}}
{{quote box|quote=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.<ref name="Mozi">{{cite book |author1 = Mo, Di |author2-link = Xun Kuang |author2 = Xun, Kuang |author3-link = Han Fei |author3 = Han, Fei |editor = Watson, Burton |editor-link = 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|author1-link = Mozi }}</ref>|align=right |width=23%}}

Unlike hedonistic utilitarianism, which views pleasure as a moral good, "the basic goods in Mohist consequentialist thinking are... order, material wealth, and increase in population".<ref name="Cambridge">{{Cite book |title = The Cambridge History of Ancient China |year = 2011 |last = Loewe |first = Michael |last2 = Shaughnessy |first2 = Edward L. |publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]] |isbn = 978-0-52-147030-8 |page = 761|title-link = The Cambridge History of Ancient China }}</ref> During Mozi's era, war and famines were common, and population growth was seen as a moral necessity for a harmonious society. The "material wealth" of Mohist consequentialism refers to basic needs like shelter and clothing.<ref name="Norden">{{Cite book |title = Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy |year = 2011 |last = Van Norden |first = Bryan W. |publisher = [[Hackett Publishing]] |isbn = 978-1-60-384468-0 |page = 52}}</ref> Stanford sinologist [[David S. Nivison|David Shepherd Nivison]], in ''[[The Cambridge History of Ancient China]]'', writes that the moral goods of Mohism "are interrelated: An example of this would be, more basic wealth, then more reproduction; more people, then more production and wealth... if people have plenty, they would be good, filial, kind, and so on unproblematically".<ref name="Cambridge" /> In contrast to [[Jeremy Bentham|Bentham]]'s views, state consequentialism is not utilitarian because it is not hedonistic. The importance of outcomes that are good for the state outweigh the importance of individual pleasure and pain.