48. On Stance：Interests determine stance; stance determines perspective.

Interests determine stance, and stance determines perspective. Ordinary people judge the right and wrong of any matter according to this logic. First, they unconsciously assess whether the matter involves their own interests. If it does, they immediately adopt a stance favorable to themselves and derive a judgment of right and wrong from that position. If it does not involve their interests, they choose an impartial stance and derive a judgment of right and wrong from that position. This is the fundamental reason why different people hold starkly divergent views on the same matter. It also explains the social phenomenon where many individuals can make impartial judgments when their interests are unaffected, yet become incapable of fairness the moment their own interests are at stake.

Mozi addressed this phenomenon in his treatise Against Aggression: Suppose someone steals peaches and plums from another's orchard. Everyone condemns this act because it harms another's interests. If the theft involves chickens, dogs, or pigs, condemnation intensifies because greater harm is inflicted. When stealing cattle or horses, condemnation intensifies further due to the increased harm inflicted. As for murder and robbery, once known, they are utterly unforgivable. In short, the greater the harm to others, the stronger the condemnation. On these matters, people can clearly distinguish right from wrong. Yet when two nations wage war, blood flows like rivers, and countless lives are lost—an act inflicting harm far exceeding robbery or murder. Not only is it not condemned, but war is celebrated. Faced with this phenomenon, Mozi found it utterly perplexing, believing scholars and gentlemen had lost their moral compass, confusing right and wrong.

Clearly, Mozi's analysis failed to recognize that ordinary people base their judgments of right and wrong on their own interests. Regarding theft and murder, ordinary people are bystanders. Since their interests are unaffected, they can make impartial judgments. However, when two nations go to war, the citizens of the combatant states become participants, no longer bystanders. As participants, they naturally assess the morality of war based on their own interests. This explains why people condemn murderers yet glorify war, despite both involving killing.

The social phenomena observed by Mozi are identical to those we witness today, demonstrating that humanity's approach to judging right and wrong has remained unchanged throughout history. The innate pursuit of self-interest dictates that when making moral judgments, individuals first consider their own interests and determine right and wrong based on those interests.

It is precisely this method of moral judgment that fuels the continuous emergence of social contradictions and conflicts. And it is precisely because of this approach to moral judgment that neutral third-party adjudication becomes necessary to resolve such contradictions and conflicts. As an outsider, the third party remains unaffected by the conflict's stakes, enabling them to render impartial judgments grounded in justice.

From the perspective of resolving social conflicts, both parties must transcend the mindset where interests dictate their views. They should adopt the neutral third party's perspective to make sound judgments of right and wrong, thereby resolving conflicts and contradictions based on this assessment. If people can gradually achieve this in the face of conflict, it signifies progress in human nature. Otherwise, we will forever remain primitive beings.