In Mencius: Jin Xin I, Mencius said:
“Yangzi’s principle is ‘for oneself.’ He would not pluck a single hair from his body to benefit the world. Mozi advocates ‘universal love.’ If it would benefit the world, he would do it, even if it meant wearing himself out from head to heel. Zimo holds to the middle ground. Holding to the middle is closer to the right way, but to hold to the middle without weighing circumstances is the same as holding to one extreme. The reason for hating those who hold to one extreme is that they damage the Way, upholding one point while neglecting a hundred others.”
According to legend, Mozi’s student Qin Guli met Yang Zhu and asked him bluntly:
“If you could benefit the entire world by plucking a single hair from your body, would you do it?”
Yang Zhu shook his head and replied:
“The problems of the world are not something that can be solved by a single hair.”
Qin Guli retorted:
“This is just a hypothetical. If plucking one of your hairs could bring peace to the world, would you be willing?”
Upon hearing this, Yang Zhu remained silent.
1. Mencius’s Stance: Praising Mozi, Criticizing Yang Zhu
In response, Mencius directly criticized Yang Zhu’s “for oneself” theory as narrow-minded and highly praised Mozi’s spirit of selfless dedication. He pointed out:
- Yangzi advocated “for oneself”; even if plucking a single hair could benefit the world, he would not do it.
- Mozi advocated “universal love”; even if it meant wearing himself out from head to heel, as long as it benefited the world, he would do it.
Mencius also emphasized:
If one holds to the middle ground without knowing how to adapt to circumstances, one will ultimately harm the Way through inflexibility, leading to a partial view that neglects the whole.
Thus, the question is left for later generations—
If you had to choose, would you pluck the hair, or not?
2. Another Perspective from Liezi: Yang Zhu Was Not Selfish
In fact, the “Yang Zhu” chapter of the Liezi offers another interpretation of his thought:
“The ancients would not sacrifice a single hair to benefit the world, nor would they accept the whole world to serve their own person. If everyone refused to sacrifice a single hair, and everyone refused to try and benefit the world, the world would be in order.”
Yang Zhu emphasized that people should distinguish boundaries and protect the limits of their rights:
“What is mine, others cannot take; what is not mine, I will not take either.”
He believed:
- If everyone keeps to their own boundaries,
- without coercion or seizure,
- and without infringing upon others in the name of “benefiting the world,”
The world will naturally be well-governed.
3. The Logic Behind “Plucking a Hair to Benefit the World”
Yang Zhu’s philosophy can be summarized in three layers:
1. The Fallacy of Idealism
“Plucking a hair to benefit the world” is itself a hypothetical, lacking a basis in reality.
2. The Autonomy of Rights
Even if the hypothetical were true, the key question is—
Who does the plucking?
- If someone else forcibly plucks the hair,
- individual rights are violated.
- What legitimacy does this kind of “benefit to the world” have?
3. The Slippery Slope of Boundaries
Plucking a single hair today may seem trivial,
but once a precedent is set:
- Will they ask for a piece of flesh next time?
- And after that, will they ask for a life?
In Yang Zhu’s view:
This is not a question of a single hair, but a question of the boundary of individual rights.
4. The Core of Yang Zhu’s Thought: The Boundary Between the Collective and the Individual
What Yang Zhu truly cared about was not cold self-preservation, but:
“The boundary between the collective and the individual”
- Everyone not sacrificing a hair = Mutual non-infringement
- Everyone not trying to benefit the world = Not plundering others in the name of a “greater good”
He reminds us:
The world is in chaos precisely because people compete to “benefit the world,”
when in reality they are harming the world to fulfill the private interests of a few.
Rather than empty talk about governing the state and bringing peace to the world,
it is better to first do three things:
- Uphold individual boundaries
- Respect the rights of others
- Do not coerce individuals with noble-sounding reasons
5. The “Plucking a Hair” Debate in Reality
In the real world, this question often manifests as:
- “The greater good” vs. “private interest”
- Collective goals vs. individual rights
But true harmony does not lie in:
Sacrificing the individual to perfect the world
But rather in:
Everyone being able to respect each other’s rights and boundaries.
As Yang Zhu said:
“My body is not mine to harm; things are not mine to take.”
6. My Choice
Therefore, if I had to choose—
I would stand firm: I will not pluck a single hair.
This is not indifference, but because I know deep down:
- The good governance of the world begins with the self-discipline of the individual.
- The weight of rights cannot be easily shaken by a mere hypothetical.
True civilization
does not demand that individuals sacrifice themselves for an abstract “world,”
but ensures that every single person—
never has to be forced to pluck that single hair.