 If people were to regard others’ states as they regard their own state, then who would still mobilise their own state to attack the states of others? They would regard others’ [states] as they regard their own. If people were to regard the capital cities of others as they regard their own capital city, then who would still raise their own capital city to strike at the capital cities of others? They would regard others’ [capital cities] as they regard their own. If people were to regard the houses of others as they regard their own house, who would still stir their own house to bring disorder to the houses of others? They would regard others’ [houses] as they regard their own. Now if states and cities did not attack and strike at each other, and if people’s houses did not bring disorder to and damage each other, would this be harmful to the world? Or would it be beneficial to the world? This must be beneficial to the world. For the moment let us think about the origin of these many benefits, what it is they arise from….We must say that it is from loving people and benefiting people that they arise. And, if we were to distinguish and name those in the world who love people and benefit people, would it be as “discriminating” or as “universal”? We must say it would be as “universal”. In this case, then, it is “mutual and universal” which gives rise to the world’s great benefits. (Mozi, 16.2; Johnston 2010: 147–149)