The ideas and attitudes toward life, human nature, society and civilization in Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching and Mo Tzu's Mo Tzu stand in complete contrast. The Tao suggests that the human being in his original, natural state was attuned to everything around him, and what he needs to do to return to that state is, essentially, leave everything alone: "The sage keeps to the deed that consists in taking no action and practices the teaching that uses no words" (Lao Tzu II). The Mo Tzu, on the other hand, suggests that "human beings are contentious . . . because they are selfish" (Hucker 86-87). The only way to correct that natural selfishness is through imposition of a militaristic society in which "people [are] regimented into total obedience to their rulers, and rulers in turn should be totally obedient to Heaven and the spirits" (Hucker 86).
In truth, there seems to be almost no point at which the views of the two works coincide. Control is the ultimate goal of the Mo Tzu, while giving up control is the goal of the Tao. This essential difference colors every aspect of life, human nature and society in a comparison of the two works and the world views of the authors.
The Tao does not ignore politics, but what it has to say is an indictment not of the people (as in the Mo Tzu, not of human nature which needs to be corrected by leaders, but is an indictment of the leaders themselves for even wanting to be leaders. The following passage encapsulates the Tao's attitude toward civilization, society and politics:
Whoever takes the empire and wishes to do anything to it I see will have no respite. The empire is a sacred vessel and nothing should be done to it. Whoever does anything to it will ruin it; whoever lays hold of it will lose it (Lao Tzu XXIX).
In other words, the empire is a sort of natural being, or force, which, like every other being or force in the Taoist world view, is best left alone to be what it is supposed to be....