本文藉由勘察「三表法」的異同，以梳理《墨子．非命》三篇的論證系譜。在葛瑞漢（Angus C. Graham）錯簡研究基礎上，首先發現：「原之」雖有中篇「徵以先王之書」和上篇「下原察百姓耳目之實」的差別，但前者論證條件極為嚴苛，有其實踐上的困難；後者因無人可以描述命運的樣貌，較前者更具論證效力。此外，由於兩種「原之」都不適合用在「非命」這類要證其「無」的課題上，所以下篇捨棄不用。其次，中篇「用之」列出「執有命者」發於刑政的亂象，以批判宿命論的錯誤；「本之」則以「聖王之事」為典範，強調治亂在於人力而無關命運。雖同樣引述史事，兩者界線十分明確。至於「用之」與「原之」的區別，並不取決於有無引用古籍，而在於實際論證時符合哪一種定義。上篇「用之」在繼續反駁「執有命者」外，再提出取代宿命論的方案。下篇更運用「兩而進之」的方式，對比「強」、「命」兩個對立概念落實到日常生活中的可能狀況。綜合「原之」、「用之」以觀，在講究有效論證的要求下，可鉤勒出從〈非命中〉到〈非命上〉，最後到〈非命下〉的論證系譜。

The article examines the similarities and differences of the “Three Criteria” so as to sort out the argumentation genealogy of the “Against Fate” triad. Based on Angus Charles Graham’s study on dislocation, it first discovers that there are two kinds of the “the source”: “the writings of the former kings” in the “Against Fate II” and “the truth of the evidence of the eyes and ears of the common people below” in
the “Against Fate I.” The argument of the former is extremely strict and is diffi cult in practice; that of the latter is more eff ective than the former because no one can describe the appearance of fate. In addition, since both the two kinds of “the source” are unsuitable for use on the subject of anti-fatalism to prove about their “nonexistence,” they are discarded in the “Against Fate III.” The article’s second discovery is that the boundary between “the application” and “the foundation” in the “Against Fate II” is very clear though both quote historical facts. As for the difference between “the application” and “the source,” it does not depend on whether or not ancient books are cited, but on which defi nition the actual argument conforms to. The former lists the chaos caused when “fatalism” is applied to government policy and criticizes the falsehood of fatalism. The latter takes “the affairs of the sage kings” as the model which positively highlights whether order or chaos world lies in the eff ort rather than fate. “The application” in the “Against Fate I” continues to refute “fatalists” and also proposes a plan to replace fatalism. The “Against Fate III” further uses the method of “contrasting two hypothetical situations” to compare the possible situations when the two opposing concepts “diligence” and “fate” are implemented in daily life. By viewing “the source” and “the application” integratively, the article draws an argumentation genealogy to the requirement of eff ective argumentation: fi rst “Against Fate II,” then “Against Fate I,” and fi nally “Against Fate III.”