A question

Master Mo, (479 BC. to 372 BC) a critic of Confucianism with his doctrine of Universal Love and Mutual Profit -兼相愛交相利, was contested by Mencius as follows:

'Master,' said Mencius, 'your aim is great, but your argument is not good. If you, starting from the point of (mutual) profit, offer your persuasive counsels to the kings of Qin and Chu, and if those kings are pleased with the consideration of profit so as to stop the movements of their armies, then all belonging to those armies will rejoice in the cessation of war, and find their pleasure in the pursuit of profit. Ministers will serve their sovereign for the profit of which they cherish the thought; sons will serve their fathers, and younger brothers will serve their elder brothers, from the same consideration - and the issue will be, that, abandoning benevolence and righteousness, sovereign and minister, father and son, younger brother and elder, will carry on all their intercourse (cooperation) with this thought of profit cherished in their breasts. But never has there been such a state of society, without ruin being the result of it. If you, starting from the ground of benevolence and righteousness, offer your counsels to the kings of Qin and Chu, and if those kings are pleased with the consideration of benevolence and righteousness so as to stop the operations of their armies, then all belonging to those armies will rejoice in the stopping from war, and find their pleasure in benevolence and righteousness. Ministers will serve their sovereign, cherishing the principles of benevolence and righteousness; sons will serve their fathers, and younger brothers will serve their elder brothers, in the same way - and so, sovereign and minister, father and son, elder brother and younger, abandoning the thought of profit, will cherish the principles of benevolence and righteousness, and carry on all their intercourse upon them. But never has there been such a state of society, without the State where it prevailed rising to the royal sway. Why must you use that word "profit?." (Mencius Book, 告子下 - Gaozi II)'

(“先生之志則大矣，先生之號則不可。先生以利說秦楚之王，秦楚之王悅於利，以罷三軍之師，是三軍之士樂罷而悅於利也。為人臣者懷利以事其君，為人子者懷利以事其父，為人弟者懷利以事其兄。是君臣、父子、兄弟終去仁義，懷利以相接，然而不亡者，未之有也。先生以仁義說秦楚之王，秦楚之王悅於仁義，而罷三軍之師，是三軍之士樂罷而悅於仁義也。為人臣者懷仁義以事其君，為人子者懷仁義以事其父，為人弟者懷仁義以事其兄，是君臣、父子、兄弟去利，懷仁義以相接也。然而不王者，未之有也。何必曰利？”(孟子 - 告子下)

Why according to Mencius and the Confucians, who ruled China for 2000 years and have shaped Chinese thinking, instead of talking of profit (mutual benefit - as Mozi actually says) -something obtained by cooperation-, people has to consider the goods as a gift (fruit of benevolence and righteousness) of the ruler?

Does not it clearly show that we are stupids? or, at least, that we have to simulate that?

Why never has there been such a state of society, without the State where it prevailed rising to the royal sway?.