answered: NO SECONDARY SOURCE! may cite the primary sources from the r

  

NO SECONDARY SOURCE! may cite the primary sources from the readings simply by giving the relevant section numbers in the readings that I uploaded.
Need a clear thesis and should be clearly stated in a sentence in the first paragraph of the essay (e.g. “Mohist ethics is more justified than the ethics of the Analects, because it provides clear, objective guidelines for conduct.”, do not write the same thing)
Overview: The assignment prompt asks you to focus on the ethics of either the Analects,
two texts representing rival schools of thought. You are to sketch the content of the ethics
you choose and then suggest how proponents of the other, rival position might criticize
that ethics. You are then asked to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the two views and
explain why, in your view, one or the other side has a more defensible position.
Topic: Choose the ethics—the approach to dào—of the Analects as your focus.
Discuss the following: What guidelines does the Analects propose for identifying and
following the dào? How do you think the Mohists might critically evaluate
the Analects’s guidelines? In your opinion, what are some strengths and weaknesses of
the views you discuss from the Analects and the Mohists—both the constructive and
the critical views? Is one side’s standpoint (Mòzi or Analects) more justifiable than the
other, and if so, why?
Content:
First part is descriptive, . You are asked to give a brief but informative summary of the ethical
dào of either the Analects or the Mòzi. The word limit for the essay is only 1200 words, so
this summary will need to be concise. You need to pick out the key guidelines in the ethics
of either the Analects.
The second part asks you to explain some deeper, underlying features or relations in the
material. On your interpretation, how would the other, rival school of thought criticize the
view you summarize? identify from one to three key points about which the two sides
disagree and which could be the basis of criticism.
The third part is evaluative. It asks you to give a critical evaluation of ideas, doctrines, or
approaches presented in the material and to state and justify your own view about which
ethical doctrines are more well supported or convincing. This part gives you room to
express your own ideas, and there is no one standard correct answer. This part will be
where you do the most straightforward work giving reasons to support your thesis.
IMPORTANT: NEED TO TALK ABOUT the gentleman (junzi), propriety (li), benevolence (ren), and perhaps some other concepts.