(18.2) I am not 100% certain if I am interpreting this passage correctly, but Liu Xiahui seems to be saying that if he continues to be a morally good, honest, and kind man, he will get dismissed from his position in any state that he works. It is the morally corrupt men that never need to move positions. What he seems to be suggesting is that it is “easier” to compromise one’s morals to escape consequences than it is to stay true to one’s ethical values. Liu Xiahui is an exemplary person because he values doing what is morally right over his own position. Confucius seems to be in favor of valuing integrity (even with the cost of “failure”) over convenience and safety.

(17.18) At first glance, this chunk of text reads somewhat like a boomer ranting about the integration of technology into everyday life (for a lack of a better comparison). The disdain for purple seems to stem from the idea of ritual propriety that Confucius heavily pushes for in the analects —he is against the replacement of more traditional practices that are grounded in some type of moral history for something that is shallow or convenient (this reminds me somewhat of modern-day fast fashion, in a way). Despite my initial take, I would not compare Confucius to a boomer because his concern is not unfounded or superficial. He seems to be concerned that people will lead themselves astray by draining their symbols and virtues of meaning (rituals, behavior, etc.).

(15.24) As soon as I read this sentence, I immediately recognized the language of the “golden rule:” do unto others what you’d have them do unto you. I find it really interesting how so many cultures/religions have developed moral principles similar/identical to this rule —after a quick search, I can see different variations in ancient China (Confucius), Ancient Greece, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, etc. And while the rules are not exactly identical in wording, most of these cultures seem to recognize (to some extent) this autonomy and self-reflection. I am curious if these cultures derived this rule from one another or if they arrived at the conclusion independently. If they arrived at it independently, there is potential for a pretty strong argument against moral relativism —surely, if many different groups of people of varying backgrounds arrived at this principle, then there must be some truth to it.

(1.2) "Exemplary people" --or people who are actually great people (not just by proclamation)-- are unique in that they focus on the fundamental ideals or principles (aka the roots) of morals (in this case, filial piety is referenced) rather than the potential benefits of acting in a certain way. It seems to be implied that if people live according to the foundational virtues of morals, then they will learn how to live and behave properly and form good-natured relationships. When this moral foundation is cultivated, it will grow and begin to naturally influence other aspects of an exemplary person's life. In this particular part, it is suggested that filial piety is the foundation for good conduct in society and in the presence of authority.

(4.3) From this quote, it sounds like the core idea is that only a truly good (exemplary?) authoritative person should have the ability to differentiate between a good person and a bad person. It makes sense, given that you wouldn’t trust someone to criticize your behavior if they themselves are a hypocrite and participate in bad behaviors. However, I do have a few questions about this approach. If a “bad person” does not have the ability to differentiate between a good and bad person, how do they know that they are ‘bad’ to begin with? How can they go about changing to become a ‘good’ person if they cannot differentiate? Do they depend on the interference of a good, authoritative person to help them? Despite these questions, however, the overall takeaway seems to be Confucius warning us to not judge others if we are not fully matured/wise in our morals either.

(8.9) I believe that this quote (and overarching theme of this book) is saying that the ordinary person can be encouraged to follow what is considered the “right path” in morality, but it is not possible for them to fully understand it. People can still do what is morally right (or imitate good and moral behaviors) even without understanding the deeper reasons behind it that make it morally right. This quote by itself reads almost elitist, so I am curious what Confucius’s intentions were with wording it this way —does he truly believe that there are only some elite people who can understand morals while there are (a potentially underestimated) others who are clueless? If Confucius believes this to be the case, then does he believe that there are certain groups of people who need to be controlled for their own benefit? I personally think that, even if it is not ideal, it is good enough if people know what is morally right and wrong and act accordingly, even without true understanding. The system still works, and people can still cluelessly be morally good people. I am curious what people think is at stake here.