PHILOSOPHY 263.

01: SECOND PAPER ASSIGNMENT

Office: 203E West Duke Building / Office hours: Immediately after class or by appointment (email or
message me on Saki, and we can set up a Zoom meeting). Email address: [email protected] or
[email protected] (please take note of these exact addresses—there’s another David Wong at Duke).)
Teaching assistants: Tayfun Gur [email protected], Botian Liu [email protected].
Message or email them to set up Zoom appointments

A paper of approximately 5-6 double-spaced pages is due Friday Oct 16 (anytime). Please submit your
paper via “Assignments” on Sakai. If you have problems uploading your paper, you email your paper to
[email protected] or [email protected] (again be sure to use one of these addresses; if you try to pull
my address from the Duke directory, you might get the wrong David Wong). Remember to check the
box indicating your agreement to the honor code, or the paper submission will not go through.
Getting feedback on your developing ideas before the due date. You are encouraged to give me or
Botian or Tayfun notes or drafts by Oct 10 so that we can help you with the process of writing. You can
send me outlines, notes, or drafts to get feedback before your final version is due.
Acknowledgment of sources and plagiarism: to submit your paper you must indicate that you have
read and agree to the honor code. According to the Duke Community Standard, you commit plagiarism
if you do anything of the following
•Copy from sources without adequate documentation. 
•Purchase a pre-written paper (either by mail or electronically). 
•Let someone else write a paper for you. 
•Pay someone else to write a paper for you. 
If you draw from someone else’s published or unpublished work to develop your paper, cite the source
(see below for form of citation). If you are also using that person’s words in part or in whole, you must
use quotation marks or indent longer quoted passages and give the location in the relevant publication.
Presenting all or part of papers written by others as one’s own work is not acceptable and will be treated
as plagiarism. I am not expressing suspicion of any of you. It is my duty to make this clear.
Opportunity for rewrite. After you get your paper back from us with comments and grade, you will
have the option (not mandatory) to rewrite it in response to the comments. You will get a new grade
(unlikely that it will be worse, but not guaranteed to be better). You will have about 10 days to turn in a
rewrite after you receive the original paper back from me.
What your philosophy paper should look like
Introducing the reader to what your paper is about. In the opening paragraph clearly state the
question, issue, or problem you will be addressing, and give a brief preview of what you intend to
say. When drafting your paper, you may want to finish writing the introduction for last, since you
may not know precisely what you are going to say when you start writing your draft. Avoid corny or
“canned” introductions that are not directly about the subject of your paper (such as general
statements about Confucius’ place in the Chinese tradition).
Try to present the view or argument you are discussing as accurately and as sympathetically as
you can. This is even more important if you disagree with the view. That’s because it’s always
tempting to “set up” a view you disagree with by making it out to be more flawed than it really is.
Your key claims as to what the author or text says should be supported by references to the text or
article or chapter. You can either paraphrase or directly quote the relevant passages and indicate the
 2

title of the text and the location of the relevant passage. Here’s an example: in commenting on a man
who accused his own father of stealing a sheep, Confucius said that fathers coverup for their sons and
that sons coverup for their fathers (Analects 13.18). You should be referring to the translations we are
using in class, and if you are working from them, there is no need to give a more detailed citation
such as publisher and place and date of publication. In the case of essays by contemporary
commentators, you can provide references such as the following: Olberding claims that the exemplars
of the Analects “are the origin of its theoretical vision” (Olberding, “Dreaming of the Duke of Zhou:
Exemplarism and the Analects,” p. 626). The first time you refer to a work like this, include the title,
but afterwards, if there is only one item of an author’s you are using, you can just give a parenthetical
reference to the author and the page (Olberding, p. 628). If you use work that has not been assigned,
you can use parenthetical references in the main body of your essay, but also include a more complete
reference at the end of the paper, under the heading “References.” For the form a reference item
should take, consult the Chicago Manual of Style here:
https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-2.html.
Acknowledging controversies in interpreting texts and authors. As we have seen, texts like the
Analects and contemporary authors such as Fingarette can be interpreted in different ways. So in
addition to supporting your interpretation by citations to the text, you should acknowledge alternative
interpretations to the ones you give, and defend the interpretive choices you have made.
In addition, philosophy papers generally involve critical discussion in which the plausibility of that
point of view is evaluated and you defend your own point of view. We don’t look for “the right
answer." We do look for some depth of thought about why you take the side you have taken.
This requires an awareness that the issue is controversial, i.e., that it is one on which intelligent
people have taken different positions. A critical discussion is not just the expression of agreement or
disagreement, but giving reasons for your conclusion. In other words, do not just say, “I agree with
Jin Li when she says so-and-so.” Say something like, “I agree because . . .” or “for the reason
that . . .” Furthermore, you are more persuasive when you show awareness of why other people
might disagree with you and if you give them a reason to change their minds. Try to anticipate why
others might object to your view and try to give a reason why they should change their minds.
In constructing your critical discussion, you may use ideas from the readings, lectures, class
discussion, forum, or conversations with other students, citing where you got it.
You may find yourself agreeing or disagreeing with a viewpoint you discuss, but another perfectly
legitimate outcome is that you remain uncertain. Important problems, especially philosophical
ones, are too difficult and complex to admit of easy, simple, or non-ambivalent answers. If your
conclusion is that the problem admits of no definitive solution, then you can present the different
points of view that bear on the problem with as much force and cogency as you can and argue that
there is no clear winner. Perhaps your task is to persuade your audience that no easy or simple answer
is possible!
The critical model applies to evaluating possible interpretations of the original texts, especially
where there is controversy over how to interpret the texts. If you want to defend the plausibility
of your interpretation of a text, then you will certainly want to mention passages in the text that
support your interpretation and explain how they support your interpretation. But you might also
identify an alternative interpretation that might possibly be supported by the text and argue for
the greater plausibility of the one you want to defend. Does your interpretation make better sense
of what is said in the text? Does it allow you to better reconcile passages that apparently conflict?
Again, it may be perfectly appropriate to acknowledge that there is no one best interpretation of
difficult passages.
You are not expected you to make totally original arguments, but you will be expected to put
the arguments in your own words and take your own perspective on them. Where there has been
 3

lecture, PowerPoint slides, and discussion in class or in the Sakai forum about the subject, you can
show that you have thought about the points made in these places and taken them into account,
whatever your conclusion turns out to be. The best papers generally go beyond what we have
discussed in class by bringing up some new and relevant issue, by giving substantial argument of
your own for a point of view, by extending a line of reasoning or an objection stated in class, or by
bringing to bear your own experience as it might pertain to a point of view or argument. If the issue
is whether a philosophical view expressed in a text is plausible (such as the view that one should
always coverup for one’s parents), one way to discuss and criticize a view is to identify its
implications in concrete cases. In which cases does it seem to give intuitively plausible or
implausible results?

Writing style.
Good philosophy papers don’t use fancy language for the sake of fancy language. Use the
simplest, most straightforward and precise language to convey quality thinking. By the end of the
paper, your reader should clearly know how you arrived at your conclusions, and hopefully will be
more inclined towards your position. As your paper progresses, the reader should know at any given
point what you’ve done so far and what you intend to do next. You can help the reader by using
phrases such as “I will begin by presenting Fingarette’s reasons for holding that. . .” or “Having stated
my understanding of Fingarette’s view, I will now give two reasons why I (dis)agree with him” and
“My first reason is that . . . My second reason is that . . .”
Who the audience of your paper is. Don’t write as if the audience is the instructor of the course.
Write for someone who is like you: intelligent, about your level of education, but who has not studied
the material or topic before.
Giving examples of general or abstract views. It can often be difficult to know what such views
really amount to, or what their concrete implications are. This is why one of the most useful phrases
to be found in a philosophy paper is “For example.” You can also give examples to support your
assessment of other people’s views. When these views have plausible implications, you can give
examples of these implications, and similarly for implausible implications.
Be explicit about when you are stating someone else’s view or your own view. You will be
usually doing both things: interpreting someone else and stating and arguing for your own view. The
reader should be clear on which one of the things you are doing at any given time. If you are
presenting Olberding’s view of how the Analects should be interpreted, make it clear that it is
Olberding’s view you are expressing and not necessarily your own. You can agree or disagree with
her view. Just make it clear when you are doing so.
Be concise but explain the basis of your interpretations and conclusions. It’s a matter of hitting
the right balance. Don’t ramble and repeat yourself, but you need to back up your most important
claims and explain what you mean. 5-6 pages is not that much space. Use it well. Decide what your
main points are and support them fully.
Further research? Sometimes students want to know if further research is accepted or
recommended, beyond the assigned readings. I don’t prohibit you from doing this but don’t
encourage it either. It is better to concentrate on thinking and writing well and clearly based on the
reading assignments, PowerPoint notes, and our forum and class discussions. A lot of times when
students try to incorporate outside research, they have difficulty fully incorporating or explaining the
basis of the author’s point of view, and it makes the paper more problematic.
Process suggestions.
 4

Leave enough time. Start early and do it in stages: sketch out the general ideas and strategies of
argument; perhaps in an outline; write a draft; examine the draft for clarity and organization.
You may benefit from discussion with your classmates or students outside this class besides getting
feedback from us on notes and a draft. Discussion with others outside the class can prompt you to
explain more clearly what you are saying.
Read over your draft at least twice and ask yourself the following questions: Does the paper as a
whole have a logical flow from beginning to end so that the audience can follow you and not get
confused about what you are doing? Are each of the paragraphs organized to convey a main point?
Are the individual sentences clear and plausible? Does this paper give someone who was not already
persuaded of your position some good reasons to consider adopting it?

SUGGESTED TOPICS

If you have in mind a topic of your own choosing, please confer with the instructor at least one week
before the paper is due.

The Mozi and jian ai 兼愛

How should the Mohist doctrine of jian ai to be interpreted? (If you do this question, it is
recommended that you study carefully the relevant PowerPoint slides, including the parts on why
ambiguities in the original Chinese text might create complications for interpretation, as well as
references to other parts of the Mozi text that were not included in Readings in Classical Chinese
Philosophy.) Why is it important to distinguish an attitude and action component within this
doctrine? What do you think is required in the way of attitude towards others, and what in the
way of action? The Mohists appeared to have valued filiality and also caring for and helping
others outside the family. Why might this create a challenge for interpretation of jian ai?
Compare jian ai with Confucian graded caring. Is there disagreement between Confucians
and Mohists on the question of the attitude that one should take towards everyone? What is
Mengzi’s explanation, in 3A5, for the Mohist Yi Zhi’s inability to live up to the Mohist
prescription for burying one’s parents? How do the moral issues raised by the Larissa
MacFarquhar chapter on the family of Sue and Hector relate to the Mohist-Confucian debate?
What do you personally think is the best way to resolve these conflicts? Or is there a best way?

Hint: when talking about different possible interpretations of jian ai, it may be advisable to use
the pinyin rather than the translated terms from Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy. Using
the translation of “impartial caring” tends to impose an interpretation on how the Mohists meant
the terms. In particular, to use the word “impartial” before you argue for a particular
interpretation of “jian” as an attitude or an action may look like you’re prejudging the question.
So it may be better to talk about how “jian” is to be interpreted, and to say that its more literal
meaning is something like “inclusive” but that it has also been translated as “impartial.”

Reasoning in the Mengzi: Analogy and quan 權

How does Mengzian reasoning by analogy differ from “top-down” reasoning from principles?
Discuss an example of such reasoning from the Mengzi (e.g., 1A3, 1A7, 4A17). How is
discretion or quan exercised in response to conflicts between values or between different
dimensions of a single value (e.g., in 7A35 or 5A2)?
 5

How does one assess whether an argument from analogy is a good one? How might one
criticize a particular exercise of quan? To give examples of criticism, you may discuss one of the
arguments you presented as examples for the above.
How might these methods of reasoning contribute to moral-problem solving when top-down
reasoning becomes problematic? Give examples of how these reasoning methods might be
applied to a contemporary problem.

Mengzi on human nature as a basis for morality

Mengzi attempts to answer the question that Confucius did not address: “What is the stuff in
human beings that is cultivated to make them good?” Explain his answer in 6A6: “As for their
essence, they can become good. This is what I mean by calling their natures good. As for their
becoming not good, this is not the fault of their potential” (Readings, p. 147). What is it in
human nature specifically that can become good? What kind of emotional dispositions and
intuitive judgments does Mengzi believe constitute the potential for becoming good? When he
says that it is not the fault of the potential when people do not become good, what does he mean?
Explain the metaphors Mengzi uses to articulate his conception of human nature. Explain the
different implications the metaphors have for how human nature develops into goodness or not.
Give your own assessment of the plausibility of Mengzi’s theory, comparing them to the
alternative theories mentioned in 6A6 (or others you think are plausible alternatives). To what
extent has contemporary science confirmed something like Mengzi’s theory? Does the theory
adequately explain how people fail to become good?

Ren and the Care Ethic

Drawing from the selection by Carol Gilligan and Chenyang Li’s “The Concept of Jen and the
Feminist Ethics of Care: A Comparative Study,” present your own understanding of the
similarities and differences between a Confucian ethic focused on the value of ren 仁 and the
feminist ethic of care. If your comparison differs from that of Li, explain how and why it differs,
grounding your interpretation in the relevant texts (Gilligan, the Analects, Mengzi).
Advocates of both the care and Confucian ethics, argues Li, can learn from each other.
Explain his arguments. What is Li-Hsiang Lisa Rosenlee’s analysis of why there hasn’t been as
much dialogue between the two ethics as one might have expected or hoped? What is her own
position on how the two ethics can benefit from interaction?
State and defend your own position on the issues that Li and Rosenlee address, noting where
you agree or differ from them and explaining why.