 Clearly, such considerations lead us into unmapped ethical terrain. How far can one justifiably take such sidestepping of the received applicable norms and ritual actions? What qualifications and restrictions might apply? For his part, Zhu Xi mentioned at least two qualifications: a weak qualification that the expedient adopted not be otherwise ethically objectionable, and a stronger qualification stipulating that the expedient adopted be in compliance with the Way, i.e., that it satisfy some basic moral value, at least as basic as the values expressed in the relevant received norm and ritual action. Thus, any exercise of discretion that is undertaken in light of one’s sense of appropriateness (yi), if exercised with sufficient probity and care, should satisfy the moral values embodied in the Way more adequately than would a routine observance of the standard norm. Humaneness is the core moral value that was invoked most often in such cases, but there are a number of others: filial piety, fraternity, fidelity, empathy, compassion, appropriateness, etc. Famous examples from the Confucian tradition include Mencius’ reminder that one should overturn the propriety of not grasping the hand of a member of the opposite sex in order to rescue a drowning sister in law (Mencius 4A.17), and Cheng Yi argued for an exception to the impropriety of widows remarrying on the basis of filial piety (Rosenlee 2006: 134). Similarly, Socrates showed that Justice is not always realized by observance of the proprieties of truth-telling and faithfully returning a friend’s property (Plato Republic 331c).