I used to also think Mencius is kind of low-IQ because he has all these brain-dead takes, but nowadays I'm less certain about that, and I think the Shun dilemma is an example of where I've changed my mind.
Here I think there is a way of laying out Mencius' assumptions and forming an argument from them. My take is that Mencius is demanding absolute moral purity for an ideal ruler, which contains a complex obligations that are not of the same order. A ruler should carry out the law as a ruler and observe filial piety as a son, but the former is of the second order, while the latter is primary. This is because the basis of all morality are natural virtues that one displays in specific relation to his own mind and people around him, such as one's filial piety towards his parents and his obligation to his lord, which ultimately come from innate moral feelings such as compassion, shame, and modesty. It is not possible to break these cardinal rules while also maintaining just rule of a state, because you would be going against the most fundamental moral intuitions that makes a man a man, and the right course of action is to avoid being put in this position by withdrawing from the secondary obligations. So if King Shun were put in a position where he would have to violate his deference to his father by punishing him for his crimes in order to fulfill his obligations as a just ruler, Shun would no longer be fit to rule, which in the first instance means that as an morally impure king he would have no standing to carry out the law against his father, and on the flip side this would release him from the position where he needed to punish his father. Thus in my reading Mencius is not recommending Shun flee with his father and become a hermit by the sea so that he could shirk responsibility, but rather suggesting that the demands upon sage king are high indeed, and when you fall short, natural moral obligations must come first. I believe my reading is also supported by related passages in the same book, Jin Xin A, and the Shun fable is an elaboration on principles like "知命者不立乎巖牆之下" and "人莫大焉亡親戚君臣上下，以其小者信其大者，奚可哉".
I don't disagree with your logic, but I still think it's a deeply unserious position to take given the actual political reality of the Warring States. The logic is clear and absolute, and therefore simplistic and impossible to implement. If Mencius really wanted moral purity in the rulers, and hereditary monarchy had been the norm for nearly a thousand years, he should have advocated for some kind of electoral politics instead. He never goes that far probably because it's obvious how unpopular that would be, and everybody knows the Confucian utopia of Yao and Shun has gone bankrupt. Even the fact that he's teaching this to a disciple, rather than in dialogue with an actual ruler, is kind of revealing: when speaking with e.g. King Hui of Liang, he clearly bends over to curry the king's favour, mixing flattery with moral instruction. If he had a more high-level understanding of things like practical ethics, he would have appeared a lot less hypocritical and more effective, even if just rhetorically.
I think you're being kind of harsh, and I reckon we should be a bit more generous... The fact that he told a fable to his disciple about ideal kingship while saying expedient things to influence a real, imperfect king doesn't mean he's inconsistent. If anything that *is* rhetorical effectiveness, by knowing what to say when you approach different audiences.
And okay, maybe this idea of pursuing moral purity even at the cost of letting lesser men take power is "a deeply unserious position to take given the actual political reality of the Warring States", but honestly I think most Warring States thinkers are that way when they want to emphasize how absolute their own principles are. Like, as much as I appreciate Zhuangzi for his flair, I don't think "I'd rather drag my tail in mud" is a good reply to the King of Chu when he wants you in charge (who in any case would be like "tortoise? wat🤔 maybe we shouldn't have sent for that clown"). But then again, I doubt this actually happened or Zhuangzi's disciples really thought this is what they should say to a king. So basically I don't think Mencius should go straight into F tier in your Pre-Qin thinkers tier list just because he told the Shun story with a bit of drama, what with the carrying and the seaside hut. If that's the standard, most Pre-Qin thinkers would end up in F tier (well maybe not Legalists, taking your word for it about their concern with realistic policy), and the tier list would basically be a giant "lol wut", which would be fun, but a bit pointless.
Besides, finding out that Mencius would be on Antigone's side is interesting. And through this comparison, we also find that Mencius has an argument that's ultimately based in moral psychology (I think), in contrast with Antigone's argument resorting to natural law. So one might wonder about the effectiveness of each. To me this is enough to become less frustrated about Mencius' rhetoric and take him seriously.
I used to also think Mencius is kind of low-IQ because he has all these brain-dead takes, but nowadays I'm less certain about that, and I think the Shun dilemma is an example of where I've changed my mind.
Here I think there is a way of laying out Mencius' assumptions and forming an argument from them. My take is that Mencius is demanding absolute moral purity for an ideal ruler, which contains a complex obligations that are not of the same order. A ruler should carry out the law as a ruler and observe filial piety as a son, but the former is of the second order, while the latter is primary. This is because the basis of all morality are natural virtues that one displays in specific relation to his own mind and people around him, such as one's filial piety towards his parents and his obligation to his lord, which ultimately come from innate moral feelings such as compassion, shame, and modesty. It is not possible to break these cardinal rules while also maintaining just rule of a state, because you would be going against the most fundamental moral intuitions that makes a man a man, and the right course of action is to avoid being put in this position by withdrawing from the secondary obligations. So if King Shun were put in a position where he would have to violate his deference to his father by punishing him for his crimes in order to fulfill his obligations as a just ruler, Shun would no longer be fit to rule, which in the first instance means that as an morally impure king he would have no standing to carry out the law against his father, and on the flip side this would release him from the position where he needed to punish his father. Thus in my reading Mencius is not recommending Shun flee with his father and become a hermit by the sea so that he could shirk responsibility, but rather suggesting that the demands upon sage king are high indeed, and when you fall short, natural moral obligations must come first. I believe my reading is also supported by related passages in the same book, Jin Xin A, and the Shun fable is an elaboration on principles like "知命者不立乎巖牆之下" and "人莫大焉亡親戚君臣上下，以其小者信其大者，奚可哉".
I don't disagree with your logic, but I still think it's a deeply unserious position to take given the actual political reality of the Warring States. The logic is clear and absolute, and therefore simplistic and impossible to implement. If Mencius really wanted moral purity in the rulers, and hereditary monarchy had been the norm for nearly a thousand years, he should have advocated for some kind of electoral politics instead. He never goes that far probably because it's obvious how unpopular that would be, and everybody knows the Confucian utopia of Yao and Shun has gone bankrupt. Even the fact that he's teaching this to a disciple, rather than in dialogue with an actual ruler, is kind of revealing: when speaking with e.g. King Hui of Liang, he clearly bends over to curry the king's favour, mixing flattery with moral instruction. If he had a more high-level understanding of things like practical ethics, he would have appeared a lot less hypocritical and more effective, even if just rhetorically.
I think you're being kind of harsh, and I reckon we should be a bit more generous... The fact that he told a fable to his disciple about ideal kingship while saying expedient things to influence a real, imperfect king doesn't mean he's inconsistent. If anything that *is* rhetorical effectiveness, by knowing what to say when you approach different audiences.
And okay, maybe this idea of pursuing moral purity even at the cost of letting lesser men take power is "a deeply unserious position to take given the actual political reality of the Warring States", but honestly I think most Warring States thinkers are that way when they want to emphasize how absolute their own principles are. Like, as much as I appreciate Zhuangzi for his flair, I don't think "I'd rather drag my tail in mud" is a good reply to the King of Chu when he wants you in charge (who in any case would be like "tortoise? wat🤔 maybe we shouldn't have sent for that clown"). But then again, I doubt this actually happened or Zhuangzi's disciples really thought this is what they should say to a king. So basically I don't think Mencius should go straight into F tier in your Pre-Qin thinkers tier list just because he told the Shun story with a bit of drama, what with the carrying and the seaside hut. If that's the standard, most Pre-Qin thinkers would end up in F tier (well maybe not Legalists, taking your word for it about their concern with realistic policy), and the tier list would basically be a giant "lol wut", which would be fun, but a bit pointless.
Besides, finding out that Mencius would be on Antigone's side is interesting. And through this comparison, we also find that Mencius has an argument that's ultimately based in moral psychology (I think), in contrast with Antigone's argument resorting to natural law. So one might wonder about the effectiveness of each. To me this is enough to become less frustrated about Mencius' rhetoric and take him seriously.