Explain how chinese philosophies presented a different version of an ideal ruler

The Zhou dynasty ruled China from c. 1046 BC to 256 BC. They believed they had the Mandate of Heaven, God's divine will for them to rule. Such mandate consisted of a cycle, so every dynasty would eventually decay after a period of prosperity, become authoritarian, Heaven would sent signs to show the people the ruler has lost its favour, such as droughts and famine, so the people would riot against the emperor, overthrow him and a new leader would rise to occupy his place, starting a new dynasty cycle of prosperity, decay, disasters and riots.

The Zhou used a relationship system called feudalism, they gave some loyal supporters lands and absolute power over the peasants working those lands, in exchange for soldiers. This system worked for a while until 700 BC, when landlords began fighting each other. These troubled times led some scholars to debate the proper way to rule. Three major philosophies come from this.

- Confucianism: it establishes basic relationships of people, ruler and subject, husband and wife, father and  son, older sibling and younger sibling, and friend and friend. The first element is the one that rules, and the other one must obey. It establishes that the correct way of ruling is by example: the first element of it pair must set good example.

- Daoism:  based on the  ancient Chinese idea of the Dao, or "the Way", the force that gives order to the natural universe. It established that everyone must find dao by themselves, too many rules conflicts with the natural flow. So the best way of ruling is by ruling the least.

- Legalism: this particular conception believes that people are selfish and act upon their own interest. So good ruling would be to establish strong laws, to enforce them and to set harsh punishments to those who break them, in order to create some order in society.

depends on the age of the teen, many believe by the age of 16 a person should know the strong difference between right and wrong along with the difference between risky and immediate death. swimming with sharks might be dangerous but swimming with sharks while bloody meat is attached to you is just insane. even more if you have no idea what you're doing. however, no matter the age, as long as the person is skilled enough and has the mental and physical capacity to control their actions doing whatever sport they put their mind to is all that matters.

your answer would be just capitalism.