(內容主要節錄自：《中華傳統的人倫至上對西方的愛至上》)

The thought framework of the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations provides great help to both society and individuals, more so, in my opinion, than the West's thought framework of the supremacy of love.

From the point of view of the entire society, the most important thing is that all relationship-defined obligations objectively are mutual help by the various parties in human relationships. The government helps the citizens by keeping order and security in a country, and the citizens in turn help the government by obeying the law, answering drafts, paying taxes and other support, when necessary dissenting and dissuading, and so forth. The parents help the offspring by raising and teaching them, and the offspring in turn help the parents by obeying, respecting, providing support and care during the parents' old age, when necessary dissenting and dissuading, and so forth. All other relations and relationship-defined obligations follow the same logic: they all involve mutual help. So, when the parties in a relationship carry out their respective relationship-defined obligations, that actually represents the parties mutually helping each other. This mutual help is actually the fundamental basis of civilization; all human civilization is built on this principle. Only by people concentrating on different kinds of work and then exchanging the resulting mutually beneficial acts and objects, can civilization be built and maintained, and mutual help is the central principle of this division of labor and exchange. Since the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations requires that people mutually help each according to the obligations defined by the relationships they have with each other, the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations guarantees mutual help. Thus the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations provides the most advantageous social order and the most fertile ideological soil for the development of civilization and the progress of human society. Was it mere coincidence that when ancient China adhered to the ideology of the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations, China was so advanced compared to the rest of the contemporary world?

In comparison, the help that people must render to others as demanded by the supremacy of love does not have this mutual quality. The agape love described by the supremacy of love is very selfless and noble, but it is one-sided and unilateral. Thus it is suited in daily living to charitable donation but not to multiple, repeated, sustained, longer term mutual help or mutual benefit. The one-sided quality of love is a serious flaw in the framework of the supremacy of love. In today's world, many people take advantage of this flaw to make unfair demands on "society", which in fact is just other people, thinking that "society" and other people owe them one-sided obligations and have to unconditionally take care of them, while they don't have to in turn take care of "society" and other people. Used to the one-sided quality of love, even when making unreasonable demands on others these people act in a very self-righteous manner.

Also from the point of view of the entire society, everyone's ability is finite and cannot look after the whole sociey. When, however, a member of the society consistently and in a sustained manner carry out his or her relationship-defined obligations, then the parties with whom that member have relationships will be consistently and in a sustained manner looked after, emotionally and materially. There is, if one uses one's imagination, a circle of emotional and material well-being radiating out from such a member of society, covering the people with whom he or she has relationships with. In turn, he or she is also taken care of by the parties with whom he or she has relationships, such that he or she is also covered by many such circles of emotional and material well-being radiating out from others. When all members of society consistently and in a sustained manner practice the discharge of obligations, then everyone in that society will be consistently and in a sustained manner looked after, emotionally and materially. All those circles of emotional and material well-being radiating out from each member of society will overlap and meld together to cover everyone. By everyone tending to his or her relationship-defined obligations the entire society is cared for as a whole. It then approaches Confucius' ideal as expressed in his "The Great Together (li yun da tong)": "...the aged have the appropriate last years, those in their prime have the appropriate employment, the young have the appropriate growth and development, and elderly men with no spouses or children, widows, orphans, elderly people without children or grandchildren, the handicapped, the ill – all are provided for..." The society will then achieve the highest degree of sustained emotional and material well-being possible for the stage of understanding and technology that the society possesses. The supremacy of relationship-defined obligations maximizes a society's happiness.

As for the individual, the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations is very liberating and empowering, and gives one a great sense of security and mutual trust. That is because whether one is fulfilling one's relationship-defined Obligations is an objective fact and fully verifiable, and there's no need to worry about what's happening in the other party's head: "does he/she still love me? Is what I am doing sufficient to retain his/her love? If I give a different opinion, will he/she love me less?" All one has to do is to fulfill one's well-known-to-all, prescribed, objectively verifiable obligations, which, by the way, include providing different opinions and dissuasion when appropriate, and one can rest assured that the other party owes one the fulfilling of its obligations. If they aren't carried out, one has the full right to demand that they be carried out. (See my blog entries of Traditional Chinese Culture is Liberating and Empowering - 1, Traditional Chinese Culture is Liberating and Empowering - 2, Traditional Chinese Culture is Liberating and Empowering - 3)

There is also no need to use, as in the West, very demonstrative means to express love, such as passionate kissing or embracing in public, to obtain and keep the love and favor of the other party. The supremacy of relationship-defined obligations lets people relax and not have to worry that one day, if the other party in the relationship no longer feels appreciation, admiration or love, the relationship will suddenly come crashing to an end. All that's necessary is for one to persevere in carrying out one's obligations as defined by the relationship, and the relationship will continue.

Therefore, love is expressed by fulfilling one's relationship-defined obligations with all one's heart and soul. In traditional Chinese culture, i.e. Chinese culture before the twentieth century, what is lauded in novels, plays and songs is exactly this behavior of fulfilling one's obligations with all of one's heart and soul no matter what the difficulties or how great the sacrifice. The subjective feeling of love then is included in and expressed by this objective behavior. The Chinese tradition of the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations puts the objective behavior first and the subjective feeling of love second. (See my paper "Chinese People and the Expression of Love".) As in the Chinese tradition, when relationship-defined obligations are supreme, to complete one's daily obligations with a reverent and joyful attitude, to the best of one's ability, is enough of an expression of love.

Of course, we don't rule out the use of very demonstrative means of expressing love; it's just that it is not required to obtain and maintain the other party's love and favor. If an individual or a people whose custom and preference is to use very demonstrative methods of expressing love chooses to embrace the worldview and framework of the supremacy of love, then of course it is fine to continue this custom and preference.

As for the charge that "there is no love to begin with" when the relationship-defined obligations are supreme, that's absolutely false. The above paragraphs fully demonstrate this point. Among people love will of course exist and should exist. The basic textbook of Confucianism "Di Zi Gui (弟子规)" quotes Confucius to say, "All who are human, one must love"; how much more so when it is among people in the closest relationships? When relationship-defined obligations are supreme, love is st ill very important; it's just that love is not supreme, and also, as mentioned above, it is not necessary to use very demonstrative methods to express love.

Quite intriguingly, not putting love as supreme but putting relationship-defined obligations as supreme can, contrary to what one might expect, give rise to even better and stronger love. The reason is that the love that grows out of mutually fulfilling obligations, especially over a long period of time, is a lot stronger and a lot more mature than love based on admiration of image or on sexual attraction. (See my blog "The Chinese Supremacy of Relationship-Defined Obligations vs. the West’s Supremacy of Love".)

人倫至上的思想構架，給社會和個人提供的幫助很大，我認為比西方愛至上的思想構架所提供的更為大。

從整個社會的角度來說，最重要的是，人倫定義的義務和責任，客觀上都是人倫關係中的各方進行互相幫助。政府以維持秩序和安全來幫助人民，人民也反過來以守法、服役、納稅供養、有必要時勸諫等等行為來幫助政府；父母以教導和養育來幫助子女成長，子女們也反過來以服從、尊敬、侍奉老年、有必要時勸諫等行為來幫助父母。其他人倫關係都是同樣的道理，都是互相幫助。人與人關係的各方，履行人倫指定的義務和責任，其實就是進行互相幫助。而互相幫助，是人類文明的根本，所有人類文明都是基於這項原則的。人們之間要各人做不同的工作，然後互相交換工作所產生的行動和物品，以此互利互惠，人類文明社會才能成立起來和延續下去，而互相幫助就是這個分工和交換的中心原則。人倫至上規定人們根據關係定義的義務和責任來互相幫助，所以是互相幫助的最好保障。因此，人倫至上對文明發展和社會發達提供最有利的社會秩序和最肥沃的意識形態土壤。當古代中國遵守人倫至上的意識形態時，也是當時世界上最為先進和發達的國家之一，這會只是個偶然嗎？

相比之下，愛至上所要求人們作出的對人幫助，則沒有這種互相性質了。愛至上所敘述的無私忘我的愛，正因為是非常無私和偉大的，所以是單方性質的，是不要求回報的。這個單方的愛在日常運作中合適慈善捐贈，但不合適多次重復的、持續的、長久性的互相幫助和互利互惠。愛的單方性質，是愛至上構架的一個嚴重弊病。現代世界很多人就是利用這個弊病，對“社會”，其實即是對其他人們，作出不公平的要求，認為“社會”及他人對他們欠下單方性質的義務和責任，要無條件照顧他們，而他們則不必反過來照顧“社會”及他人。這些人習慣了愛的單方性質，向他人作出不合理要求時還振振有詞。

也從整個社會的角度來說，一個人的能力有限，不能照顧整個社會，但是，當一位社會成員一貫地、持續地履行人倫定義的義務和責任，那麼跟他（她）擁有人倫關係的各方都在感情上和物質上得到一貫的、持續的照顧。可以想像，從這位社會成員發放出一個感情和物質生活的幸福快樂圈，覆蓋著跟他（她）有關係的人。同時，這位社會成員反過來亦獲得跟他（她）有關係的人的照顧，也被從這些人們發放出來的感情和物質生活的幸福快樂圈覆蓋著。當社會所有成員都一貫地、持續地履行人倫定義的義務和責任，那麼那個社會的所有人都在感情上和物質上得到一貫的、持續的照顧。所有那些從每位社會成員發放出來的一個個感情和物質生活的幸福快樂圈便會交搭重疊，覆蓋著所有的人。每人照顧自己的人倫義務和責任時，整個社會便會得到照顧，走向孔子《禮運大同》的“老有所終，壯有所用，幼有所長，鰥寡孤獨廢疾者，皆有所養”。這個社會的感情和物質生活的幸福快樂程度，便能夠達到以該社會擁有的科技和理解力所能夠達到的最高點。人倫至上，使社會能夠得到最大程度的幸福快樂。

對個人來說，人倫至上授予人們心靈很大的解放和權利，很大的安全感和互相信任。這是因為有沒有履行人倫所規定的義務和責任，是完全能夠客觀證實的，完全不需要擔心對方的腦子在想甚麼。他（她）還愛我嗎？我做的足夠使他（她）繼續愛我嗎？我提出不同意見他（她）會不會愛我少些呢？這些都不用擔憂，我只需要履行我眾所皆知的、規定的、能夠客觀證實的義務和責任，而這些義務和責任也包括了適當時提供不同意見或勸諫，我就可以很放心，對方也必然會反過來履行對我的義務和責任。不然的話，我擁有充分權利要求對方這樣做。（見我的博客文章“傳統中華文化授予人們解放和權利：1”, “傳統中華文化授予人們解放和權利：2”, “傳統中華文化授予人們解放和權利：3”）

有了關係的存在，不管這關係是自願的（夫妻、朋友）還是生下來便有的（父子、兄弟），就可以擁有很高度的安全感。有了關係的存在，我就可以信任對方，對方也可以信任我，雙方都不需要猜疑對方的腦子裡愛或歡心還存在否，雙方都必然會履行義務和責任，可以完全互相信任。

亦不需要像西方那樣，用很富於表達性的方法來表示愛，公眾場所裡激情熱吻、擁抱等，來博取和延續對方的歡心和愛。人倫至上讓人們很放心，如果跟他們有關係的對方，有一天對他們不感覺歡心、欣賞、仰慕、或愛，關係並不會因此就突然完蛋。只要堅持完成自己由關係所規定的義務，關係就會延持下去。

因此，愛是用全心全力完成自己的義務和責任來表示的。華人傳統文化裡，即二十世紀之前的文化裡，小說、戲劇、歌曲等歌頌的就是這種不管困難或犧牲多大都用全心全力來完成義務和責任的行為，而“愛”這個主觀的感覺，是包含和表現於行為之中的。人倫至上的華人傳統文化把客觀的行為放在前，把主觀的感覺放在後。（見我的文章“華人和愛的表示”。）像華人們傳統的那樣，帶著恭謹喜悅的心情，全心全力完成每天的義務和責任，人倫至上的時候，這樣表示愛就足夠了。

當然，也不排除用很富於表達性的方法來表示愛，只不過是不一定需要用這種方法來博取和延續對方的歡心和愛而已。如果一個人或一個民族，採用了人倫至上的思想構架，但是風俗和喜好是用很富於表達性的方法來表示愛的，那麼繼續這種風俗和喜好是當然可以的。

至於人倫至上時“根本就沒愛的存在”這個指控，那是完全錯誤的，以上所說的已經充分證明瞭這點。人與人之間，愛當然會存在，亦需要存在。孔教基本課本《弟子規》引述孔子說，“凡是人，皆須愛”，何況是最親近的人呢？人倫至上時愛仍然是很重要的，只不過愛不是至上而已，亦只不過如上文所說那樣，愛的表示方法不需要用很富於表達性的方式而已。

很奇妙，不以愛為至上而以人倫為至上，反而很多時會得到更好、更堅固的愛，理由是互相履行義務和責任，尤其是在較為長期的相處情況下，所栽培出來的愛，比起對形像的仰慕所引發的愛，或由性慾所引發的愛，往往會更為成熟和堅強。（見我的博客文章“中華人倫至上對西方的愛至上”。）