The big difference between Chinese civilization and Western civilization is that the West considers love to be supreme but Chinese civilization does not recognize love to be supreme. Instead, what Chinese civilization has always considered supreme has been "relationship-defined obligations" or ren lun (人伦). These are the obligations that the parties in a relationship should carry out towards each other.

Here I must explain why I use the English term "relationship-defined obligations" as the translation for ren lun (人伦). Some people might think that "relationship principles" is a more exact English equivalent. Ren lun, however, has solemn connotations of morality and obligation, and there is no English term that is truly an exact equivalent. The English term "relationship principles" would only be the equivalent of the Chinese term guanxi yuanze (关系原则), a bland term with no solemn connotations of morality or obligation. On the other hand, I think the term "relationship-defined obligations", thanks in great part to the word "obligations", does convey some of that solemn gravity. Since the "relationship principles" in ren lun is made up more or less of the obligations defined by the different relationships, I believe that the term "relationship-defined obligations", along with its connotations of solemn gravity, is the better English translation.

Let us look further into this matter of relationship-defined obligations.

There are many kinds of human relationships: that among relatives, that among neighbors, that between teachers and students, and so on. The Chinese Confucian tradition emphatically points out that there are five relationships that are most important, i.e. the "Five Cardinal Relationships" (五伦 or wu lun). They are the relationships

1. Between the government and citizens (between the "ruler and subjects" in the olden days),
2. Between parents and offspring,
3. Between husband and wife,
4. Among siblings, and
5. Among friends.

I must add here that, in my opinion, since modern society is no longer an agricultural society of farmers producing for self sufficiency but one where commodities and commerce are universal and of great importance, so the traditional Five Cardinal Relationships should embrace one more to become the Six Cardinal Relationships. The Cardinal Relation to be added is the relationship

6. Between the buyer and the seller. All economic relationships, including that between the employer (buyer of labor power) and the employee (seller of labor power), belong to this relationship.

By elevating buying and selling to a Cardinal, moral, Relationship, we can demand that buying and selling, which is something we engage in many times daily, be always moral and ethical and shake off the contempt with which traditional pre-industrial societies view buying and selling. This makes it unnecessary for buyer and seller to be friends first before the obligations that buyer and seller should carry out toward each other anyway will be carried out, unnecessary to use methods like drinking and making merry to get buyer and seller to become "friends" first, and only then do they dare to do business. When buying and selling becomes a Cardinal Relationship, both parties in any transaction will be able to implicitly trust each other, as they will consider it the normal, ordinarily expected situation for the other side to adhere to trustworthiness, honesty and integrity, and will consider not doing so to be a deviant, extraordinary occurrence. (See my blog articles "The Cardinal Obligations Continued", "Cardinal Obligation 6: Between Buyer and Seller", and "The Sixth Cardinal Relationship, That Between Buyer and Seller".)

Besides the most important traditional Five, or my Six, Cardinal Relationships, there are many other human relationships, too many to list. As long as there is a contact or a dealing among humans, even a very temporary or very occassional one, there is a human relationship, and all human relationships possess relationship-defined obligations.

Well, what are the obligations defined by human relationships according to the Chinese-Confucian tradition? Let's look at the traditional Five Cardinal Relationships:

1. Between the government and citizens ("ruler and subjects"): the government must effectively and intelligently protect the safety of the people and their property, this being the equivalent of the obligation in the olden days of rulers to be "competent rulers", while the citizens must pay taxes to the government, obey the government's laws, serve with loyalty and the utmost diligence when recruited or conscripted by the government, and when appropriate give opinions to the government or try to dissuade the government, these being the equivalent of the obligation in the olden days of subjects to be loyal;
   
   
2. Between parents and offspring: parents must raise and educate the offspring, while the offspring must carry out xiao ("be good to parents") and support and care for aged, weak parents;
   
   
3. Between husband and wife: both must be of one heart and mind, and help each other to together build a family life where both the next generation is raised and the previous generation is cared for;
   
   
4. Among siblings: older siblings must be kind and helpful to the younger ones, the younger siblings must be respectful to the older ones, and all siblings must help each other;
   
   
5. Among friends: friends must help each other, especially with mutual encouragement, mutual advice, and dissuasion from what is wrong.

As for the Sixth Cardinal Relationship that I advocate, the obligation between buyer and seller is:

6. Buying and selling must be based on the principle of honesty and trustworthiness; the buyer must pay according to agreement whether explicit or implied, in terms of price and payment schedule, while the seller must supply the good or service according to agreement whether explicit or implied, in terms of amount, quality and schedule.

Besides the above relationships, all the other innumerable relationships among people possess and are governed by relationship-defined obligations, and these obligations can actually all be summed up as "justice and morality". Therefore, any contact or dealings with other people must abide by relationship-defined obligations, that is, must abide by justice and morality.

Also, in the traditional Chinese supremacy of relationship-defined obligations, there is a most important tenet that has been used as the basis of the social order and ideology: "xiao (孝)". It is, as we have seen in point 2 above, one of the obligations of the offspring to parents. Xiao means to be good to parents and ancestors, but it demands not only that conduct involving interactions with parents or commemorations of ancestors must be good, but also that all of one's conduct, including conduct at work and one's interactions with persons outside the family, must be good. Why must all of one's conduct be good in order for one to be good to one's parents and ancestors? It is because preserving, enhancing or indeed glorifying if possible, the good name and reputation of one's parents and ancestors, is a most important requirement of being good to parents and ancestors, a most important requirement of being xiao. Therefore, this obligation by the offspring to the parents, xiao, is not limited to the narrow confines inside the family, but is actually the pillar supporting the whole moral and social order and the fundamental basis of all traditional Chinese ideology. (See papers on this website: "The Xiao Page", "Xiao Jing (Classic of Xiao)".)

Here I should point out that, actually, the obligations defined in the traditional Chinese supremacy of relationship-defined obligations all consist of mutual help among the different parties in a relationship. 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. Actually, the carrying out of their respective relationship-defined obligations by the parties in a relationship represents the mutually helping of each other by those parties.

(Note: In the Chinese version of this essay the term hua ren 华人 does not merely mean overseas ethnic Chinese with non-Chinese citizenships, a narrow meaning that has come to be popular in the Mainland region of China in recent years, but instead means all ethnic Chinese both inside and outside China, a broader concept which is also the original meaning of the term.)

Very regrettably, from the time of the call to "bring down the Confucian shop" loudly proclaimed during the "May Fourth Movement" in 1919, through the climactic Cultural Revolution in the 1960's and the "Movement to Criticize Lin Biao and Confucius" in the 1970's in the Mainland region of China, and after the westernization wave in Hong Kong and Taiwan of "loyalty, xiao and the traditional etiquette and culture are phony and outdated", Chinese people during the twentieth century have generally come to think that Confucianism has been the cause of China's poverty and backwardness, and have generally rejected Confucianism. (This is one of the greatest wrongs in history: China's poverty and backwardness has been caused not by Confucianism, but by centuries of excessive government rule. In fact, had it not been for Confucianism, Chinese culture would have never lasted several thousand years; it would been extinguished long ago like ancient Egyptian culture.) Thus, even though during the twenty-first century the Mainland region of China has rehabilitated Confucius back to respectability, to this day modern Chinese have still forgotten the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations.

In their conduct, however, most Chinese still haven't learned to behave like Westerners, haven't learned to hold love supreme. Most Chinese merely instinctively imitate their parents' conduct and continue the behavior learned from the parents' example, and so behave more or less according to the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations (although, alas, seemingly less and less so). In their conscious thought, however, most Chinese don't know they are doing this, nor do they know about the teachings of the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations.

Precisely because most Chinese no longer know in their conscious minds about the tenets or principles of the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations, therefore when the Western Supremacists, whether of the white or the Chinese ethnicity, berate Chinese for not acting according to the supremacy of love, for "not showing love", or even for "not having any love", most Chinese have nothing to say and know not what to do. In front of the West's banner emblazoned with the word "love", Chinese people know only to bow down their heads, or even to bend their knees and kneel down - no one dares to even think, let alone say out loud, anything approaching a "no".

Thus Chinese, especially young Chinese, can easily become mental captives of Western Supremacy and spiritual slaves to the West. The Western Supremacists feel very self-righteous and superior when they preach to the "barbaric Chinese" about the supremacy of love and "the need to show more love", while most Chinese have no systematic, self-contained argument with which to defend their tradition or answer the charges of barbarism and "having no love", so that most Chinese can only feel inferior, in the wrong, or even become resentful or hostile to their own culture, their own parents and to other Chinese. Often, because of the lack of cultural immersion in a family where love is supreme while growing up, even when some Chinese want to imitate westerners and treat love as supreme these Chinese can't succeed. When they engage in behavior that is very expressive and seems to be full of love, not only do people around them consider such behavior inappropriate, but also they themselves feel a bit creepy, like it's phony, an act - then they hate being Chinese even more. The fact that Chinese culture still cannot be like the West in completely treating love as supreme makes many modern Chinese feel that being Chinese is barbaric, inferior, and shameful.

Well, feel ashamed no more of not being westerners, all ye Chinese, for there now exists an answer to the Western Supremacists, an answer with a clearly emblazoned banner!

The answer is: what we Chinese consider to be supreme is not love, a fuzzy, not well-defined, easily changeable, subjective feeling based on emotion, a feeling that exists in people's heads, is not readily knowable and cannot be easily verified, a feeling that people can wake up one day and repudiate just by saying, "I don't love you any more", a feeling that can justify all kinds of promiscuity, seduction and adultery. No, what Chinese consider to be supreme consists of clear-cut, objectively existing relations that are independent of people's will, along with the clear-cut, eminently knowable obligations defined by such relationships, the discharge of which obligations is objectively verifiable. What Chinese consider to be supreme is called relationship-defined obligations.

As long as you are one of the parties in a relationship, then whether you love the other party or parties or not, you still must carry out your obligations to the other party or parties. Whether there is love or not between the government and its citizens, the government must protect its citizens' safety and property, and the citizens must pay the government's taxes, obey the government's laws and serve in the government's drafts. Whether there is "love" or not between the parents and their children, the parents must raise and teach the children, and the children must be xiao to their parents and care for them in their old age. The same holds for obligations between husband and wife, among siblings, among friends, and among the parties in all relationships: whether "love" exists between the parties involved or not, they must follow relationship-defined obligations and discharge their obligations towards each other.

Of course, it is not that Chinese don't have love or are opposed to love; love is very important in the traditional Chinese thought framework, but love comes second, after relationship-defined obligations. This is like the situation with the Western thought framework, where obligations are also very important; it's just that obligations are not supreme and come after love.

Actually, the traditional Chinese supremacy of relationship-defined obligations paradoxically gives a more effective guarantee to love than the West's supremacy of love: while life is long and there are ups and downs such that there will always be times when you don't "love" or even when you hate the other party, if you stick to carrying out your obligations and the other party does the same, then love will always return, tempered and therefore stronger than ever.

The Chinese civilization's supremacy of relationship-defined obligations is not only not barbaric, is not only not inferior to the West, but is also more reasonable than Western civilization's supremacy of love, and more conducive to social progress and human happiness. We will explain this further in the following.

Supporters of the West's supremacy of love have three important arguments against the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations, two of which are criticisms of the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations and one of which is a defense of the supremacy of love.

"When relationship-defined obligations are supreme," some supporters of the West's supremacy of love make this criticism, "the burden of carrying out obligations is bound to make people resentful and so force will have to be used to make them carry out their obligations."

"Besides," these supporters continue their criticism, "the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations will make people care only about relationships and not about right and wrong, justice, the law, or the public interest; people will care only about the rules and interests of their family, clan and narrow circles. That's why in the Mainland region of China people often have no trustworthiness, honesty or integrity; they enrich themselves by taking public property; they practice corruption and fraud, disregard the law, and care only about guanxi (relationships, often unprincipled). It's all thanks to Confucianism's supremacy of relationship-defined obligations and supremacy of guanxi relationships."

"As for the love the West considers to be supreme," these supporters then offer this defense, "it is not as you have depicted, a fickle and adulterous 'eros (sexual) love'; what we consider to be supreme is 'agape love', an unselfish, selfless love, a love like that of God and Christ for mankind, a sacred love, an altruistic love. How can something this pure, noble and selfless not be supreme?"

Let us answer the two criticisms and then give an appraisal of the West's supremacy of love, including this "agape love".

This criticism is just a misunderstanding. No, people don't necessarily feel that carrying out obligations is a despicable burden; on the contrary, people will happily, joyfully discharge their obligations. Why?

For one thing, by carrying out your obligations you can actualize your innate goodness as a human being, and can obtain the self-respect of being a good person. Being a good person and a person of integrity by merely, in your daily life, adhering to some standards of conduct that are clear-cut, widely known, defined clearly in the sages' books, and performing some clearly designated acts, isn't that a great joy?

For another thing, that you are required to discharge obligations means that there is someone who has a relationship with you, and means that someone is also discharging obligations towards you. That is something that deserves celebration. That you need to carry out the obligations of being a husband means that you have a wife who is carrying out the obligations of being a wife towards you, her husband. That you need to carry out the obligations of a big brother means you have a younger brother or younger sister who is carrying out obligations towards you, the big brother. And so on and so forth; isn't this also a great joy?

Also, inside a relationship, the better that you carry out your own obligations, the more you will make the other party enthusiastic and also the more you will make it easier for the other party to even better carry out its obligations to you, thus creating a "virtuous cycle". For example, as discussed earlier in this paper, when children carry out their obligation to respect their parents, it becomes easier for parents to carry out their obligation to teach the children. On the other hand, to not carry out your obligations not only hurts the other side's feelings and lowers its enthusiasm, but also places obstructions to the other side carrying out its obligations to you. For example, when children don't carry out their obligation to respect their parents, that makes it very hard for the parents to carry out their obligation to teach the children, because they don't listen to the parents, and also because the disrespect makes it hard for the parents to concentrate their energies and provide the best possible explanations, examples, and teaching in general to the children.

Therefore, carrying out the obligations as required by relationship-defined obligations does not necessarily lead to resentment and avoidance, and people don't necessarily need to be forced to carry out their obligations. On the contrary, most people will very willingly, gladly in fact, do their utmost to carry out their obligations the best way they can.

This criticism is a distortion of the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations, and a very serious distortion. What is sad is that, both inside and outside China, this distortion is very widespread, the theory is very popular and many people accept it as fact.

No, the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations should definitely not be misunderstood as putting family, clan and circle above right and wrong or above the law, to be rejecting, "for the sake of family, clan and circle", honesty, integrity and trustworthiness, or to be engaging in corruption and fraud.

All traditional Chinese relationship-defined obligations are consistent with justice, morality, and trustworthiness. Obligations contrary to justice, morality and trustworthiness cannot be traditional Chinese relationship-defined obligations. For example, a relationship-defined obligation is that offspring must be xiao or good to parents, and the first tenet in xiao is to uphold the good name of one's parents and ancestors. If to be xiao or good to parents involves going against justice, morality, or trustworthiness, then won't that besmirch the good name of one's parents and ancestors? Can that then still be called xiao or being good to parents? No, of course not. Also, human relationships don't involve only family, clan and "circle", there is at least also that first of the Five Cardinal Relationships: the relationship between "ruler and subject" or between government and the citizens. The first demand this relationship makes on citizens is that they obey the law, and law is nothing but some rules and regulations set forth by the government based on justice, morality and trustworthiness. Indeed, that relationship-defined obligations are always consistent with justice, morality, and trustworthiness is determined by the very structure of the thought framework of the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations.

In fact, if one's parents ask one to do something that goes against justice, morality and trustworthiness, then one's parents are wrong, and making such an unjust request itself is an act against morality. What are the obligations of the offspring here? Is it to obey the parents' unjust request and act against justice, morality and trustworthiness? No, of course not. And to say yes would be to distort the meaning of relationship-defined obligations. When asked whether to be xiao one needed to always obey one's parents Confucius exclaimed, "What kind of talk is that! What kind of talk is that!" （Chapter 15, "Dissuading and Disputing", Xiao Jing (Classic of Xiao).） Yes, according to relationship-defined obligations, the obligations of the offspring in such a case is to dissuade the parents, and to persist until successful. Otherwise, it's known as "sycophantically obeying and thus entrapping one’s parents in moral unrighteousness". In the Confucian classics this is an extremely serious transgression against xiao. (See Annotation by Zhao Qi of the Han Dynasty on Mencius (Meng Zi), Chapter Li Lou, “The Thirteen Classics Annotated”, published by Zhonghua Shudian, Beijing, 1980, Vol. II, p.2,723.)

Therefore, relationship-defined obligations can only be obligations that are in accord with justice, morality, and trustworthiness. If not, then such "obligations" are not really relationship-defined, but are the result of misunderstandings or distortions of relationship-defined obligations.

As for obeying the law, as pointed out above, the law is merely some rules and regulations set forth by the government based on justice, morality and trustworthiness, and since relationship-defined obligations always require that one adhere to justice, morality and trustworthiness, then relationship-defined obligations must always require that one abide by the law. Persons glorified in Chinese history such as Bao Gong, Hai Rui, haven't they all strictly abided by and enforced law in the face of the powerful? Also, the first of the Five Cardinal Relationships is that between the "rulers", that is, the government, and the "subjects", that is, the citizens, and the first relationship-defined obligation of "subjects" is to obey the law. There should be no conflict between obeying the law and the interests of family, clan and "circle" (friends). If one uses illegal means to obtain some undeserved benefit for family, clan and "circle" (friends), then one is actually harming them by entrapping them in a collaboration with immorality. This entrapment besmirches their and their family's good names, and causes them to be punished by the law when the illegalities come to light.

Here it must be clarified that in the Chinese tradition, when the ruler, government or government leaders carry out wrong policies and enact wrong law, i.e. policies and law opposed to morality and justice, the subjects' duty is to clearly voice their dissent and to try to dissuade the ruler, government or government leaders, but this does not mean it's alright to disobey the law. Throughout Chinese history there have been many subjects who have been lauded as loyal heroes for voicing dissent and trying to dissuade the rulers, but these heroes obey the government and the law even when engaging in dissent and dissuasion, which are conducted through legal channels. Only when the rulers or government and government leaders become immoral and incompetent beyond all hope, when the country is grossly misgoverned and law and order breaks down, only then is the government considered to have "lost the mandate of heaven" and only then does it become the right of the subjects to disobey the law and rise up in revolution to overthrow the government.

At any rate, only by adhering to justice, morality, trustworthiness and law can one be truly good to family, clan and "circle". Again, according to the Confucian tradition such as expressed in the Xiao Jing (Classic of Xiao), to be considered truly xiao, i.e. to be considered truly good to parents, one's conduct at work and in interactions with people outside the family must all be good, because upholding the good name of the parents and ancestors, or even better, bringing glory to the family name, is a most important requirement in being good to parents and ancestors. Therefore, the interests of the family, clan and "circle" can never oppose adherence to law, morality, and trustworthiness. On the contrary, to be truly good to family, clan and "circle", one must adhere to justice, morality, trustworthiness and law.

Furthermore, in the world of relationship-defined obligations, such obligations are not confined to family, clan and "circle", but apply to all human relationships. All human relationships come within the realm of relationship-defined obligations and come with obligations that must be carried out. That means one must take care of all parties that one comes to have relationships with. As long as one come into contact with or have dealings with someone, then relationship-defined obligations govern that contact and those dealings. Between the employer and employee, one neighbor and another, the salesperson and the customer, the policeman and the citizen, etc., even if they aren't relatives, their contact and dealings are still all governed by relationship-defined obligations; they still can not bully, harm, steal from or defraud each other at will. When relationship-defined obligations are supreme, they operate wherever people have contact with other people. Thus the sphere of justice, morality, trustworthiness and obedience to law does not become narrower, but becomes wider. Therefore, that the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations does not lead to caring only for those who are close and disregarding justice, morality, trustworthiness and obedience to law, is determined by the very nature of relationship-defined obligations.

Therefore, the phenomena in the Mainland region of China of corruption, lack of trustworthiness and lack of adherence to the law are a reflection not of the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations, but of exactly the opposite: the abandonment of relationship-defined obligations and the tenets of Confucianism. When relationship-defined obligations are supreme, people will certainly practice strict adherence to justice, morality, trustworthiness and law. Traditionally, haven't Chinese merchants always acted strictly in accordance with trustworthiness, keeping promises, and not cheating even the weak and helpless? The criticism that the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations leads to caring only about family, clan and "circle" is unfounded.

Also, that conclusion is derived from a completely wrong method of deduction. This deduction goes as follows: "The supremacy of relationship-defined obligations is based on relationships among people; therefore it is not based on justice, morality, trustworthiness or obedience to law; therefore it must care only about those in the closest relationships and disregard justice, morality, trustworthiness and law." Isn't this an absurd logic? If applied to the West's supremacy of love, then we would get this conclusion: "The supremacy of love is based on loving other people and therefore is not based on justice, morality, trustworthiness or obedience to law; therefore it must care only about those whom one loves and disregard justice, morality, trustworthiness and law"!

Of course, this distortion of the supremacy of love is also wrong, but is more reasonable than the similar distortion of the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations. That is because all dealings among people involve relationship-defined obligations, and so when relationship-defined obligations are supreme at no time will unjust and immoral behavior be permitted. The number of people one loves, however, is limited and so most dealings among people do not involve love, and so one can imagine that when love is supreme perhaps sometimes unjust and immoral behavior is permitted. Of course, this is fallacy, because the West's framework of the supremacy of love also has a lot of mechanisms to ensure that people don't disregard what is just and moral.

When it comes to Western thought, which is more appropriate for such an attack, no one has raised such a distortion, yet, when it comes to traditional Chinese thought, which is less appropriate for this kind of attack, this distortion has become very popular and has wide currency both inside and outside China. Alas, does this not show that, when it comes to such things, a lot of people nowadays are a bit biased?

Actually, being infected with this kind of incorrect bias is understandable. First, the present-day Mainland region of China is on the whole still relatively poor and backward, and so people look down upon Chinese and the Chinese heritage. Also, the ideology in the Mainland region of China had once fiercely denounced the "man-eating feudal old society", and to this day opposes "old feudal ways of thinking". Therefore, attacks on Chinese traditional thought are relatively easy to accept and believe. Furthermore, in the present-day Mainland region of China, not caring about right and wrong, not being trustworthy, disregard for the law, corruption, embezzlement, and so forth, are indeed relatively common. Although all this is not because of Confucianism but on the contrary, is to a great extent precisely because of the lack of Confucianism, most people nowadays not only don't know the Chinese classics, but also, because of inability to understanding the ancient prose style, aren't even capable of reading them. So they follow what others say and mistake the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations for disregard of justice and morality. In my opinion, however, the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations is such an excellent thought framework that it cannot be suppressed much longer and will soon once again ascend mankind's stage and play a main role.

Now let us examine the West's selfless, "agape love", and at the same time make an appraisal of the West's love in general.

First we must point out that in the history of Western civilization, even though mainstream Christian thought has always emphasized selfless agape love, for a fairly significant period of time, at least since the 1700's, sexual seduction, nearly or actually adulterous behavior, and abandonment of spouses and unilateral termination of marriages, have been thought in the West to be based on love and therefore justifiable and even laudable. For example, holding a dance "ball" where unmarried young women wear fairly sexually seductive "formal clothes" that expose the shoulders and chest, and embrace unmarried young men in dance, since the 1700's have been considered in the West to be respectable and even noble behavior, because this arouses love for the young women in the young men. The adultery in which King Arthur's best Roundtable knight, Sir Lancelot, and King Arthur's wife, Queen Grinevere, engage, as described in the 1400's work "La Morte D'Artur (The Death of Arthur)", has been lauded as chivalric love at the latest during the 1800's. Also during the 1800's, literary works such as "Madam Bovary" and "Anna Karenina" reflect the public defense and endorsement of adultery on the basis of love. Again during the 1800's, works such as Ibsen's "A Doll's House" (original version) promote the idea that if one party in a marriage "receives no love", then that party may abandon his or her spouse and unilaterally terminate the marriage. As for novels, songs and plays that represent the culture of the West since the 1900's, they even more so support and laud such behavior. Therefore, when we make an appraisal of the West's supremacy of love, we cannot exclude the tradition in Western thought of endorsement and praise, on the basis of love, of sexual seduction, adultery, abandonment of spouse and unilateral termination of marriage.

As for the selfless, agape love, this love is based on principle, and speaks of obligations and duty, and so really is a powerful force for good. Selfless agape love is a deep attachment to the other party and a profound willingness to do things for the other party, up to and including sacrificing one's own life. As described in the famous passage from the Bible's "First Corinthians", Chapter Thirteen, Verses 4 - 8, correct Christian selfless agape love "always perseveres" and is not fickle. Agape love is not only compatible with the Chinese tradition of the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations, but can also enrich the thinking about emotional life in the Chinese thought framework.

Agape love, however, has a deficiency, that of not designating what actions must be carried out among the different parties in the various relationships. For example, what actions must be carried out between parents and offspring? Between the government and the citizens? And so on. As I have said before, “Of course, Confucius spends a lot more time and present in much greater detail the mutual obligations for the different parties than the Christian Bible does. For example, the Christian Bible doesn’t have a formal analysis on the Five Cardinal Relations of government-subject, parents-offspring, husband-wife, among siblings, and between friends. A short paragraph in First Corinthians is nothing compared to the volumes about obligations in the ancient Confucian texts.” (See my blog entry "Confucianism & Religions".

To possess a deep attachment to someone and a profound willingness to do things for someone is not enough. If it is not pointed out what actions must be carried out by which parties in which relationships, then when it comes to specific situations agape love can permit all kinds of wrong actions. For example, indulging and spoiling one's children, favoring persons one loves more but owes less to, such as a girlfriend, at the expense of hurting someone one loves less but owes much more to, such as a parent; engaging in adultery with love as justification, for some reason "no longer loving" one's spouse and thereupon divorcing him or her - and often what is no longer felt is agape love and not just sexual love; "no longer loving" one's parents and thereupon cutting off all contact with them, and so forth and so on. With the Confucian supremacy of relationship-defined obligations, there is no such problem: in the thought framework and world outlook of the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations, all such acts are clearly wrong; whether there is love or not, relationship-defined obligations cannot be abandoned.

Yes, agape love is a pure, noble and selfless sentiment, but sentiment is not enough; for something to be supreme and above all else it needs to also possess great wisdom and great ability to discern right and wrong.

Therefore, the kind of love in the West that is used to affirm and glorify sexual seduction, adultery, abandonment of spouse and unilateral termination of marriage is without merit. Also, even though the agape love of the West is a correct and excellent doctrine, it can only be used to supplement the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations and not to replace it. Even when love may be of the selfless, agape type, relationship-defined obligations must be supreme, not love.

From the point of view of the entire society, the most important thing is that all relationship-defined obligations objectively are, as pointed out in Section 2 above, mutual help by the various parties in human relationships. The government helps the citizens by keeping order in a country, and the citizens in turn help the government. The parents help the offspring by raising and teaching them, and the offspring in turn help the parents. All other relations and relationship-defined obligations follow the same logic: they all involve mutual help. When the parties in a relationship carry out their respective relationship-defined obligations, that actually represents the parties mutually helping each other. Now mutual help is 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, it 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 then 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, long 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 carries 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 even 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)

Once the relationship exists, whether it is voluntary (marriage, friendship) or comes with birth (parents-offspring, siblings), one can enjoy a high sense of security. Once the relationship exists, one can trust the other party and the other party can in turn trust one, neither party need to worry about whether love or liking still exist inside the other party's head. Both parties will definitely carry out their obligations, and both parties can completely trust each other to do so.

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 still 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".)

Some people ask, "Without a God, what justification is there for relationship-defined obligations to be supreme? Confucianism doesn't deal much with God and the supernatural. Is a religion not necessary to provide reasons to justify the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations? At least in Christianity, the supremacy of love is justified by God: one loves God and therefore one loves all humans at all times because that pleases God, who is omniscient and sees and knows everything."

First of all, let me make clear that I think that for one to love all humans because one loves and wants to please an omniscient God is a powerful commandment and a firm basis for guaranteeing moral conduct and civil society. In fact, historically not merely the Christian world but all civilizations except the Chinese one have granted political position and state power to activities and personnel engaged in the worship of God or Gods, and used the worship and love of God or Gods as the main ideological tool to ensure that people are good. The advantage of using God or Gods is that gods are all-seeing and reward and punishment might even be greater in the next life, so the incentive to do good, even in the face of expected adverse consequences during this life, is very powerful indeed.

Now the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations, while it does not require belief in God or the afterlife, also does not exclude this very powerful force for good. The Confucian tradition is compatible with any religion. Since the Confucian tradition has never pretended to address the hereafter, societies that have practiced the Confucian tradition have long supplemented Confucianism with religions like Buddhism. Historically, Chinese Muslims, Chinese Christians and Chinese Jews have adopted the stressing of the relationship-defined obligations and xiao (being good to parents and ancestors) as being complementary to their religious doctrines. Indeed, viewed from the Confucian paradigm a religious person merely adds the relationship between God and self as another "Cardinal Relationship" onto the "Five (or my Six) Cardinal Relationships" that we have discussed in section 2. Buddhism, which comes from India, also comes to stress relationship-defined obligations and xiao upon becoming rooted in China. Truly, there is no conflict, and historically there has all along been mutual supplementation.

On the other hand, for those who cannot reconcile themselves to the necessity of worshipping deities or even the existence of a supernatural world, the Chinese Confucian tradition of the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations is also compatible with the lack of religion or even atheism and can also provide a moral compass and behavior imperative here. Even if one does not believe in an afterlife and even though there is no omniscient God to see that one is doing right or wrong, one will do good and not evil even in the face of adverse consequences because to fulfill one's relationship-defined obligations to one's parents and ancestors, i.e. to carry out xiao, one must contribute to keeping the family name good and not besmirch it. And that family name goes on, even after one's life is over. For people who grow up in a society where xiao and family name are all-important, their power to determine conduct is very great. In Chinese history, there have been innumerable examples where the self-sacrificing heroes may not have believed in God(s) or the afterlife, yet they have still performed their heroic deeds of self sacrifice. For example, Wen Tian-xiang in his "Song of the Spirit of Righteousness" and other works, when describing why one should stay loyal and true no matter what, only mentions putting one's name down for posterity, and never mentions the afterlife or God(s). Thus, with the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations, people with no religion or even atheists will also be good people, will also make sacrifices for what is moral and just.

Thus the Chinese Confucian tradition only takes what is in the natural world, takes the people we see and interact with daily, and creates a moral order of relationship-defined obligations out of just those very natural things. There is no need to construct any specific supernatural world along with all the attendant doctrines to arrive at the Confucian moral code. The genius of Confucius is to take natural things, natural relations, and create powerful teachings out of them. While the relation between parents and offspring is a most natural and ubiquitous one, Confucius creates out of it a compelling force to be good, the imperative of xiao or being good to parents and ancestors: to be xiao to one's parents, one must be kind and loving towards everyone. (Please see the Xiao Page on this website for more discussion of xiao.)

And so the natural world based Confucian thought is structurally much simpler than and not tied to, any supernatural world based religious tradition, and therefore is compatible with most any religion as well as with a lack of religion, even atheism. Another way of describing this situation is that the Confucian thought framework operates at the most elemental level, and if desired one may erect, on top of the Confucian thought framework, any "superstructure" of religious thought according to the particular religion being followed. If the practice of religion is not desired or if atheism is what is preferred, then it is not necessary to erect any "superstructure" of religion; the Confucian thought framework can also operate completely independently. Thus the Confucian framework is much more inclusive, tolerant, adaptable to any religion or culture, and suitable for diversity in society and in the world.

Of course, some adherents of certain religious groups will say that only their particular construct of the supernatural world is right and that all non-adherents to this construct will be condemned by God. Even that, however, is OK with Confucianism, because Confucianism operates at a different level, at the level of the natural, not the supernatural world. Such adherents can still use Confucianism's construct of the natural world to complement their particular construct of the supernatural world, to provide a compass for their relationships with other people during this life. Now those adherents will be saved if they turn out right that their construct of the supernatural world is indeed the only right one. If not, then in the meantime all non-adherents to that religion will also be well served by adopting Confucianism's construct of the natural world.

Therefore, not only Chinese people, but people of the whole world, including Westerners and Christians, should study the teachings of the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations.

Since the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations can provide moral compasses and conduct standards for all people of the world so well, and can enable society to reach maximum happiness, then even if there's no God and we don't use religious beliefs to provide justification, we should still follow the teachings of the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations. At the same time, should God or Gods exist, then He/They would surely approve of the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations.

The supremacy of relationship-defined obligations provides people and society with more help than the supremacy of love. Using the framework of the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations, people are able to know clearly how to judge all behavior, and right and wrong are clearly distinguishable. This framework gives people a great sense of liberation and empowerment, security and mutual trust. Using this framework, as compared to the framework of the supremacy of love, can often give rise to better and stronger love. Yes, perhaps the traditional framework of the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations needs the modification, as I have proposed at the beginning of this paper, of changing the "Five Cardinal Relationships" to the "Six Cardinal Relationships" to be up-to-date, but in the main, the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations is the best choice, the one that can fit any religion or lack of religion including even atheism, that can fit any culture, beliefs and customs, and that can fit a diverse society and a diverse world.

Chinese people should proudly re-identify with our own excellent cultural heritage and re-embrace the thought framework of the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations. Also, not only Chinese, but also people of the whole world without regard to religion, belief or custom, should investigate and study this thought framework. I believe that in the future, the mainstream thought framework of the world will most certainly be the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations.

中华文明和西方文明之间的重大差别是：西方是以爱为至上的，而中华文明则不承认爱是至上的。中华文化认为是至上的是“人伦”。人伦就是人与人之间的关系中，各方所应该履行的义务和责任。

首先要说明一下为什么在本文的英语版里我把“人伦”一词翻译为英语的“relationship-defined obligations (关系定义的义务和责任)”。或许有人会说“relationship principles (关系原则)”的意义更为接近人伦。但是，人伦具有涉及道德和义务的庄严色彩，在英语中没有相同意义的字词。英语的“relationship principles (关系原则)”只是个平淡的字词，并无涉及道德或义务的庄严色彩。我认为人伦应该译为的“Relationship-defined obligations (关系定义的义务和责任)”，含有“obligations (义务和责任)”一字，所以能够表达一些庄严色彩。而且，人伦的“关系原则”，其实差不多都是关系定义的义务和责任。所以我认为，拥有庄严色彩的“relationship-defined obligations (关系定义的义务和责任)”一词，是比较好一些的英语翻译。

现在让我们分析一下人伦吧。

人与人的关系有很多种，所以人伦关系也有很多个：亲戚之间、邻居之间、老师和学生之间、等等。中华传统特地强调五个最重要的人伦关系，即“五伦”。五伦就是以下的五种关系：

1. 古时的“君臣”（统治者和被统治者）即现代的政府和人民的关系、
2. “父子”即父母和子女的关系、
3. “夫妻”即丈夫和妻子的关系、
4. “兄弟”即兄弟姊妹之间的关系、
5. “朋友”即朋友之间的关系。

此外，我认为，现代社会不像以前自足自给的农民社会，现代社会的商品和贸易极为普遍和重要，所以传统的五伦，五个最重要的人伦关系，应该加多一个，成为“六伦”。那就是:

6. “买卖”即买者与卖者的人伦关系：所有经济关系，包括雇主（劳动力买者）与雇员（劳动力卖者）的关系，都属于这个买者与卖者的人伦关系。

把我们每天都进行多次的买卖，上升为重大人伦关系之一，能够把买卖伦理化、道德化、和规范化，使买卖脱离工业化之前传统社会的鄙视，也使买卖双方之间应该存在的义务和责任，不需要只有在朋友之间才履行，不需要先用喝酒作乐等方法，让买方和卖方先结交为“朋友”，然后才敢进行生意交易。买卖成为第六伦，双方便能够不言而喻地互相信任，认为买卖遵守诚信是必然的、正常的情况，而不守诚信是脱离常轨的、异常的现象。（见我的博客文章“五伦：续”，“第六伦：买者和卖者之间”，和“第六伦：买者和卖者的关系”。）

除了最重要的传统五伦或我的六伦以外，还有很多人伦关系，不胜枚举。只要跟任何人有接触，有来往，尽管是很短暂或偶尔的，便有了人与人关系，而所有人与人关系都属于人伦关系。

那么，根据中华孔教传统，人伦定义的义务和责任是什么呢？说一说传统最重要的五伦吧：

1. 政府与人民（君臣）之间：政府一定要有效地、明智地保护人民的安全和财产，这就是相当于古时的君主要做“明主”的义务，而人民则一定要向政府交税、服从政府的法律、被政府征召时忠心地和尽全力地服役、适当时对政府反映意见或进行劝谏，这就是相当于古时的臣民要做“忠臣”的义务;
   
   
2. 父母与子女之间：父母一定要养育和教导子女，而子女一定要对父母行孝和奉养，照顾老弱的父母;
   
   
3. 夫妻之间：双方要齐心合力，互相帮助，一起建立家庭生活，既养育下一代，也照顾上一代;
   
   
4. 兄弟姐妹之间：兄辈对弟辈友爱，弟辈对兄辈恭敬，兄弟之间要互相帮助;
   
   
5. 朋友之间：互相帮助，尤其是互相勉励、提供建议和劝谏。

至于我所提倡的第六伦，买者与卖者之间的义务和责任是：

6. 买卖要以诚信和遵守诺言为原则，买者必须按照明言的或不言而喻的合约所指定的价格和时间，来向卖者付钱，而卖者必须按照明言的或不言而喻的合约所指定的数量、质量及时间，把货物或服务向买者供应。

除此之外，不胜枚举的其他人与人关系，都拥有人伦定义的义务和责任，都有人伦来规范。所有这些义务和责任都可以总结为“正义”。所以，跟任何人接触、来往，都要遵守人伦，亦即是都要遵守正义。

这里要指出，中华传统的人伦至上，有一项极为重要的信条，曾于古时中国作为建立社会秩序和意识形态的基础，这信条就是“孝”。孝就是上文讨论过，第二个人伦关系所定义的、子女对父母的义务和责任之一。孝就是对父母和祖先好，但是，孝所规范的，并不仅是与父母相处时或对祖先祭拜时的行为，而是所有行为，包括在工作岗位上和跟家庭以外的人相处的行为。孝要求所有行为都要好。为什么所有行为都要好，才是对父母和祖先好呢？因为维持或发扬父母和祖先的声誉，耀扬“家声”（家族的名声），是对父母和祖先好的最重要一条。所以孝，这个子女对父母的义务和责任，意义并不限于狭窄的家庭内部，而是广泛社会道德秩序的支柱，是传统中华意识形态的基础。（见本网站的“孝页”和《孝经》。）

这里亦应该指出，人伦至上所叙述的义务和责任，其实客观上都是人伦关系中各方所实行的互相帮助。政府以维持秩序和安全来帮助人民，人民也反过来以守法、服役、纳税供养、有必要时劝谏等等行为来帮助政府；父母以教导和养育来帮助子女成长，子女们也反过来以服从、尊敬、侍奉老年、有必要时劝谏等行为来帮助父母。其他人伦关系都是同样的道理，都是互相帮助。人与人关系的各方，履行人伦指定的义务和责任，其实就是进行互相帮助。

（注：这里“华人”一词的用法，不是仅指外籍华裔这个近年来在中国的大陆区域里流行的狭窄意义，而是指国内及海外所有中国血统人士这个原来的广泛意义。）

但是，很遗憾，自从1919年“五四运动”高呼要“打倒孔家店”起，经过中国的大陆区域里六十年代的文化大革命和七十年代的“批林批孔运动”高潮，更经过港台西化潮流提出的“忠孝及礼教都虚伪和过时”，使到华人在二十世纪里普遍认为孔教是中国贫穷落后的原因，普遍抛弃了孔教。（这是人类文明史上的大冤案，中国贫穷落后，原因并不是孔教，而是千百年来政府的过分统治。其实，如果没有孔教的话，中华文化老早就好像古埃及文化那样灭绝了，那还能延续几千年啊！）所以，时至今日，虽然中国的大陆区域已经把孔子恢复名誉，现代华人仍然忘记了人伦至上这个道理。

然而，在行为上，多数华人仍然没有变成像西方人们那样，把爱奉为至上。多数华人只是本能地效法父母，本能地把父母的行为作为示例而延续下去，所以便变为或多或少（唉，好像是越来越少）遵从人伦至上的行为。但是，思想上并不知道自己正在或多或少跟随着人伦，亦不知道有人伦至上这个道理。

正是因为在知觉和意识里面，不再拥有人伦至上的原则和信条，所以无论是被白裔或华裔的西方至上主义者指责，说华人不把爱奉为至上、不“把爱表现出来”、或甚至“没有爱”时，华人们口无对词，不知所措。面对西方的爱字旗帜，华人们只知道把头低下来，甚至把膝盖也弯曲跪下来，半个“不”字连想都没有人敢想，把它说出来更不用指望。

所以华人们，特别是年轻华人们，很容易变为西方至上主义的精神俘虏，变为洋奴。西方至上主义者教训“野蛮的华人们”要以爱为至上、要“多一点表示爱”的时候，振振有词，觉得自己非常优越，而多数华人则完全没有系统化的、自成一体的理论来捍卫自己的传统，来否认“野蛮”、“没有爱”的指控，所以只有觉得自卑、理亏，甚至变为对自己的文化、父母及其他华人觉得讨厌、恼恨。而且，因为在家庭里自小缺乏“爱至上”文化的沉浸，所以很多时想学西方人把爱奉为至上时又学不到，做出富于表现式的、好像是充满爱的行为时，不但被周边的人们不认同，自己也觉得肉麻，虚假，好像在演戏，便更愤恨自己生为华人。华人文化仍然不能像西方那样，完全以爱为至上，使到很多现代华人觉得当华人是野蛮、下级的，以身为华人为羞耻。

好了，华人们，不用再为自己不是西方人而感觉羞耻，因为现在对西方至上主义者有了旗帜鲜明的答复了！

答复是：华人们认为是至上的东西，并不是爱，并不是模糊的、不能明确指定的、易变的、基于感情的、存在于人们脑海里因而不容易确认的、有朝起床时说句“我不再爱你了”就可以推翻的、可以作为借口来辩解性滥交、性诱惑、通奸等行为的一种主观感觉。华人们认为是至上的，是明确的、客观存在的、不受主观感觉而转移的人与人之间的关系，以及伴随这些关系的、明确的、可以指定的、其履行可以客观确认的义务和责任。华人们认为是至上的，是人伦。

只要是属于一个关系里面的一方，不论有没有爱的存在，都必须遵守人伦，都必须履行对另一方的责任和义务。无论政府与人民之间有没有爱的存在，政府都一定要保护人民的安全和财产，而人民则一定要向政府交税、服从政府的法律、被政府征召时要服役。无论父母与子女之间有没有“爱”的存在，父母都一定要养育和教导子女，而子女一定要对父母行孝和父母老弱时供养照顾他们。夫妻之间、兄弟姐妹之间、朋友之间、所有的人与人之间的关系，都一样：无论双方之间有没有“爱”的存在，都必须遵守人伦，履行义务和责任。

当然，华人们并不是没有爱，也不是反对爱，在传统中华思想构架里面，爱也是很重要的，但爱是次于人伦的。正如西方的爱至上构架一样，也并不是没有义务和责任，只不过不是至上的，是次于爱的。

其实，传统中华的人伦至上，反而为爱提供了比西方的爱至上更为有效的保障：在漫长的生命中，双方相处必然会有上有落，所以必然有些时候会不“爱”对方，甚至会恼恨对方，但是，如果坚持继续履行自己的人伦义务和责任，而对方也一样这样做，那么到了适当时候爱必然会再回来，而且将会是受过磨练的、更坚强的爱。

所以中华文明传统的人伦至上，不但不是野蛮，不但不是比西方低级，而且是比西方的爱至上更为合理，对社会进步和人类幸福更有促进功效。对于这些，下文将会进一步解释。

西方爱至上的支持者对人伦至上有三个反对论点，其中两个是对人伦至上的批评，一个是对爱至上的捍卫。

有些西方爱至上的支持者作出这项批评：“当人伦至上时，要履行义务和责任这个负担，是会引起人们讨厌的，是必需强迫，人们才会履行的。”

同时，他们又作出另一项批评，“人伦至上会令到人们变为只顾关系，只顾家人、家族和狭窄圈子，以及其中的规矩和利益，不顾正义和公道，不顾法律和公益。所以现在中国的大陆区域里人们很多时没有诚信，假公济私，贪污欺骗，不守法律，只知道拉关系，都是因为孔教的人伦至上，关系至上。”

而且，他们也为爱至上作出一个辩护，“西方的爱，并不是你所描绘的，易变和荒淫的‘eros 爱 (性爱)’；我们所奉为至上的，是‘agape 爱’，是无私的、忘我的爱，是好像基督和上帝对人类的爱，是圣爱，是‘利他主义 (altruism)’的爱。这么纯洁、高尚、无私的东西，怎能不作为至上呢？”

让我们答复这两项批评和评价一下西方的爱，包括无私忘我的“agape 爱”吧。

这项批评不过是一个误解。人们并不一定觉得履行义务和责任是个讨厌的负担；相反，人们会高兴地、欢欣地履行义务和责任。为什么呢？

首先，因为这样做人们就可以实现自己作为人的善良本质，可以获得好人、善人的自尊。在日常生活中只需要遵守一些明确的、众所皆知的、圣贤书本所指明的行为准则，执行一些指定的行为，便是品格高尚的好人、善人，不亦乐乎？

此外，需要履行义务和责任，就意味有人与你有人伦的关系，就意味对方也正在对你履行义务和责任。这是非常值得欢欣的事情。需要履行作为丈夫的义务和责任就意味拥有妻子，正在履行对丈夫的义务和责任。需要履行作为哥哥的义务和责任就意味拥有弟弟或妹妹，正在履行对哥哥的义务和责任。如此等等，也正是不亦乐乎？

另外，这些关系中，你自己的义务和责任履行得越好，便会越加激发和方便对方把对你的义务和责任也履行得更好，制造一个“良性循环”出来。例如，孩子履行对父母尊敬这项义务和责任，便会方便父母履行对孩子教导的义务和责任。相反地，不履行你自己的义务和责任，便不仅伤害对方的感情和降低对方的积极性，也同时阻碍对方履行对你的义务和责任。例如孩子不履行尊敬父母的义务和责任时，会使到父母很难履行对孩子教导的义务和责任，因为他们不听父母的教导，而且对父母不尊敬也同时会令到父母很难集中精神，提供最良好的解释、举例、等等，很难作出最好的教导。

所以，履行人伦所要求的义务和责任，并不必会引发讨厌感或逃避，人们也不必需要强迫才会履行。相反，多数人会很自愿地、甚至欢乐地、尽力地、最好地履行。

这项批评是对人伦至上的曲解，而且是很严重的曲解啊！可叹的是，这曲解在中国和外国都很普遍，说法很吃香，很多人都视之为事实。

不，绝不应该把人伦至上曲解为不顾正义和法律，只顾家人、家族和“圈子”，而为了家人、家族和“圈子”就会抛弃诚信、就会贪污、行骗。

所有人伦定义的义务和责任都是符合正义和诚信的，如果违反正义和诚信的话，就不可能是人伦定义的。例如，人伦规定，子女对父母要孝（对父母和祖先好），而孝的第一条就是要保持父母和祖先的声誉。如果对父母所谓孝而违反正义和诚信，不就是败坏了父母和祖先的声誉吗？还能是孝或对父母好吗？不能的。另外，人伦关系里不仅有家人、家族、和圈子，最少还有五伦中的第一伦，那就是“君臣”，亦即是政府与人民。这个人伦关系对人民的第一项要求就是要遵守法律，而法律则不过是政府基于正义和诚信而成立的一些条例和规章而已。人伦定义的义务和责任必然符合正义和诚信，这是人伦至上的思想结构本身所决定的。

如果父母要求子女做违反正义和诚信的事，那么父母就是错误了，作出这种要求本身就是做了违反道义的事情，子女这时的义务和责任是什么呢？是听从父母错误的要求，做出违反正义和诚信的事情吗？不，这样做就把人伦完全曲解了，被问孝是不是只管服从父母时，孔子就喊叫，“这是什么说话啊！这是什么说话啊！（是何言与！是何言与！）”（见《孝经》“谏诤章第十五”。）根据人伦的规定，子女这时的义务和责任就是劝谏父母，还要坚持，直到成功为止。不然的话，就是“阿意曲从，陷亲不义”了，在孔教经典里，这是非常的、极大的不孝。（见汉朝赵岐对《孟子：离娄篇》的注疏，“十三经注疏”，中华书店北京1980版，下集第2723页。）

所以，人伦所要求人们履行的义务和责任，只可能是符合正义和诚信的义务和责任。否则的话，必定不是人伦所真正要求的，而是对人伦所要求误会或曲解而得出来的。

至于守法，如上文所指出，法律不过是政府基于正义和诚信而成立的一些条例和规章而已，所以既然人伦必会符合正义和诚信，那么人伦必会规定人们遵守法律。中华历史上歌颂的包公、海瑞等人，不都是铁面无私、不惧权贵、严守法则的吗？同时，五伦的第一项人与人关系就是“君臣”，即政府和人民的关系，而人民对政府的第一项义务和责任，就是遵守法律。遵守法律跟履行对家人、家族、和朋友（圈子）的义务和责任是没有冲突的。反而，如果用犯法的手段来为家人、家族、和朋友谋一些不应该得到的不义之财，便是把他们“陷于不义”。这只能伤害他们而已。陷于不义，便把他们和他们家族的好声誉垢污，而且不法行为暴露时他们也会被法律惩罚。

这里要澄清一件事情：中华传统里，当“君主”即政府或政府领导人执行错误的政策或成立错误的法律时，臣民的责任是对君主明确地提出异见，进行劝谏，但这并不是提倡不遵从法律。中国历史里有很多被歌颂为忠臣的英雄，都是对“君主”勇敢地提出异见、进行劝谏的，但是，就算是进行劝谏时，他们都遵从政府和法律，劝谏都是通过合法途径的。中华传统里，只有当政府的无道和无能，达到了没有希望的地步、国家被严重地错误统治、治安和法纪破坏时，只有这时才可以说政府“失去了天命”，而只有这时人民才有权违反法律，起来进行革命，推翻政府。

总之，只有遵守正义、诚信和法律，才是对家人、家族和“圈子”真正的好。孝就是对父母和祖先好，而根据孔教传统，好像《孝经》所规定一样，要在工作岗位上和跟家庭以外人们相处的行为都好，才能算为真正的孝。这是因为保持父母和祖先的声誉，或甚至更好地，耀扬“家声”（家族的名声），是对父母和祖先好的最重要一条。所以，不能把家人、家族和“圈子”跟正义、诚信和法律对立起来。相反，人伦至上思想构架里，要对家族和“圈子”好，就一定要遵守正义、诚信和法律。

人伦世界里，人伦关系并不限于家人、家族和“圈子”，而是包括所有人与人关系。所有人与人关系都属于人伦范围之内，都具有须要履行的义务和责任，那就是说，都要照顾这些跟自己有关系的各方。 只要跟任何人有接触，有来往，便有人伦定义的义务和责任来规范。雇主和雇员、邻居和邻居、售货员和顾客、警察和平民等等，虽然不是亲人，但他们的接触来往也仍然有人伦的规范，也不可以进行欺凌、伤害或偷骗。人伦至上时，人伦在所有人与人接触的范围里都运行。这样，正义、诚信和守法的范围不是变为更狭窄，而是变为更广泛了。所以，人伦至上不会只顾亲近自己的人而漠视正义、诚信和守法，这是由人伦至上的本质所决定的。

所以，现代中国的大陆区域里贪污、不诚信和不守法等现象，并不是因为华人信奉人伦至上，而是完全相反，是因为华人遗弃了人伦至上、忘记了孔教信条。人伦至上的时候，人们必定会严格遵守正义、诚信和法律。以前传统的华人商人不都是诚信至上，一诺千金，童叟无欺的吗？指责人伦至上令人们只顾亲人而不顾正义这个批评，是不能成立的。

而且，把人伦至上说为令人只顾亲人而不顾正义，也是用完全错误的推理方式得出结论的。这个推理方式就是：“人伦至上是基于人与人的关系的，所以不是基于正义的，所以一定只顾关系亲近的人而漠视正义。”这不是荒谬的逻辑吗？如果用于西方的爱至上思想构架，就得出这个结论了：“西方的爱至上是基于爱的，所以不是基于正义的，所以一定只顾心爱的人而漠视正义”！

当然，这样曲解爱至上也是错误，但总比曲解人伦至上较为有理。这是因为跟任何人接触都涉及人伦，所以人伦至上不可能有时会容许对某些人进行不正义的行为。但是，一个人所爱的人数量有限，所以跟多数人接触时就不会涉及爱，因此能够想像到，爱至上有可能有时会容许对某些人进行不正义的行为。当然，这也是谬论，因为西方的爱至上思想构架里，也有很多机制，使人们不会漠视正义。

对更为合适这样攻击的西方思想，这种曲解就没有人提出来，反而对比较不那么合适这样攻击的中华传统思想，这种曲解却在中国和外国都很吃香，有很大市场。唉，这不是反映了当今很多人们，看待这种事物是抱着一点成见的吗？

其实，被这种错误成见感染，也是能够理解的。首先，现在中国的大陆区域总的来说，还是比较贫穷落后，人们便看不起华人和华人传统。加上，中国大陆区域的意识形态曾经激烈斥责“吃人的封建旧社会”，现在也仍然反对“封建旧思想”。所以，对中华传统思想的评击，中外人们都比较容易接受，信以为真。而且现在中国的大陆区域，不理会正义、不守诚信、不守法、贪污作弊等，也的确比较普遍。虽然这不是因为有了孔教，而相反地在很大程度上是因为没有了孔教，但是，多数人对中华经典书籍不但根本不认识，而且因为不晓文言文，连看也看不懂，所以很多人便人云亦云，便都把人伦至上曲解为不讲正义了。但是，曲解再吃香也毕竟是曲解。依我看来，人伦至上思想构架这么优秀，是不能再抑制多久的，很快它便会再登上人类舞台，重新担演主角了。

现在让我们看看西方无私的、忘我的“agape 爱”，同时也对西方的爱作出一些评价。

首先应该指出，虽然西方文明史里，基督教思想主流一向强调无私忘我的爱，但是在相当一段历史时间里，最少是从1700年代开始，性诱惑、近乎是或简直是淫乱的行为、和抛弃婚侣、单方终止婚姻的行为等，在西方被认为是基于爱的，因而被认可，甚至被歌颂。好像举行舞会，让未婚女子穿上相当富于性诱惑的露胸露肩“礼服”，跟未婚男子拥抱跳舞，在西方1700年代以来就被认为是高尚的行为，因为这样会激发男子对女子的爱。1400年代作的《亚瑟王之死》一书里，所描叙的亚瑟王最好的圆桌骑士兰斯洛特跟亚瑟王妻子吉纳维尔王后的通奸，最迟在1800年代就被正式歌颂为豪侠骑士的爱（chivalric love)。1800年代,“包法利夫人 (Madam Bovary)”、“安娜.卡列尼娜 (Anna Karenina)”等文学作品就反映了当时西方社会对以爱为理由的通奸，进行公开的辩护和认可。又在1800年代，易卜生的“玩偶之家”（原版）等文学作品，就宣扬如果婚姻里一方“得不到爱”，该方就可以抛弃婚侣、单方终止婚姻。自1900以来的西方小说、歌曲、戏剧等文化代表品，以爱为理由，对此等行为的支持和歌颂就更不用说了。所以，我们对西方爱至上的评价，不能不包括西方以爱为由，认可及歌颂性诱惑、淫乱、和抛弃婚侣、单方终止婚姻的思维传统。

至于无私忘我的“agape 爱”，这种爱是基于原则的，也是提及义务和责任的，所以的确是一种强大的为善力量。无私忘我的爱对另一方拥有深厚的爱慕感情，热切地愿意为对方做事，包括牺牲生命。著名的，描写无私忘我爱的圣经《哥林多前书》第十三篇第四至八节也说明，正确的基督教无私忘我爱是恒定的，不是朝秦暮楚的。无私忘我的爱，跟中华传统的人伦至上不但没有冲突，而且还可以补充人伦至上思想构架里对感情生活的思考。

但是，无私忘我的爱有一个缺陷，那就是没有指定各个关系中，各方之间必须进行什么的行为。例如，父母和子女之间必须进行什么的行为呢？政府和人民之间呢？丈夫和妻子之间呢？诸如等等。如我所说过，“当然，孔子比基督教的圣经花多了很多时间，把关系里的双方所互相欠下的义务解说得详细得多。例如，圣经没有正式分析政府和公民、父母和子女、丈夫和妻子、兄弟之间和朋友之间的五种‘五伦’关系。哥林多前书几句话不能比得上古代孔教的许多本关于义务和责任的经典书。”（见我的博客文章“孔教和各宗教”。）

对另一方拥有深厚的爱慕和热切地愿意为对方做事，是不够的。不指定跟什么关系里面，什么的人，必须进行什么的行为，必须履行什么义务和责任，那么到了具体情况时，无私忘我的爱仍然可以容许很多错误的各种行为。例如，对子女溺爱、偏袒自己比较爱的但欠下义务较少的人（例如女朋友）而损害自己爱少一些的但是欠下义务很多的人（例如父母）、以爱为由进行奸淫、因为某一些理由而对婚侣“不再感觉爱”就离婚（很多时是不再感觉无私忘我的爱而不光是不再感觉性爱）、觉得对父母“不感觉爱”就跟他们断绝接触、等等。有了孔教的人伦至上，就没有这种问题：人伦至上的思想构架里，这些行为都明确地是错误的，因为无论爱或不爱，都不容许抛弃人伦所规定的义务和责任。是的，无私忘我的爱是纯洁高尚的，但是，要作为至上的东西，就必定也要拥有极大的智慧和极大的正误分辨力。

所以，西方用来认可及歌颂性诱惑、性滥交、淫乱、和抛弃婚侣、单方终止婚姻的那种爱，是不可取的，而西方的无私忘我的爱，虽然是正确的，极其优良的信条，但只能用来补充人伦至上，不能用来取代之。尽管爱是无私忘我的那一种，爱也不可以作为至上，也必须人伦至上。

从整个社会的角度来说，最重要的是，正如本文第2节所说那样，人伦定义的义务和责任，客观上都是人伦关系中的各方进行互相帮助。政府帮助人民，人民也反过来养活及帮助政府；父母养育及帮助子女，子女们也反过来帮助他们。其他人伦都是一样的道理，都是互相帮助。这种互相帮助，其实就是人类文明的根本，所有人类文明都是基于这项原则的。人们之间需要各人做不同的工作，然后把不同工作所产生的不同服务行动和物品，互相交换，以此互利互惠，人类文明社会才能成立起来和延续下去，而互相帮助就是这个分工和交换的中心原则。人伦至上规定人们根据关系定义的义务和责任来互相帮助，所以是互相帮助的最好保障。因此，人伦至上对文明发展和社会发达提供最有利的社会秩序和最肥沃的意识形态土壤。当古代中国遵守人伦至上的意识形态时，也是当时世界上最为先进和发达的国家之一，这会只是个偶然吗？

相比之下，爱至上所要求人们作出的对人帮助，则没有这种互相性质了。爱至上所叙述的无私忘我的爱，正因为是非常无私和伟大的，所以是单边性质的，是不要求回报的。这个单边的爱在日常运作中合适慈善捐赠，但不合适多次重复的、持续的、长久性的互相帮助和互利互惠。其实，爱的单边性质，是爱至上构架的一个严重弊病。现代世界很多人就是利用这个弊病，对“社会”，其实即是对其他人们，作出不公平的要求，认为“社会”及他人对他们欠下单边性质的义务和责任，要无条件照顾他们，而他们则不必反过来照顾“社会”及他人。这些人习惯了爱的单边性质，向他人作出不合理要求时还振振有词。

也从整个社会的角度来说，一个人的能力有限，不能照顾整个社会，但是，可以照顾这个社会的一部分，那就是可以照顾这个社会上跟他（她）拥有人伦关系的那些人。当一位社会成员一贯地、持续地履行人伦定义的义务和责任，那么跟他（她）拥有人伦关系的各方都在感情上和物质上得到一贯的、持续的照顾。可以想像，从这位社会成员发放出一个感情和物质生活的幸福快乐圈，覆盖着那些跟他（她）有关系的人。同时，这位社会成员反过来亦获得跟他（她）有关系的那些人的照顾，也被从这些人们发放出来的感情和物质生活的幸福快乐圈覆盖着。当社会每一个成员都一贯地、持续地履行人伦定义的义务和责任，那么那个社会的所有人们都会在感情上和物质上得到一贯的、持续的照顾。所有那些从每位社会成员发放出来的一个个感情和物质生活的幸福快乐圈便会交搭重叠，社会上所有的人都便会被好几个这样的幸福快乐圈覆盖着。每个人都履行自己的人伦义务和责任时，每个人便都照顾“属于自己义务和责任范围”的社会那一部分，从而整个社会便都得到照顾，走向孔子《礼运大同》的“老有所终，壮有所用，幼有所长，鳏寡孤独废疾者，皆有所养”。这个社会的感情和物质生活的幸福快乐程度，便能够达到以该社会拥有的科技和理解力所能够达到的最高点。人伦至上，使社会能够得到最大程度的幸福快乐。

对个人来说，人伦至上授予人们心灵很大的解放和权利，很大的安全感和互相信任。这是因为有没有履行人伦所规定的义务和责任，是完全能够客观证实的，完全不需要担心对方的脑子在想什么。他（她）还爱我吗？我做的足够使他（她）继续爱我吗？我提出不同意見他（她）会不会愛我少些呢？这些都不用担忧，我只需要履行我众所皆知的、规定的、能够客观证实的义务和责任，而这些义务和责任也包括了适当时提供不同意见或劝谏，我就可以很放心，对方也必然会反过来履行对我的义务和责任。不然的话，我拥有充分权利要求对方这样做。（见我的博客文章 “传统中华文化授予人们解放和权利：1”, “传统中华文化授予人们解放和权利：2”, “传统中华文化授予人们解放和权利：3”。）

有了关系的存在，不管这关系是自愿的（夫妻、朋友）还是生下来便有的（父子、兄弟），就可以拥有很高度的安全感。有了关系的存在，我就可以信任对方，对方也可以信任我，双方都不需要猜疑对方的脑子里爱或欢心还存在否，双方都必然会履行义务和责任，可以完全互相信任。

亦不需要像西方那样，用很富于表达性的方法来表示爱，公众场所里激情热吻、拥抱等，来博取和延续对方的欢心和爱。人伦至上让人们很放心，如果跟他们有关系的对方，有一天对他们不感觉欢心、欣赏、仰慕、或爱，关系并不会因此就突然完蛋。只要坚持完成自己由关系所规定的义务，关系就会延持下去。

因此，爱是用全心全力完成自己的义务和责任来表示的。华人传统文化里，即二十世纪之前的文化里，小说、戏剧、歌曲等歌颂的就是这种不管困难或牺牲多大都用全心全力来完成义务和责任的行为，而“爱”这个主观的感觉，是包含和表现于行为之中的。人伦至上的华人传统文化把客观的行为放在前，把主观的感觉放在后。（见我的文章“华人和爱的表示”。）像华人们传统的那样，带着恭谨喜悦的心情，全心全力完成每天的义务和责任，人伦至上的时候，这样表示爱就足够了。

当然，也不排除用很富于表达性的方法来表示爱，只不过是不一定需要用这种方法来博取和延续对方的欢心和爱而已。如果一个人或一个民族，采用了人伦至上的思想构架，但是风俗和喜好是用很富于表达性的方法来表示爱的，那么继续这种风俗和喜好是当然可以的。

至于人伦至上时“根本就没爱的存在”这个指控，那是完全错误的，以上所说的已经充分证明了这点。人与人之间，爱当然会存在，亦需要存在。孔教基本课本《弟子规》引述孔子说，“凡是人，皆须爱”，何况是最亲近的人呢？人伦至上时爱仍然是很重要的，只不过爱不是至上而已，亦只不过如上文所说那样，爱的表示方法不需要用很富于表达性的方式而已。

很奇妙，不以爱为至上而以人伦为至上，反而很多时会得到更好、更坚固的爱，理由是互相履行义务和责任，尤其是在较为长期的相处情况下，所栽培出来的爱，比起对形像仰慕所引发的爱，或由性欲所引发的爱，往往会更为成熟和坚强。（见我的博客文章“中华人伦至上对西方的爱至上”。）

有些人问，“没有神的话，有什么可以证明人伦是应该至上的呢？孔教对神和超自然界并不什过问。不是需要宗教信仰来提供理由，证明人伦是应该至上的吗？最少在基督教里，神为爱至上提供理由，爱神的话就要时常爱所有的人，因为这样做会令无所不知的神感觉喜悦。”

首先要说明，我认为，爱神的人要让神喜悦，则须要爱所有的人，是一条非常强有力的训令，是保证道德行为和文明社会的坚强基础。事实是，人类历史上除了中华文明以外，所有其他文明，包括基督教文明，都把对神明的崇拜活动和崇拜人员，授予政治地位和国家权力，利用神明作为主要工具，确保人们会做好人。利用神明的好处是，神明是无所不知的，而且来世的报酬和惩罚都可能比今世还要重大，所以对做好事的鼓励是非常强大的，尽管有时做好事会在今世带来不利的后果。

人伦至上虽然不需要人们信神或信来世，亦不排除信神和信来世这股支持善良的强大力量。孔教传统能够跟任何宗教相容。孔教传统从来没有装作过可以解说来世，所以曾奉行孔教的社会都利用宗教（例如佛教）来补充孔教。历史上，古时中国的基督教，伊斯兰教、佛教、犹太教等各派教徒，都接受了对人伦和孝的注重，都把这些信条当为宗教信条的补充。从印度传来的佛教，在中国树了根之后，便变为也强调人伦和孝了。而从孔教观点来看，信教的人只不过是把自己和神的关系作为另外一“伦”，加于本文第2节所讨论过的“五伦”（或我的“六伦”）之上。的确，是没有冲突的，历史上一直有互相补充。

至于有些人不能认同对神明崇拜的需要，或根本不能认同超自然世界的存在，人伦至上亦能够跟没有宗教或无神论相容，提供道德指南和行为准则。不信来世存在的人，不信无所不知、审判善恶的神明存在的人，也仍然会做好事而不做坏事，虽然有时做好事会带来不利的后果，因为要履行对父母及祖先的义务和责任，要行孝，就一定要保持家声，不让它被污垢。而这个家声是长久的，个人的生命过去后家声还是延续的。对在普遍信奉这信条的社会里长大的人来说，这信条规范行为的力量是非常强大的。在中国历史上，有无数的例子，献身的英雄们不一定是信神或信来世的，但仍然做出了轰烈牺牲的英雄事迹。例如文天祥《正气歌》及其他文章里，叙述为什么要守节时便只提身后名声，没有提及来世或神明。有了人伦至上，没有宗教的人，甚至信仰无神论的人，也一样会做善良好人，也一样会为正义作出牺牲。

所以，孔教传统只是从自然世界的事物，从与我们天天接触的人，从非常普通的东西，演变出人伦至上的道德伦理秩序。不需要制造一个超自然世界及一大堆关于这个超自然世界的、有时奥妙莫测的教条。孔子的天才就是拿自然的东西，自然的人与人关系，从而制造强大的教条出来。父母与子女是个非常自然和普遍的关系，但是孔子就从而制造出强大的行善力量：要对父母孝，就一定要对所有的人善良和友爱。（关于孝的讨论请看本网站的孝页和《孝经》。）

基于自然世界的孔教思想，结构上比基于超自然世界的宗教传统更为简单，也不束绑于任何一个宗教，所以，跟任何一个宗教或没有宗教，甚至无神论，都能够相容。另一个说法来形容这个情况是，孔教人伦至上思想构架在最基本的层次运行，而在这个构架上面，可以根据各种不同的宗教信仰，树立起各种宗教“上层建筑”。不信奉宗教或信奉无神论时，亦可以不把任何宗教“上层建筑”加上去，孔教思想构架是完全能够独立运行的。所以，孔教构架更为包容、开放、和能够合适任何宗教或文化，合适多元化的社会、多元化的世界。

当然，有些宗教派系的一些信徒会说，只有他们的那个关于超自然世界的思想构架才是正确的，所有不追随这个思想构架的人，都会被神判罪的。孔教跟这种思想构架仍然可以相容，因为孔教的运行，是在于自然世界层次，不是在于超自然世界层次。这些派系的信徒，仍然可以使用孔教的自然世界思想构架，来补充他们的超自然世界思想构架，来帮助他们规范今世里人与人之间的关系。如果这些信徒是对的话，他们那个超自然世界思想的构架才是正确的话，那么他们仍然将会得救；如果他们不对的话，那么所有不追随该派系的人们亦会得益于孔教的自然世界思想构架。

所以，不仅是华人，而是不论宗教，全世界的所有人，包括了西方人和基督徒，都应该学习人伦至上的教导。

人伦至上能够为所有的人们这么良好地提供道德指南和行为准则，能够使到社会幸福快乐，所以，就算是没有神明，就算是不使用宗教信仰来提供理由，也都是应该遵从的。当然，如果有神明存在的话，那么神明就必然亦会赞同人伦至上。

人伦至上对人们和社会所提供的帮助比爱至上更为多。采用人伦至上的构架，人们能够明确地知道，应该怎样衡量所有行为，正确与错误一目了然。采用这个构架，人们能够得到很大的解放和权利，很大的安全感和互相信任。采用这个构架，很多时比采用爱至上的构架，能够得到更好、更坚固的爱。是的，传统的人伦至上构架也许需要添加我在本文第2节所提出的一点更新，把“五伦”说法改为“六伦”，才符合新时代，但是，总的来说，人伦至上是最好不过的构架，能够合适任何信仰和风俗，任何宗教或无宗教、能够合适多元化社会和多元化世界。

华人们应该自豪地重新认同自己优秀的文化遗产，重新拥抱人伦至上的思想构架。而且，不但是华人，全世界人，不论宗教、信仰或风俗，都应该对这个思想构架进行探索和研究。我认为，在将来世界里，作为全球主流思想构架的，必将会是人伦至上。