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 (人倫). 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 (人倫). 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 (關係原則), 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" (五倫 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 華人 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.

中華文明和西方文明之間的重大差別是：西方是以愛為至上的，而中華文明則不承認愛是至上的。中華文化認為是至上的是“人倫”。人倫就是人與人之間的關係中，各方所應該履行的義務和責任。

首先要說明一下為甚麼在本文的英語版裡我把“人倫”一詞翻譯為英語的“relationship-defined obligations (關係定義的義務和責任)”。或許有人會說“relationship principles (關係原則)”的意義更為接近人倫。但是，人倫具有涉及道德和義務的莊嚴色彩，在英語中沒有相同意義的字詞。英語的“relationship principles (關係原則)”只是個平淡的字詞，並無涉及道德或義務的莊嚴色彩。我認為人倫應該譯為的“Relationship-defined obligations (關係定義的義務和責任)”，含有“obligations (義務和責任)”一字，所以能夠表達一些莊嚴色彩。而且，人倫的“關係原則”，其實差不多都是關係定義的義務和責任。所以我認為，擁有莊嚴色彩的“relationship-defined obligations (關係定義的義務和責任)”一詞，是比較好一些的英語翻譯。

現在讓我們分析一下人倫吧。

人與人的關係有很多種，所以人倫關係也有很多個：親戚之間、鄰居之間、老師和學生之間、等等。中華傳統特地強調五個最重要的人倫關係，即“五倫”。五倫就是以下的五種關係：

1. 古時的“君臣”（統治者和被統治者）即現代的政府和人民的關係、
2. “父子”即父母和子女的關係、
3. “夫妻”即丈夫和妻子的關係、
4. “兄弟”即兄弟姊妹之間的關係、
5. “朋友”即朋友之間的關係。

此外，我認為，現代社會不像以前自足自給的農民社會，現代社會的商品和貿易極為普遍和重要，所以傳統的五倫，五個最重要的人倫關係，應該加多一個，成為“六倫”。那就是:

6. “買賣”即買者與賣者的人倫關係：所有經濟關係，包括雇主（勞動力買者）與僱員（勞動力賣者）的關係，都屬於這個買者與賣者的人倫關係。

把我們每天都進行多次的買賣，上升為重大人倫關係之一，能夠把買賣倫理化、道德化、和規範化，使買賣脫離工業化之前傳統社會的鄙視，也使買賣雙方之間應該存在的義務和責任，不需要只有在朋友之間才履行，不需要先用喝酒作樂等方法，讓買方和賣方先結交為“朋友”，然後才敢進行生意交易。買賣成為第六倫，雙方便能夠不言而喻地互相信任，認為買賣遵守誠信是必然的、正常的情況，而不守誠信是脫離常軌的、異常的現象。（見我的博客文章“五倫：續”，“第六倫：買者和賣者之間”，和“第六倫：買者和賣者的關係”。）

除了最重要的傳統五倫或我的六倫以外，還有很多人倫關係，不勝枚舉。只要跟任何人有接觸，有來往，儘管是很短暫或偶爾的，便有了人與人關係，而所有人與人關係都屬於人倫關係。

那麼，根據中華孔教傳統，人倫定義的義務和責任是甚麼呢？說一說傳統最重要的五倫吧：

1. 政府與人民（君臣）之間：政府一定要有效地、明智地保護人民的安全和財產，這就是相當於古時的君主要做“明主”的義務，而人民則一定要向政府交稅、服從政府的法律、被政府徵召時忠心地和盡全力地服役、適當時對政府反映意見或進行勸諫，這就是相當於古時的臣民要做“忠臣”的義務;
   
   
2. 父母與子女之間：父母一定要養育和教導子女，而子女一定要對父母行孝和奉養，照顧老弱的父母;
   
   
3. 夫妻之間：雙方要齊心合力，互相幫助，一起建立家庭生活，既養育下一代，也照顧上一代;
   
   
4. 兄弟姐妹之間：兄輩對弟輩友愛，弟輩對兄輩恭敬，兄弟之間要互相幫助;
   
   
5. 朋友之間：互相幫助，尤其是互相勉勵、提供建議和勸諫。

至於我所提倡的第六倫，買者與賣者之間的義務和責任是：

6. 買賣要以誠信和遵守諾言為原則，買者必須按照明言的或不言而喻的合約所指定的價格和時間，來向賣者付錢，而賣者必須按照明言的或不言而喻的合約所指定的數量、質量及時間，把貨物或服務向買者供應。

除此之外，不勝枚舉的其他人與人關係，都擁有人倫定義的義務和責任，都有人倫來規範。所有這些義務和責任都可以總結為“正義”。所以，跟任何人接觸、來往，都要遵守人倫，亦即是都要遵守正義。

這裡要指出，中華傳統的人倫至上，有一項極為重要的信條，曾於古時中國作為建立社會秩序和意識形態的基礎，這信條就是“孝”。孝就是上文討論過，第二個人倫關係所定義的、子女對父母的義務和責任之一。孝就是對父母和祖先好，但是，孝所規範的，並不僅是與父母相處時或對祖先祭拜時的行為，而是所有行為，包括在工作崗位上和跟家庭以外的人相處的行為。孝要求所有行為都要好。為甚麼所有行為都要好，才是對父母和祖先好呢？因為維持或發揚父母和祖先的聲譽，耀揚“家聲”（家族的名聲），是對父母和祖先好的最重要一條。所以孝，這個子女對父母的義務和責任，意義並不限於狹窄的家庭內部，而是廣泛社會道德秩序的支柱，是傳統中華意識形態的基礎。（見本網站的“孝頁”和《孝經》。）

這裡亦應該指出，人倫至上所敘述的義務和責任，其實客觀上都是人倫關係中各方所實行的互相幫助。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。

（注：這裡“華人”一詞的用法，不是僅指外籍華裔這個近年來在中國的大陸區域裡流行的狹窄意義，而是指國內及海外所有中國血統人士這個原來的廣泛意義。）

但是，很遺憾，自從1919年“五四運動”高呼要“打倒孔家店”起，經過中國的大陸區域里六十年代的文化大革命和七十年代的“批林批孔運動”高潮，更經過港台西化潮流提出的“忠孝及禮教都虛偽和過時”，使到華人在二十世紀裡普遍認為孔教是中國貧窮落後的原因，普遍拋棄了孔教。（這是人類文明史上的大冤案，中國貧窮落後，原因並不是孔教，而是千百年來政府的過分統治。其實，如果沒有孔教的話，中華文化老早就好像古埃及文化那樣滅絕了，那還能延續幾千年啊！）所以，時至今日，雖然中國的大陸區域已經把孔子恢復名譽，現代華人仍然忘記了人倫至上這個道理。

然而，在行為上，多數華人仍然沒有變成像西方人們那樣，把愛奉為至上。多數華人只是本能地效法父母，本能地把父母的行為作為示例而延續下去，所以便變為或多或少（唉，好像是越來越少）遵從人倫至上的行為。但是，思想上並不知道自己正在或多或少跟隨著人倫，亦不知道有人倫至上這個道理。

正是因為在知覺和意識裡面，不再擁有人倫至上的原則和信條，所以無論是被白裔或華裔的西方至上主義者指責，說華人不把愛奉為至上、不“把愛表現出來”、或甚至“沒有愛”時，華人們口無對詞，不知所措。面對西方的愛字旗幟，華人們只知道把頭低下來，甚至把膝蓋也彎曲跪下來，半個“不”字連想都沒有人敢想，把它說出來更不用指望。

所以華人們，特別是年輕華人們，很容易變為西方至上主義的精神俘虜，變為洋奴。西方至上主義者教訓“野蠻的華人們”要以愛為至上、要“多一點表示愛”的時候，振振有詞，覺得自己非常優越，而多數華人則完全沒有系統化的、自成一體的理論來捍衛自己的傳統，來否認“野蠻”、“沒有愛”的指控，所以只有覺得自卑、理虧，甚至變為對自己的文化、父母及其他華人覺得討厭、惱恨。而且，因為在家庭裡自小缺乏“愛至上”文化的沈浸，所以很多時想學西方人把愛奉為至上時又學不到，做出富於表現式的、好像是充滿愛的行為時，不但被周邊的人們不認同，自己也覺得肉麻，虛假，好像在演戲，便更憤恨自己生為華人。華人文化仍然不能像西方那樣，完全以愛為至上，使到很多現代華人覺得當華人是野蠻、下級的，以身為華人為羞恥。

好了，華人們，不用再為自己不是西方人而感覺羞恥，因為現在對西方至上主義者有了旗幟鮮明的答復了！

答復是：華人們認為是至上的東西，並不是愛，並不是模糊的、不能明確指定的、易變的、基於感情的、存在於人們腦海裡因而不容易確認的、有朝起床時說句“我不再愛你了”就可以推翻的、可以作為藉口來辯解性濫交、性誘惑、通姦等行為的一種主觀感覺。華人們認為是至上的，是明確的、客觀存在的、不受主觀感覺而轉移的人與人之間的關係，以及伴隨這些關係的、明確的、可以指定的、其履行可以客觀確認的義務和責任。華人們認為是至上的，是人倫。

只要是屬於一個關係裡面的一方，不論有沒有愛的存在，都必須遵守人倫，都必須履行對另一方的責任和義務。無論政府與人民之間有沒有愛的存在，政府都一定要保護人民的安全和財產，而人民則一定要向政府交稅、服從政府的法律、被政府徵召時要服役。無論父母與子女之間有沒有“愛”的存在，父母都一定要養育和教導子女，而子女一定要對父母行孝和父母老弱時供養照顧他們。夫妻之間、兄弟姐妹之間、朋友之間、所有的人與人之間的關係，都一樣：無論雙方之間有沒有“愛”的存在，都必須遵守人倫，履行義務和責任。

當然，華人們並不是沒有愛，也不是反對愛，在傳統中華思想構架裡面，愛也是很重要的，但愛是次於人倫的。正如西方的愛至上構架一樣，也並不是沒有義務和責任，只不過不是至上的，是次於愛的。

其實，傳統中華的人倫至上，反而為愛提供了比西方的愛至上更為有效的保障：在漫長的生命中，雙方相處必然會有上有落，所以必然有些時候會不“愛”對方，甚至會惱恨對方，但是，如果堅持繼續履行自己的人倫義務和責任，而對方也一樣這樣做，那麼到了適當時候愛必然會再回來，而且將會是受過磨練的、更堅強的愛。

所以中華文明傳統的人倫至上，不但不是野蠻，不但不是比西方低級，而且是比西方的愛至上更為合理，對社會進步和人類幸福更有促進功效。對於這些，下文將會進一步解釋。

西方愛至上的支持者對人倫至上有三個反對論點，其中兩個是對人倫至上的批評，一個是對愛至上的捍衛。

有些西方愛至上的支持者作出這項批評：“當人倫至上時，要履行義務和責任這個負擔，是會引起人們討厭的，是必需強迫，人們才會履行的。”

同時，他們又作出另一項批評，“人倫至上會令到人們變為只顧關係，只顧家人、家族和狹窄圈子，以及其中的規矩和利益，不顧正義和公道，不顧法律和公益。所以現在中國的大陸區域裡人們很多時沒有誠信，假公濟私，貪污欺騙，不守法律，只知道拉關係，都是因為孔教的人倫至上，關係至上。”

而且，他們也為愛至上作出一個辯護，“西方的愛，並不是你所描繪的，易變和荒淫的‘eros 愛 (性愛)’；我們所奉為至上的，是‘agape 愛’，是無私的、忘我的愛，是好像基督和上帝對人類的愛，是聖愛，是‘利他主義 (altruism)’的愛。這麼純潔、高尚、無私的東西，怎能不作為至上呢？”

讓我們答復這兩項批評和評價一下西方的愛，包括無私忘我的“agape 愛”吧。

這項批評不過是一個誤解。人們並不一定覺得履行義務和責任是個討厭的負擔；相反，人們會高興地、歡欣地履行義務和責任。為甚麼呢？

首先，因為這樣做人們就可以實現自己作為人的善良本質，可以獲得好人、善人的自尊。在日常生活中只需要遵守一些明確的、眾所皆知的、聖賢書本所指明的行為準則，執行一些指定的行為，便是品格高尚的好人、善人，不亦樂乎？

此外，需要履行義務和責任，就意味有人與你有人倫的關係，就意味對方也正在對你履行義務和責任。這是非常值得歡欣的事情。需要履行作為丈夫的義務和責任就意味擁有妻子，正在履行對丈夫的義務和責任。需要履行作為哥哥的義務和責任就意味擁有弟弟或妹妹，正在履行對哥哥的義務和責任。如此等等，也正是不亦樂乎？

另外，這些關係中，你自己的義務和責任履行得越好，便會越加激發和方便對方把對你的義務和責任也履行得更好，製造一個“良性循環”出來。例如，孩子履行對父母尊敬這項義務和責任，便會方便父母履行對孩子教導的義務和責任。相反地，不履行你自己的義務和責任，便不僅傷害對方的感情和降低對方的積極性，也同時阻礙對方履行對你的義務和責任。例如孩子不履行尊敬父母的義務和責任時，會使到父母很難履行對孩子教導的義務和責任，因為他們不聽父母的教導，而且對父母不尊敬也同時會令到父母很難集中精神，提供最良好的解釋、舉例、等等，很難作出最好的教導。

所以，履行人倫所要求的義務和責任，並不必會引發討厭感或逃避，人們也不必需要強迫才會履行。相反，多數人會很自願地、甚至歡樂地、盡力地、最好地履行。

這項批評是對人倫至上的曲解，而且是很嚴重的曲解啊！可嘆的是，這曲解在中國和外國都很普遍，說法很吃香，很多人都視之為事實。

不，絕不應該把人倫至上曲解為不顧正義和法律，只顧家人、家族和“圈子”，而為了家人、家族和“圈子”就會拋棄誠信、就會貪污、行騙。

所有人倫定義的義務和責任都是符合正義和誠信的，如果違反正義和誠信的話，就不可能是人倫定義的。例如，人倫規定，子女對父母要孝（對父母和祖先好），而孝的第一條就是要保持父母和祖先的聲譽。如果對父母所謂孝而違反正義和誠信，不就是敗壞了父母和祖先的聲譽嗎？還能是孝或對父母好嗎？不能的。另外，人倫關係裡不僅有家人、家族、和圈子，最少還有五倫中的第一倫，那就是“君臣”，亦即是政府與人民。這個人倫關係對人民的第一項要求就是要遵守法律，而法律則不過是政府基於正義和誠信而成立的一些條例和規章而已。人倫定義的義務和責任必然符合正義和誠信，這是人倫至上的思想結構本身所決定的。

如果父母要求子女做違反正義和誠信的事，那麼父母就是錯誤了，作出這種要求本身就是做了違反道義的事情，子女這時的義務和責任是甚麼呢？是聽從父母錯誤的要求，做出違反正義和誠信的事情嗎？不，這樣做就把人倫完全曲解了，被問孝是不是只管服從父母時，孔子就喊叫，“這是甚麼說話啊！這是甚麼說話啊！（是何言與！是何言與！）”（見《孝經》“諫諍章第十五”。）根據人倫的規定，子女這時的義務和責任就是勸諫父母，還要堅持，直到成功為止。不然的話，就是“阿意曲從，陷親不義”了，在孔教經典裡，這是非常的、極大的不孝。（見漢朝趙岐對《孟子：離婁篇》的註疏，“十三經註疏”，中華書店北京1980版，下集第2723頁。）

所以，人倫所要求人們履行的義務和責任，只可能是符合正義和誠信的義務和責任。否則的話，必定不是人倫所真正要求的，而是對人倫所要求誤會或曲解而得出來的。

至於守法，如上文所指出，法律不過是政府基於正義和誠信而成立的一些條例和規章而已，所以既然人倫必會符合正義和誠信，那麼人倫必會規定人們遵守法律。中華歷史上歌頌的包公、海瑞等人，不都是鐵面無私、不懼權貴、嚴守法則的嗎？同時，五倫的第一項人與人關係就是“君臣”，即政府和人民的關係，而人民對政府的第一項義務和責任，就是遵守法律。遵守法律跟履行對家人、家族、和朋友（圈子）的義務和責任是沒有衝突的。反而，如果用犯法的手段來為家人、家族、和朋友謀一些不應該得到的不義之財，便是把他們“陷於不義”。這只能傷害他們而已。陷於不義，便把他們和他們家族的好聲譽垢污，而且不法行為暴露時他們也會被法律懲罰。

這裡要澄清一件事情：中華傳統裡，當“君主”即政府或政府領導人執行錯誤的政策或成立錯誤的法律時，臣民的責任是對君主明確地提出異見，進行勸諫，但這並不是提倡不遵從法律。中國歷史裡有很多被歌頌為忠臣的英雄，都是對“君主”勇敢地提出異見、進行勸諫的，但是，就算是進行勸諫時，他們都遵從政府和法律，勸諫都是通過合法途徑的。中華傳統裡，只有當政府的無道和無能，達到了沒有希望的地步、國家被嚴重地錯誤統治、治安和法紀破壞時，只有這時才可以說政府“失去了天命”，而只有這時人民才有權違反法律，起來進行革命，推翻政府。

總之，只有遵守正義、誠信和法律，才是對家人、家族和“圈子”真正的好。孝就是對父母和祖先好，而根據孔教傳統，好像《孝經》所規定一樣，要在工作崗位上和跟家庭以外人們相處的行為都好，才能算為真正的孝。這是因為保持父母和祖先的聲譽，或甚至更好地，耀揚“家聲”（家族的名聲），是對父母和祖先好的最重要一條。所以，不能把家人、家族和“圈子”跟正義、誠信和法律對立起來。相反，人倫至上思想構架裡，要對家族和“圈子”好，就一定要遵守正義、誠信和法律。

人倫世界裡，人倫關係並不限於家人、家族和“圈子”，而是包括所有人與人關係。所有人與人關係都屬於人倫範圍之內，都具有須要履行的義務和責任，那就是說，都要照顧這些跟自己有關係的各方。 只要跟任何人有接觸，有來往，便有人倫定義的義務和責任來規範。雇主和僱員、鄰居和鄰居、售貨員和顧客、警察和平民等等，雖然不是親人，但他們的接觸來往也仍然有人倫的規範，也不可以進行欺凌、傷害或偷騙。人倫至上時，人倫在所有人與人接觸的範圍裡都運行。這樣，正義、誠信和守法的範圍不是變為更狹窄，而是變為更廣泛了。所以，人倫至上不會只顧親近自己的人而漠視正義、誠信和守法，這是由人倫至上的本質所決定的。

所以，現代中國的大陸區域裡貪污、不誠信和不守法等現象，並不是因為華人信奉人倫至上，而是完全相反，是因為華人遺棄了人倫至上、忘記了孔教信條。人倫至上的時候，人們必定會嚴格遵守正義、誠信和法律。以前傳統的華人商人不都是誠信至上，一諾千金，童叟無欺的嗎？指責人倫至上令人們只顧親人而不顧正義這個批評，是不能成立的。

而且，把人倫至上說為令人只顧親人而不顧正義，也是用完全錯誤的推理方式得出結論的。這個推理方式就是：“人倫至上是基於人與人的關係的，所以不是基於正義的，所以一定只顧關係親近的人而漠視正義。”這不是荒謬的邏輯嗎？如果用於西方的愛至上思想構架，就得出這個結論了：“西方的愛至上是基於愛的，所以不是基於正義的，所以一定只顧心愛的人而漠視正義”！

當然，這樣曲解愛至上也是錯誤，但總比曲解人倫至上較為有理。這是因為跟任何人接觸都涉及人倫，所以人倫至上不可能有時會容許對某些人進行不正義的行為。但是，一個人所愛的人數量有限，所以跟多數人接觸時就不會涉及愛，因此能夠想像到，愛至上有可能有時會容許對某些人進行不正義的行為。當然，這也是謬論，因為西方的愛至上思想構架裡，也有很多機制，使人們不會漠視正義。

對更為合適這樣攻擊的西方思想，這種曲解就沒有人提出來，反而對比較不那麼合適這樣攻擊的中華傳統思想，這種曲解卻在中國和外國都很吃香，有很大市場。唉，這不是反映了當今很多人們，看待這種事物是抱著一點成見的嗎？

其實，被這種錯誤成見感染，也是能夠理解的。首先，現在中國的大陸區域總的來說，還是比較貧窮落後，人們便看不起華人和華人傳統。加上，中國大陸區域的意識形態曾經激烈斥責“吃人的封建舊社會”，現在也仍然反對“封建舊思想”。所以，對中華傳統思想的評擊，中外人們都比較容易接受，信以為真。而且現在中國的大陸區域，不理會正義、不守誠信、不守法、貪污作弊等，也的確比較普遍。雖然這不是因為有了孔教，而相反地在很大程度上是因為沒有了孔教，但是，多數人對中華經典書籍不但根本不認識，而且因為不曉文言文，連看也看不懂，所以很多人便人云亦云，便都把人倫至上曲解為不講正義了。但是，曲解再吃香也畢竟是曲解。依我看來，人倫至上思想構架這麼優秀，是不能再抑制多久的，很快它便會再登上人類舞台，重新擔演主角了。

現在讓我們看看西方無私的、忘我的“agape 愛”，同時也對西方的愛作出一些評價。

首先應該指出，雖然西方文明史裡，基督教思想主流一向強調無私忘我的愛，但是在相當一段歷史時間裡，最少是從1700年代開始，性誘惑、近乎是或簡直是淫亂的行為、和拋棄婚侶、單方終止婚姻的行為等，在西方被認為是基於愛的，因而被認可，甚至被歌頌。好像舉行舞會，讓未婚女子穿上相當富於性誘惑的露胸露肩“禮服”，跟未婚男子擁抱跳舞，在西方1700年代以來就被認為是高尚的行為，因為這樣會激發男子對女子的愛。1400年代作的《亞瑟王之死》一書裡，所描敘的亞瑟王最好的圓桌騎士蘭斯洛特跟亞瑟王妻子吉納維爾王后的通姦，最遲在1800年代就被正式歌頌為豪俠騎士的愛（chivalric love)。1800年代,“包法利夫人 (Madam Bovary)”、“安娜.卡列尼娜 (Anna Karenina)”等文學作品就反映了當時西方社會對以愛為理由的通姦，進行公開的辯護和認可。又在1800年代，易卜生的“玩偶之家”（原版）等文學作品，就宣揚如果婚姻裡一方“得不到愛”，該方就可以拋棄婚侶、單方終止婚姻。自1900以來的西方小說、歌曲、戲劇等文化代表品，以愛為理由，對此等行為的支持和歌頌就更不用說了。所以，我們對西方愛至上的評價，不能不包括西方以愛為由，認可及歌頌性誘惑、淫亂、和拋棄婚侶、單方終止婚姻的思維傳統。

至於無私忘我的“agape 愛”，這種愛是基於原則的，也是提及義務和責任的，所以的確是一種強大的為善力量。無私忘我的愛對另一方擁有深厚的愛慕感情，熱切地願意為對方做事，包括犧牲生命。著名的，描寫無私忘我愛的聖經《哥林多前書》第十三篇第四至八節也說明，正確的基督教無私忘我愛是恆定的，不是朝秦暮楚的。無私忘我的愛，跟中華傳統的人倫至上不但沒有衝突，而且還可以補充人倫至上思想構架裡對感情生活的思考。

但是，無私忘我的愛有一個缺陷，那就是沒有指定各個關係中，各方之間必須進行甚麼的行為。例如，父母和子女之間必須進行甚麼的行為呢？政府和人民之間呢？丈夫和妻子之間呢？諸如等等。如我所說過，“當然，孔子比基督教的聖經花多了很多時間，把關係裡的雙方所互相欠下的義務解說得詳細得多。例如，聖經沒有正式分析政府和公民、父母和子女、丈夫和妻子、兄弟之間和朋友之間的五種‘五倫’關係。哥林多前書幾句話不能比得上古代孔教的許多本關於義務和責任的經典書。”（見我的博客文章“孔教和各宗教”。）

對另一方擁有深厚的愛慕和熱切地願意為對方做事，是不夠的。不指定跟甚麼關係裡面，甚麼的人，必須進行甚麼的行為，必須履行甚麼義務和責任，那麼到了具體情況時，無私忘我的愛仍然可以容許很多錯誤的各種行為。例如，對子女溺愛、偏袒自己比較愛的但欠下義務較少的人（例如女朋友）而損害自己愛少一些的但是欠下義務很多的人（例如父母）、以愛為由進行姦淫、因為某一些理由而對婚侶“不再感覺愛”就離婚（很多時是不再感覺無私忘我的愛而不光是不再感覺性愛）、覺得對父母“不感覺愛”就跟他們斷絕接觸、等等。有了孔教的人倫至上，就沒有這種問題：人倫至上的思想構架裡，這些行為都明確地是錯誤的，因為無論愛或不愛，都不容許拋棄人倫所規定的義務和責任。是的，無私忘我的愛是純潔高尚的，但是，要作為至上的東西，就必定也要擁有極大的智慧和極大的正誤分辨力。

所以，西方用來認可及歌頌性誘惑、性濫交、淫亂、和拋棄婚侶、單方終止婚姻的那種愛，是不可取的，而西方的無私忘我的愛，雖然是正確的，極其優良的信條，但只能用來補充人倫至上，不能用來取代之。儘管愛是無私忘我的那一種，愛也不可以作為至上，也必須人倫至上。

從整個社會的角度來說，最重要的是，正如本文第2節所說那樣，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。政府幫助人民，人民也反過來養活及幫助政府；父母養育及幫助子女，子女們也反過來幫助他們。其他人倫都是一樣的道理，都是互相幫助。這種互相幫助，其實就是人類文明的根本，所有人類文明都是基於這項原則的。人們之間需要各人做不同的工作，然後把不同工作所產生的不同服务行動和物品，互相交換，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，所以是單邊性質的，是不要求回報的。這個單邊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。其實，愛的單邊性質，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邊性質的義務和責任，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邊性質，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，可以照顧這個社會的一部分，那就是可以照顧這個社會上跟他（她）擁有人倫關係的那些人。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，覆蓋著那些跟他（她）有關係的人。同時，這位社會成員反過來亦獲得跟他（她）有關係的那些人的照顧，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。當社會每一個成員都一貫地、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們都會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，社會上所有的人都便會被好幾個這樣的幸福快樂圈覆蓋著。每個人都履行自己的人倫義務和責任時，每個人便都照顧“屬於自己義務和責任範圍”的社會那一部分，從而整個社會便都得到照顧，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”。）

有些人問，“沒有神的話，有甚麼可以證明人倫是應該至上的呢？孔教對神和超自然界並不什過問。不是需要宗教信仰來提供理由，證明人倫是應該至上的嗎？最少在基督教裡，神為愛至上提供理由，愛神的話就要時常愛所有的人，因為這樣做會令無所不知的神感覺喜悅。”

首先要說明，我認為，愛神的人要讓神喜悅，則須要愛所有的人，是一條非常強有力的訓令，是保證道德行為和文明社會的堅強基礎。事實是，人類歷史上除了中華文明以外，所有其他文明，包括基督教文明，都把對神明的崇拜活動和崇拜人員，授予政治地位和國家權力，利用神明作為主要工具，確保人們會做好人。利用神明的好處是，神明是無所不知的，而且來世的報酬和懲罰都可能比今世還要重大，所以對做好事的鼓勵是非常強大的，儘管有時做好事會在今世帶來不利的後果。

人倫至上雖然不需要人們信神或信來世，亦不排除信神和信來世這股支持善良的強大力量。孔教傳統能夠跟任何宗教相容。孔教傳統從來沒有裝作過可以解說來世，所以曾奉行孔教的社會都利用宗教（例如佛教）來補充孔教。歷史上，古時中國的基督教，伊斯蘭教、佛教、猶太教等各派教徒，都接受了對人倫和孝的注重，都把這些信條當為宗教信條的補充。從印度傳來的佛教，在中國樹了根之後，便變為也強調人倫和孝了。而從孔教觀點來看，信教的人只不過是把自己和神的關係作為另外一“倫”，加於本文第2節所討論過的“五倫”（或我的“六倫”）之上。的確，是沒有衝突的，歷史上一直有互相補充。

至於有些人不能認同對神明崇拜的需要，或根本不能認同超自然世界的存在，人倫至上亦能夠跟沒有宗教或無神論相容，提供道德指南和行為準則。不信來世存在的人，不信無所不知、審判善惡的神明存在的人，也仍然會做好事而不做壞事，雖然有時做好事會帶來不利的後果，因為要履行對父母及祖先的義務和責任，要行孝，就一定要保持家聲，不讓它被污垢。而這個家聲是長久的，個人的生命過去後家聲還是延續的。對在普遍信奉這信條的社會裡長大的人來說，這信條規範行為的力量是非常強大的。在中國歷史上，有無數的例子，獻身的英雄們不一定是信神或信來世的，但仍然做出了轟烈犧牲的英雄事跡。例如文天祥《正氣歌》及其他文章裡，敘述為甚麼要守節時便只提身後名聲，沒有提及來世或神明。有了人倫至上，沒有宗教的人，甚至信仰無神論的人，也一樣會做善良好人，也一樣會為正義作出犧牲。

所以，孔教傳統只是從自然世界的事物，從與我們天天接觸的人，從非常普通的東西，演變出人倫至上的道德倫理秩序。不需要製造一個超自然世界及一大堆關於這個超自然世界的、有時奧妙莫測的教條。孔子的天才就是拿自然的東西，自然的人與人關係，從而製造強大的教條出來。父母與子女是個非常自然和普遍的關係，但是孔子就從而製造出強大的行善力量：要對父母孝，就一定要對所有的人善良和友愛。（關於孝的討論請看本網站的孝頁和《孝經》。）

基於自然世界的孔教思想，結構上比基於超自然世界的宗教傳統更為簡單，也不束綁於任何一個宗教，所以，跟任何一個宗教或沒有宗教，甚至無神論，都能夠相容。另一個說法來形容這個情況是，孔教人倫至上思想構架在最基本的層次運行，而在這個構架上面，可以根據各種不同的宗教信仰，樹立起各種宗教“上層建築”。不信奉宗教或信奉無神論時，亦可以不把任何宗教“上層建築”加上去，孔教思想構架是完全能夠獨立運行的。所以，孔教構架更為包容、開放、和能夠合適任何宗教或文化，合適多元化的社會、多元化的世界。

當然，有些宗教派系的一些信徒會說，只有他們的那個關於超自然世界的思想構架才是正確的，所有不追隨這個思想構架的人，都會被神判罪的。孔教跟這種思想構架仍然可以相容，因為孔教的運行，是在於自然世界層次，不是在於超自然世界層次。這些派系的信徒，仍然可以使用孔教的自然世界思想構架，來補充他們的超自然世界思想構架，來幫助他們規範今世裡人與人之間的關係。如果這些信徒是對的話，他們那個超自然世界思想的構架才是正確的話，那麼他們仍然將會得救；如果他們不對的話，那麼所有不追隨該派系的人們亦會得益於孔教的自然世界思想構架。

所以，不僅是華人，而是不論宗教，全世界的所有人，包括了西方人和基督徒，都應該學習人倫至上的教導。

人倫至上能夠為所有的人們這麼良好地提供道德指南和行為準則，能夠使到社會幸福快樂，所以，就算是沒有神明，就算是不使用宗教信仰來提供理由，也都是應該遵從的。當然，如果有神明存在的話，那麼神明就必然亦會贊同人倫至上。

人倫至上對人們和社會所提供的幫助比愛至上更為多。採用人倫至上的構架，人們能夠明確地知道，應該怎樣衡量所有行為，正確與錯誤一目瞭然。採用這個構架，人們能夠得到很大的解放和權利，很大的安全感和互相信任。採用這個構架，很多時比採用愛至上的構架，能夠得到更好、更堅固的愛。是的，傳統的人倫至上構架也許需要添加我在本文第2節所提出的一點更新，把“五倫”說法改為“六倫”，才符合新時代，但是，總的來說，人倫至上是最好不過的構架，能夠合適任何信仰和風俗，任何宗教或無宗教、能夠合適多元化社會和多元化世界。

華人們應該自豪地重新認同自己優秀的文化遺產，重新擁抱人倫至上的思想構架。而且，不但是華人，全世界人，不論宗教、信仰或風俗，都應該對這個思想構架進行探索和研究。我認為，在將來世界裡，作為全球主流思想構架的，必將會是人倫至上。