The Historical Turn of Marx’s Moral View: From Value Critique to Practical Generation

In the 1970s, a debate themed “Marx and Justice” sparked a wave of research on Marxist ethics in Anglo-American academia, which later expanded from the dispute over justice to a debate between Marxist moralism and anti-moralism. Among them, scholars of “analytical Marxism,” such as Allen W. Wood and Richard W. Miller, argued that Marx’s theory is, on the whole, a purely scientific theory concerning historical development and empirical facts, fundamentally morally neutral. One reason Wood, Miller, and others reached this conclusion is their lack of a systematic examination of the historical development of Marx’s moral theory from the perspective of specific social practices; instead, they only fragmentarily and one-sidedly extracted isolated concepts or detached propositions for abstract interpretation. Although Marx did not have a normative ethical theory in the explicit sense, this does not mean that Marx’s theory lacks an ethical dimension. On the contrary, Marx had his own special stance on ethics and morality. Ethics and morality have broad space for growth within Marx’s theory and possess their own inherent logic of self-generation. This logic of generation differs from the academic development path of Western formalized ethics; rather, it takes historical materialism as its core method and explanatory principle to critique the abstract and formalized research paradigms of traditional moralists. It is precisely in this process that Marx achieved the historical turn of his own moral view.

20世纪70年代，一场主题为“马克思与正义”的论争在英美学界引发了一股研究马克思主义伦理学的热潮，之后由正义之争拓展到马克思主义的道德主义与非道德主义之争。其中，“分析的马克思主义”学者伍德(Allen W.Wood)和米勒(Richard W.Miller)等认为，马克思的理论总体上是一种纯科学的关于历史发展和经验事实的理论，根本上是道德无涉的。伍德和米勒等人之所以得出这样的结论，原因之一在于缺乏从具体社会实践背景出发展开对马克思道德理论历史发展脉络的梳理，而只是碎片化、片面化地截取局部概念或孤立命题进行抽象阐释。马克思虽然没有明确意义上的规范的伦理学理论，但这并不代表马克思的理论缺少伦理学向度，相反，马克思有自己对待伦理与道德的特殊立场，伦理与道德在马克思的理论中具有广阔的生长空间，并有其内在的自我生成逻辑。这一生成逻辑不同于西方形式化伦理学的学术发展路径，而是以历史唯物主义为核心方法和解释原则展开对传统道德学家们抽象化、形式化研究范式的批判，马克思正是在这一过程中实现其自身道德观的历史转向。

The historical turn of Marx’s moral view gradually unfolded in the course of Marx’s critique of the abstract and formalized research paradigms of traditional moralists. Broadly speaking, this historical turn went through four stages: the ideal-type moral view, the radical liberal moral view, the revolutionary humanist moral view, and the practical moral view. At the same time, this historical turn of the moral view also embodies a two-way interactive relationship with the construction of the methodology of historical materialism, elevating moral critique from pure “abstract value judgment” to an “intrinsic link in the practice of social history,” thereby realizing Marx’s paradigm revolution from “explaining morality” and “constructing moral norms” to “transforming the conditions for the generation of morality.” By sorting out the trajectory of the turn in Marx’s moral view and its methodological revolution, we find that Marx’s attitude toward ethics and morality is practical in nature. Emphasizing the practicality of ethics and morality, as well as the historicity and sociality inherent in this practicality, is an essential dimension of Marx’s moral view.

马克思道德观的历史转向是在马克思批判传统道德学家们抽象化、形式化研究范式的进程中逐渐展开的。大致说来，这一历史转向经历了理想型道德观、激进自由主义道德观、革命人本主义道德观和实践道德观等四个阶段。同时，这一道德观的历史转向过程也体现着与历史唯物主义方法论建构的双向互动关系，即将道德批判从纯粹“抽象价值评判”升华为“社会历史实践的内在环节”,实现了马克思从“解释道德”“构建道德规范”到“改造道德生成条件”的范式革命。通过对马克思道德观的转向脉络和其方法论革命的梳理与把握，我们发现，马克思对待伦理和道德的态度是实践意义上的，强调伦理道德的实践性及其内含于实践性之中的历史性、社会性，是马克思道德观的一个本质性维度。

I. The Youth Period: An Ideal-Type Moral View Based on the Integration of Christian Ethics and Enlightenment Humanitarianism

一、少年时期：基于基督教伦理与启蒙人道主义相交融的理想型道德观

In his youth and middle school years, Christian ethics and Enlightenment humanitarianism formed the backdrop of Marx’s growth and thinking. This dual influence gradually unfolded under the triple effects of the era’s background, family upbringing, and school education. First, the strong religious atmosphere of Marx’s hometown, the ancient city of Trier, and the devout religious life of its people laid the foundation for Marx’s early thought regarding religious faith and a sense of ultimate concern. Second, Marx’s father was an enlightened Protestant who was deeply influenced by the spirit of Enlightenment liberalism. He advocated reconstructing faith within a rational framework and opposed rigid religious forms and doctrinal constraints. At the same time, Marx’s father also integrated the French Enlightenment ideas of Voltaire, Rousseau, and others into family education. This meant that while Marx received traditional Christian cultural education, he was also deeply influenced by Enlightenment humanitarianism. The convergence of these two currents of thought led Marx to form a critical understanding of religion. Finally, the six years of study at the Trier Gymnasium were not only a period of systematic religious knowledge education for Marx but also a stage of receiving an Enlightenment education system and strengthening intellectual formation. During this time, religious texts were an important part of the school curriculum, and Christian doctrines and precepts were the main content of teachers’ lectures. At the same time, in terms of curriculum design, the school also set the works of representative figures of the Enlightenment school as textbooks, and its examination questions also had a certain Enlightenment orientation.

在少年和中学时代，基督教伦理和启蒙人道主义是马克思成长和思考的底色，这一双重影响是在时代背景、家庭熏陶与学校教育的三重作用下逐渐展开的过程。首先，马克思的故乡特利尔古城浓郁的宗教氛围和人们虔诚的宗教生活,奠定了马克思早期思想中宗教信仰与终极关怀意识的根基。其次，马克思的父亲，是一位深受启蒙自由主义精神影响的信仰宗教自由主义的开明新教徒，主张在理性框架内重构信仰，反对僵化的宗教形式和教义束缚。同时，马克思的父亲还将伏尔泰、卢梭等的法国启蒙思想融入家庭教育中，这使得马克思在接受基督教传统文化教化的同时也深受启蒙人道主义思想的熏陶，两种思想的交汇使得马克思形成了对宗教的批判性认知。最后，在特利尔中学6年的求学时光，不仅是马克思系统接受宗教知识教育的过程，也是接受启蒙教育体系，强化智性塑造的一个阶段。在这期间，宗教读本是学校课程的重要内容，基督教教义和训诫是老师授课的主要内容。同时，在课程设置方面，学校还将启蒙学派代表人物的作品设为教材课本，其考试命题也具有一定的启蒙导向。

It can be said that religious liberalism and Enlightenment humanitarianism had a dual impact on the shaping of the young Marx’s thought. On the one hand, religious content and religious culture were the raw materials for Marx’s early writings. Religious sentiment and religious faith were the emotional backdrop of his early years and also an indispensable dimension for exploring how Marx observed and grasped the world. On the other hand, Enlightenment rationalism also profoundly influenced Marx. “The spirit embodied by the Enlightenment… had been internalized into Marx’s character and temperament. After sprouting in the period of the origin of his thought, it gradually developed into a complete understanding, a profound expression, and an active behavior, running through his theory and practice.” It not only shaped his early humanitarian values but also served as a weapon of critique and an intellectual ladder in the formation process of Marx’s theory of historical materialism.

可以说，宗教自由主义和启蒙人道主义对青年马克思的思想塑造产生了双重影响。一方面，宗教内容和宗教文化是马克思早期写作的原始素材，宗教情感、宗教信仰是其早期的情感底色，也是探讨马克思如何关照和把握世界的一个不可或缺的维度。另一方面，启蒙理性主义也深刻影响了马克思。“启蒙运动所体现的精神……已经内化为马克思的一种品格和气质，在思想起源期萌芽之后，逐步发展成为一种完整的理解、深刻的表述和主动的行为，贯彻在其理论和实践之中”,不仅塑造了其早期人道主义价值观，更是作为一种批判武器成为马克思历史唯物主义理论形成过程中的思想阶梯。

Specifically, the dual influence of Christian ethics and Enlightenment humanitarianism on the young Marx is concentrated in two essays he wrote upon graduating from middle school: one is “The Union of Believers with Christ According to John 15:1–14, Its Causes and Essence, Its Absolute Necessity and Effects,” and the other is “Reflections of a Young Man on the Choice of a Profession.” These two essays are a concentrated expression of the young Marx’s moral sentiments of Christian love, while also reflecting the profound infiltration of Enlightenment humanitarianism into Marx’s early thought. The fusion of the two jointly highlights the main content and basic views of the ideal-type moral view held by Marx.

具体来讲，基督教伦理和启蒙人道主义对青年马克思的双重影响集中体现在他中学毕业时的两篇作文中，一篇是《根据〈约翰福音〉第15章第1至14节论信徒同基督结合为一体，这种结合的原因和实质，它的绝对必要性和作用》,另一篇是《青年在选择职业时的考虑》,这两篇作文是少年马克思对基督教爱的道德情感的一次集中表达，也同时折射出启蒙人道主义对马克思早期思想的深刻浸润，两者融合共同彰显了马克思所持有的理想型道德观的主要内容和基本观点。

In the first essay, Marx uses the metaphor of believers uniting with Christ to emphasize the need to establish an emotional relationship of love with Christ, achieving the closest and most vivid spiritual communion with Christ. Specifically, Marx discusses the methods by which believers unite with Christ, including gazing with loving eyes and feeling gratitude, as well as obeying commands and making sacrifices. “In union with Christ, we first gaze upon God with loving eyes, feel the most fervent gratitude toward him, and prostrate ourselves before him with heartfelt submission.” Furthermore, we must make ourselves virtuous by sacrificing ourselves for the sake of others; only the love of a virtuous person for Christ can be considered the purest reverence and love for Christ. At the same time, Marx also discusses the effects of believers uniting with Christ, including perfecting virtue and making the soul noble and joyful. In Marx’s view, only virtue that proceeds from the divine is truly sublime virtue: “All virtue proceeds from love of Christ, from love of God; precisely because it originates from this pure source, virtue sheds all worldly elements and becomes truly divine.” Of course, only by uniting with Christ can what one pursues be the divine things of fraternity, nobility, and greatness, rather than worldly vanity and fame.

在第一篇作文中，马克思运用信徒同基督结为一体的比喻来强调要与基督建立一种爱的情感关系，实现同基督最密切和最生动的精神交融。具体而言，马克思论述了信徒与基督结为一体的方法，包括用爱的眼神注视并心怀感激以及遵从命令并做出牺牲。“在同基督的结合中，我们首先是用爱的眼神注视上帝，感到对他有一种最热忱的感激之情，心悦诚服地拜倒在他的面前”。另外，我们要以牺牲自己成全对方的方式使自己成为一个有德行的人，有德行的人对基督的爱才称的上是对基督最纯洁的崇敬和爱戴。同时，马克思还论述了信徒与基督结为一体的作用，包括完善德行和使灵魂高尚和快乐。在马克思看来，只有从神性出发的德行才是真正崇高的德行，“一切德行都是出于对基督的爱，出于对神的爱，正因为出于这种纯洁的根源，德行才摆脱了一切世俗的东西而成为真正神性的东西”。当然，也只有和基督结为一体，人所追求的才是博爱、高尚和伟大的神性事物，而不再是世俗的虚荣和名望。

At the same time, however, Marx did not simply stop at a theological interpretation of Christian doctrine; rather, it contains a rational critique and an Enlightenment narrative of humanitarianism. When expounding the essence of the believer’s union with Christ, Marx emphasizes the need to establish a secular human community through the bond of “love.” When discussing the effects of the believer’s union with Christ, Marx regards it as a process of individual moral perfection, emphasizing that believers must achieve spiritual elevation through the “awakening of self-consciousness” rather than through God’s grace. It can be said that the above transformation of the Christian “commandment of love” into a social ethical principle and the replacement of religious salvation with the ideal of “human perfection” as a rational path actually align with the core propositions of Enlightenment humanitarianism, highlighting an ethical turn from theocentric to anthropocentric. In addition, Marx’s use of Enlightenment philosophical terms such as “necessity,” “causality,” and “teleology” in his arguments, instead of theological discourse, reflects Marx’s methodological tendency to weaken religious mysticism through classical humanism.

但同时，马克思并未简单停留于对基督教教义的神学阐释，而是内含着理性批判和人道主义的启蒙叙事。在阐述信徒同基督结合的本质时，马克思强调要以“爱”为纽带建立世俗的人类共同体。在阐述信徒同基督结合的作用时，马克思将其视为个体道德完善的过程，强调信徒需通过“自我意识的觉醒”而非上帝的恩赐实现精神提升。可以说，上述将基督教“爱的诫命”转化为社会性伦理原则，将“人类完善”理想替代宗教救赎的理性路径，实则都暗合着启蒙人道主义的核心命题，彰显了从神本到人本的伦理转向。另外，马克思在论证时用“必然性”“因果关系”“目的论”等启蒙哲学术语代替神学话语，体现了马克思用古典人文主义弱化宗教神秘主义的方法论倾向。

In the essay “Reflections of a Young Man on the Choice of a Profession,” Marx first clarifies that the choice of a profession by young people is aimed at achieving the common goal set for humanity by God, namely, “to make humanity and himself noble.” Given this goal, we are to choose a profession under God’s call, guidance, and revelation, with the guiding principle being “the happiness of humanity and our own perfection.” “If we choose the profession that best serves the welfare of humanity, then burdens cannot overwhelm us, for we are sacrificing for all; what we feel then will not be a pitiful, limited, selfish joy, but our happiness will belong to millions, and our cause will silently but eternally exert its influence.” In this essay, Marx’s dual proposition of “human happiness” and “self-perfection” not only demonstrates the religious ideal of “the union of Christ and the believer,” reflecting Marx’s concrete thinking on how to realize the identity of the believer with Christ and how to understand the relationship between humanity and God, but also calls for the secular pursuit of “working for humanity.” In evaluating this essay, McLellan points out: “In theme and structure, Marx’s essay, like those of his classmates, is fundamentally based on the ideal concepts of the German Enlightenment and classical period humanists—the comprehensive development of the individual and the comprehensive development of interdependent human communities,” [2]2 David McLellan, *Marx Before Marxism* (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972), p. 42. [Translator’s note: The English edition is cited; the original Chinese text references McLellan’s work.] highlighting Marx’s humanist ideal that emphasizes the awakening of human subjectivity and the assumption of social responsibility. It can be said that this essay is a secular declaration of Marx’s Enlightenment ideals, containing both the rational core of “humanity as an end” and inheriting the Christian ethical paradigm of “loving one’s neighbor as oneself.” It is both a concentrated expression of Marx’s religious ethical belief in shouldering the mission of humanity and a preliminary attempt by Marx to transform the redemptive narrative of religious ethics into the historical materialist narrative of human liberation.

在《青年在选择职业时的考虑》这篇作文中，马克思首先阐明了青年选择职业是为了达成神给人指定的共同目标，即“使人类和他自己趋于高尚”。鉴于这一目标，我们要在神的召唤、引导和启示下选择职业，其指针是“人类的幸福和我们自身的完美”。“如果我们选择了最能为人类福利而劳动的职业，那么，重担就不能把我们压倒，因为这是为大家而献身；那时我们所感到的就不是可怜的、有限的、自私的乐趣，我们的幸福将属于千百万人，我们的事业将默默地、但是永恒发挥作用地存在下去”。在这篇作文中，马克思关于“人类幸福”与“自身完美”的双重命题，不仅论证了“基督与信徒合一”的宗教理想，体现了马克思对如何实现信徒与基督的同一，如何理解人与神关系的一个具体思考。还同时呼唤着“为人类工作”的世俗追求，麦克莱伦在评价这一论文时指出：“在主题和结构上，马克思的这篇文章和他同学的一样，基本理念是德国启蒙运动和古典时期的人道主义者的理想观念——个人的全面发展和相互依赖的人群共同体的全面发展”,彰显了马克思强调人的主体性觉醒和社会责任担当的人文主义理想。可以说，这篇文章是马克思启蒙理想的世俗化宣言，既包含“人是目的”的理性内核，又承袭了基督教“爱人如己”的伦理范式，既是马克思关于肩负人类使命的宗教伦理信念的一次集中表达，也是马克思将宗教伦理的救赎叙事转化为历史唯物主义的人类解放叙事的初步尝试。

In summary, on the one hand, the young Marx regarded the moral sentiments and ethical spirit of Christian love as a sublime truth, seeing it as a spiritual bond connecting humanity with God and human beings with one another. On the other hand, the young Marx combined the Christian ethic of “love” with Enlightenment rationality, emphasizing the achievement of individual moral perfection through the choice of a profession and the dialectical unity of personal value and social value. Thus, in his understanding and contemplation of the world, the young Marx had already developed the early embryonic form of a thought with human liberation as its ultimate concern, inherently containing an idealist dimension that takes humanity’s free species-essence and self-realization as the highest values. This moral content, characterized by a high degree of transcendence and a spiritual dimension, constitutes the main content of the young Marx’s idealist moral view. It can be said that the idealist moral view of this period not only satisfied the young Marx’s pursuit and longing for love but also represented his preliminary reflections on how to achieve respect and care for individual lives and how to enhance human welfare. However, overall, this approach of explaining the source of human morality through God’s will and achieving individual moral perfection through Christ’s redemption in fact provides a metaphysical foundation for universal moral principles through abstract divine purposes (“human happiness”). In terms of content, it remains confined within the abstract framework of idealism. This kind of moral ideal, based on an abstract human nature, lacks a concrete path for implementation and can only exist in the young Marx’s good wishes. It is thus evident that the idealist moral view held by Marx during this period analyzes moral issues more at the level of “the dialectical movement of concepts” and does not delve into the actual conditions of social reality for reflection and understanding.

综上所述，少年马克思一方面将基督教爱的道德情感和伦理精神作为一种崇高真理，将其视为联结人与神、人与人关系的精神纽带。另一方面，少年马克思将基督教“爱”的伦理与启蒙理性结合，强调通过职业选择实现个体道德的完善，实现个人价值与社会价值的辩证统一。可见，少年马克思在对世界的理解和关照中，已经产生了以人类解放为终极关怀的早期思想雏形，内在蕴含着将人的自由类本质以及人的自我实现作为最高价值的理想主义维度，这种具有高度超越性特征和精神性维度的道德内容构成了少年马克思理想型道德观的主要内容。可以说，这一时期的理想型道德观，不仅满足了少年马克思对爱的追求与渴望，也是其关于如何实现生命个体的尊重与关怀，如何增进人类福祉的初步的思考。但总体上来讲，这种用上帝的意志来解释人的道德来源，用基督救赎的方式来实现个体道德完善的做法，事实上是通过抽象的神圣目的(“人类幸福”)为普遍性道德原则提供形而上学基础，在内容上仍受限于唯心主义的抽象框架，此种建立在抽象人性基础之上的道德理想并没有具体的实施路径，只能存在于少年马克思的美好愿望之中。由此可见，这一时期马克思所持有的理想型道德观对道德问题的分析更多停留于“概念的辩证运动”,并没有深入到社会现实的实际情况中对其展开思考和体悟。

II. The *Rheinische Zeitung* Period: A Radical Liberal Moral View Based on the Universality of Reason

二、《莱茵报》时期：基于理性普遍性的激进自由主义道德观

After entering university, nurtured by science and reason, Marx gradually became aware of the illusory nature of God and the contradiction between religion and the spirit of universal reason: “There should be no god alongside human self-consciousness.” [3]3 Karl Marx, “The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 30. [Translator’s note: The English edition is cited; the original Chinese text references Marx’s doctoral dissertation.] The romantic imagination of Christian love from his youth gradually gave way to philosophical argumentation based on the universality of reason, emphasizing the need to “observe the past and present with the sharp gaze of thought in order to recognize one’s actual situation.” [4]4 Karl Marx, “Reflections of a Young Man on the Choice of a Profession,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 4. [Translator’s note: The English edition is cited; the original Chinese text references Marx’s essay.] Particularly during his time working in the editorial office of the *Rheinische Zeitung*, Marx was deeply influenced by radical liberalism, favoring the Kantian and Hegelian modes of ethical narration. He took Enlightenment reason as the ideological foundation for defining all other things, emphasizing that reason is not only the basis of morality but also the means of realizing morality. Moral self-discipline and morality based on the universality of reason should serve as the foundation for exploring issues such as the origin, essence, and realization of morality.

进入大学以后，在科学和理性的涵养下，马克思逐渐意识到神的虚妄性，意识到宗教与普遍理性精神的相违背，“不应该有任何神同人的自我意识相并列”,少年时期对基督教爱的浪漫主义想象也逐渐让位于基于理性普遍性的哲学论证，强调要“用思想的锐利目光去观察今昔，以便认清自己的实际状况”。尤其是进入到《莱茵报》编辑部工作的这段时期，马克思深受激进自由主义的影响，偏爱康德和黑格尔式的伦理叙事方式，将启蒙理性作为规定其他一切的思想基础，强调理性不仅是道德的基础，更是实现道德的方式，基于理性普遍性的道德自律和道德应当是探讨道德起源、道德本质与道德实现等问题的基础。

First, in Marx’s view, morality possesses an inherent necessity and is a manifestation of humanity’s free will and universal reason. In the article “Comments on the Latest Prussian Censorship Instruction,” Marx points out: “The basis of morality is the self-discipline of the human spirit, while the basis of religion is the heteronomy of the human spirit.” [5]5 Karl Marx, “Comments on the Latest Prussian Censorship Instruction,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 112. [Translator’s note: The English edition is cited; the original Chinese text references Marx’s article.] However, the censorship instruction promulgated and implemented by the Prussian government precisely reverses the relationship between morality and religion, specifically manifested in the strengthening of religion, which is external, particular, and contingent, and the weakening of moral conscience, which possesses inherent necessity: “They reduce the inherent universal essence of morality to an appendage of religion. … Morality recognizes only its own universal and rational religion, while religion recognizes only its own particular and actual morality.” [6]6 Ibid., p. 113. Here, Marx has in fact rearranged the relationship between religion and morality, separating the original morality as a derivative of religious divinity from religious divinity and treating it as an independent special field parallel to religious divine sentiment. One is a field of self-discipline, the other a field of heteronomy. Similarly, in the article “On the Draft Law on Divorce” and related commentaries, Marx also emphasizes that the essence of marriage is human ethicality, and that the moral principles and norms in marital relations are based on humanity’s inner rational reflection and autonomy of will. One must “consciously submit to the natural power of ethics,” rather than “blindly submit to super-ethical and supernatural authority.” [7]7 Karl Marx, “On the Draft Law on Divorce,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 308. [Translator’s note: The English edition is cited; the original Chinese text references Marx’s article.] Here, Marx can be said to continue the Kantian tradition of rational voluntarism, adopting more of a Kantian mode of moral expression, emphasizing that any ethical relationship is ethical and lawful only when it conforms to the essence of the thing and achieves confirmation of the inherent necessity of the thing. Therefore, the implementation of divorce law is very strict. Only when a marital relationship no longer conforms to its profound ethical essence and mission is the marital relationship unstable; only then can the legislator stipulate that marriage is dissoluble. Otherwise, any “tolerance of individual wishes would turn into severity toward the individual’s essence, into severity toward the individual’s ethical reason embodied in the ethical relationship.” [8]8 Ibid., p. 309.

首先，在马克思看来，道德具有内在必然性，是人的自由意志和普遍理性的体现。在《评普鲁士最近的书报检查令》一文中，马克思就指出：“道德的基础是人类精神的自律，而宗教的基础则是人类精神的他律。”但普鲁士政府颁布实施的检查令却恰恰颠倒了道德和宗教之间的关系，具体表现为对外在的、具有特殊性和偶然性的宗教的强化以及对具有内在必然性的道德良心的弱化，“他们把道德的内在的普遍本质说成是宗教的附属物。……道德只承认自己普遍的和合乎理性的宗教，宗教则只承认自己特殊的现实的道德”。在这里，马克思实际上已重新排列了宗教与道德的关系，将原先的道德作为宗教神性的派生物从宗教神性中分离出来，当作与宗教神性情感相并列的独立的特殊领域。一个是自律的领域，一个是他律的领域。同样的，在《论离婚法草案》以及关于离婚法草案的评论文章中，马克思也强调，婚姻的本质是人的伦理性，婚姻关系中的道德原则，道德规范是以人的内在理性反思和意志自主为基础的，要“自觉地服从伦理的自然的力量”,而不是“盲目地服从超伦理的和超自然的权威”。在这里，马克思可以说是延续了康德的理性意志主义传统，更多采用的是康德式的道德表达，强调任何一种伦理关系，只有合乎事物的本质，达到对事物内在必然性规律的确认，才是合乎伦理的、合乎法律的。所以离婚法的实施是非常严格的，只有当婚姻关系不符合深刻的合乎伦理的本质和使命时，婚姻关系才是不牢固的，此时立法者才可以规定婚姻是允许离异的，否则任何“对个人愿望的宽容会变成对个人本质的严酷，变成对体现为伦理关系的个人伦理理性的严酷”。

Second, Marx agreed with Hegel’s theory of the state and philosophy of right, holding that reason, the state, and law are the foundation and means of realizing morality. In Marx’s view, law is permeated with the spirit of rationalism, embodying the legal essence of things and objective stipulations, while the state manifests the realization of political reason and legal reason. Thus, “the individual citizen’s obedience to the laws of the state is also obedience to his own reason, i.e., to the natural laws of human reason.” [9]9 Marx, “Comments on the Latest Prussian Censorship Instruction,” *Rheinische Zeitung*, 1842. The quote reflects Marx’s early Hegelian rationalist view of law. In the article “Comments on the Latest Prussian Censorship Instruction” and in the polemics with articles from the *Kölnische Zeitung*, Marx used reason as a weapon to struggle against the actual privileged classes and law as the main form for realizing the ethical demand of universal human freedom. He emphasized that the new censorship instruction was a formal law that prosecuted thoughts: “Laws that prosecute thoughts are based on a conception of the state that is mindless and immoral and pursues material gain. These laws are the unconscious outcry of a filthy conscience.” [10]10 Ibid. The “new censorship instruction” refers to the Prussian censorship decree of 1841, which Marx criticized for suppressing freedom of thought. In Marx’s view, these legal forms contradicted their own content; that is, the particular form appeared in content as something universally lawful, as the opinion of the state. Hence, these thought-laws were not genuine laws in essence but, by depriving the freedom of the press, harmed the free essence and free rights of the impoverished class, thereby serving the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the privileged class. Similarly, in the article “Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood,” Marx argued that the new law on thefts of wood, forcibly promulgated by the government authorities, ignored the fundamental difference between picking up dead wood and stealing timber, treating the former as an illegal act. This not only damaged the basic rights of the impoverished class but also violated the universal justice and rational essence of law, making it an “exception to general law” that one-sidedly favored the private interests of the privileged estate. [11]11 Marx, “Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood,” *Rheinische Zeitung*, 1842. The debate concerned a Prussian law that criminalized the gathering of fallen wood by the poor, which Marx saw as protecting the property interests of landowners.

其次，马克思认同黑格尔的国家和法哲学理论，认为理性、国家和法律是道德的基础和实现方式。在马克思看来，法律贯穿着理性主义精神，是事物法理本质的体现和客观规定，而国家则体现为政治理性和法的理性的实现，所以“个别公民服从国家的法律也就是服从他自己的理性即人类理性的自然规律”。在《评普鲁士最近的书报检查令》一文以及与《科隆日报》相关文章的论战过程中，马克思将理性作为与现实特权阶级作斗争的武器，将法律作为实现人的普遍性自由这一伦理要求的主要形式，强调新的书报检查令是一种追究思想的形式上的法律，“追究思想的法律是以无思想和不道德而追求实利的国家观为基础的。这些法律就是龌龊的良心的不自觉叫喊”。在马克思看来，这些法律形式同它的内容本身相矛盾，即特殊的形式在内容方面却表现为普遍合法的东西，表现为国家的意见，所以这些思想的法律实质上并不是真正的法律，而是通过剥夺新闻出版自由的方式来损害贫苦阶级的自由本质和自由权利，以此达到维护特权阶级利益的目的。同样的，在《关于林木盗窃法的辩论》一文中，马克思认为政府当局所强制颁布的新的林木盗窃法无视捡拾枯树与盗窃林木这两种行为之间的根本性差异，把捡拾枯树当作违法行为，这不仅损害了贫苦阶级的基本权利，更是违反了法律的普遍正义和理性本质，是片面袒护特权等级私人利益的“一般法律的例外”。

Here, although Marx encountered the real difficulty of material interests and saw the objective relations formed by social material interests in real life that constrained and dominated the state, law, and objective reason—“consideration of private interests dominates people’s thoughts and actions, as well as the decision-making behavior of state officials and legislative representatives”—he still stood on the foundation of Hegel’s philosophy of right, affirming the legitimacy of reason, viewing law as the embodiment of a universal, rational will, and material interests as the expression of particular, illegal private interests. “Interest is by its nature blind, unrestrained, one-sided; in a word, it has an innate instinct to disregard law; can that which disregards law legislate?” [12]12 Ibid. Marx here contrasts the “blindness” of private interest with the universality of rational law. Therefore, in confronting this forest struggle, Marx still placed his hopes in reason and law, emphasizing that people should give play to legal consciousness—the most prominent local characteristic of the people of the Rhine Province—and, through the role of the state and law, drive material interests toward universal interests and firmly uphold the inherent stipulations of universal interests. Clearly, during this period, Enlightenment rationalist thought was the foundational basis of Marx’s radical liberal moral view. This moral view took the universality of reason as its core, and its methodology was deeply influenced by Hegel’s speculative philosophy, exhibiting distinct characteristics of logical deduction and a demand for abstract universality. It emphasized that morality originates from the self-discipline of reason rather than empirical heteronomy, and that moral issues should be explained from an internal perspective—that is, from the standpoint of the state, law, and ethical spirit—rather than from an economic and social perspective. At the same time, although Marx’s moral critique during this period essentially relied on the Hegelian framework of the “rational state,” his engagement with real material-interest issues and his vague awareness that “civil society determines the state” internally undermined the transcendental status of the universality of reason, giving rise to the germ of a shift from speculative philosophy to real analysis, laying the groundwork for his methodological turn from rational deduction to historical materialism.

在这里，马克思虽然遭遇到了物质利益相关的现实难题，也看到了现实生活中由社会物质利益所形成的客观关系对国家、法以及客观理性的制约和支配作用，“对私人利益的考虑支配着人们的思想和行动，也支配着国家官员和立法机关代表的决策行为”。但马克思仍然是站在黑格尔法哲学的基地之上，肯定理性的正当性，把法律看作是普遍的、合理的意志的体现，而把物质利益看作是特殊的、非法的私人利益的表达。“利益就其本性来说是盲目的、无节制的、片面的，一句话，它具有无视法律的天生本能；难道无视法律的东西能够立法吗?”因此，在面对这场林木斗争时，马克思仍然寄希望于理性和法律，强调人们要发挥法律意识这一莱茵省人的最显著的地方特点，通过国家和法的作用推动物质利益走向普遍利益并坚定地维护普遍利益的内在规定性。很显然，这一时期，启蒙理性主义思想是马克思激进自由主义道德观的立论基础，这一道德观以理性普遍性为核心，其方法论深受黑格尔思辨哲学的影响，呈现出鲜明的逻辑演绎特征与抽象普遍性诉求，强调道德起源于理性的自律而非经验性的他律，要从内在的观点即从国家、法和伦理精神的角度而不是从经济和社会的角度出发来阐释道德问题。但同时，这一时期马克思的道德批判虽在本质上依托于黑格尔式的“理性国家”框架，但对现实物质利益问题的触及以及对“市民社会决定国家”的朦胧觉察内在动摇着理性普遍性的先验地位，产生了其从思辨哲学到现实分析的萌芽，为其方法论从理性演绎转向历史唯物主义埋下伏笔。

III. The Transitional Period: A Revolutionary Humanist Moral View Based on Philosophical Argumentation

三、过渡时期：基于哲学论证的革命人本主义道德观

As Marx’s cognition of the difficulty of material interests deepened, and in the process of trying to solve this difficulty, Marx gradually realized that there was a huge gap between the social reality of Prussia and the rational state posited by Hegel. This prompted a subtle change in Marx’s attitude toward reason—from firm conviction to perplexity. This perplexity planted in Marx’s mind the seed of doubt and reflection on the relationship between interest and law, which took root and grew. Marx began to use Feuerbach’s humanist thought to critique reason and Hegel’s idealism, began to shift away from the tendency to discuss moral issues emptily from a rational standpoint, and began to analyze and explain morality from the perspective of social reality. Thus, he formed a revolutionary humanist moral view rooted in the dimension of human nature and taking the species-being of man as its starting point.

随着马克思对物质利益难题认知的不断深化，并在试图破解这一难题的过程中，马克思逐渐意识到普鲁士的社会现实与黑格尔所设定的理性国家之间存在着巨大的鸿沟，这促使马克思对理性的态度发生了微妙的变化，即从态度坚定到有所困惑。这一困惑在马克思的心中埋下了怀疑和反思利益与法关系的种子，并在马克思的心中生根发芽，马克思开始借助费尔巴哈的人本主义思想来批判理性以及黑格尔的唯心主义，开始转变囿于理性立场而空谈道德问题的倾向，开始从社会现实的角度来分析和阐释道德，从而形成了其根植于人性维度，以人的类本质为出发点的革命人本主义道德观。

In *Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, Marx began to realize the split between the rational state and civil society: the universal interests of “man as a citizen” and the private interests of “man as a selfish individual” were not necessarily unified in reality, thereby establishing the correct methodological principle for analyzing the essence of man. In *On the Jewish Question*, Marx pointed out the substantive difference between political emancipation and human emancipation. The freedom, equality, and human rights proclaimed by the political state formed through political emancipation could not achieve human emancipation; on the contrary, they brought about a renewed split between the individual’s activity and species-life in real life. Only human emancipation could cause social relations alienated from real individuals to return to man himself, achieving the true resolution of the contradiction between the individual and the species. Here, Marx’s understanding of human emancipation was influenced by Feuerbach’s humanist thought; the rational-speculative return of human nature was the core content of Marx’s exploration of the relationship between the individual and society. Human emancipation meant that the human world and human relations would return to man himself.

在《黑格尔法哲学批判》中，马克思开始意识到存在着理性国家与市民社会之间的分裂，“作为公民的人”的普遍利益和“作为自私个体的人”的私人利益在现实中并不必然是统一的，从而奠定了分析人的本质的正确方法论原则。在《论犹太人问题》中，马克思指出了政治解放和人类解放的实质性区别，政治解放所形成的政治国家所宣扬的自由、平等和人权并不能实现人的解放，反而带来了现实生活中个人的活动与类生活之间的再次分裂，而只有人类解放才能使疏离于现实个人的社会关系重新回归于人自身，实现个体和类矛盾之间的真正解决。在这里，马克思对人类解放的理解受到费尔巴哈人本主义思想的影响，理性思辨式的人性复归是马克思探讨个人与社会关系的核心内容，人类解放就是使人的世界与人的关系回归于人本身。

In the “Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,” Marx’s revolutionary humanist moral view is elaborated in greater detail. Marx increasingly uses Feuerbachian terms such as “essence of man,” “enslavement,” and “dehumanization” to express his moral views. “Because of Feuerbach’s mediation, Marx was able to discover the general principles of what makes a human being human from the understanding of human perceptual existence and natural essence,” [13]13 Gu Qingqing, “The Historical Turn of Marx’s Moral View: From Value Critique to Practical Generation,” *Studies on Marxist Theory and Discipline Construction*, 2025, no. 1, p. 3. The original source note for this quotation is: “See Chen Xian, ‘The Feuerbachian Mediation in the Formation of Marx’s View of Practice,’ *Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition)*, 2002, no. 1.” grounding morality in the realization of the inherent essential characteristics of being human, and emphasizing that the moral ideal of the free and comprehensive development of the human being is the realization of the highest essence of the human being. For example, when discussing the liberation of the Germans, Marx emphasizes that German liberation is “a liberation that is based on the theory that the human being is the highest essence for the human being,” and that “it must overthrow all relations in which the human being is a debased, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being,” [14]14 Karl Marx, “Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, p. 207. [Translator’s note: The English translation follows the standard MECW version.] otherwise Germany cannot carry out a thorough revolution. But at this time, Marx’s understanding of the essence of the human being still remains at the level of “the human being itself,” describing the essence of the human being as the commonality and universality of the species inherent in the individual human being connected to nature. This understanding also influences Marx’s explanation of the status and role of the proletariat in social revolution. At this stage, Marx has already realized that the proletariat is the ultimate completer of human liberation, and begins to connect transcendentally presupposed normative moral claims (such as “return to the essence of the human being”) with the actual situation and social status of the proletariat. But precisely because of this human-nature-return-style understanding of human liberation, Marx describes the internal motivation for the proletariat to participate in revolution as the complete restoration of the human being, viewing the proletariat as “a class with radical chains, a class of civil society which is not a class of civil society, an estate which is the dissolution of all estates, a sphere which has a universal character by its universal suffering.” [15]15 Ibid., p. 213. For this very reason, Marx does not reveal the practical force of social revolution from the critical perspective of economics, but regards philosophical critique as the main pathway to achieving social change: “Philosophy finds its material weapons in the proletariat, just as the proletariat finds its spiritual weapons in philosophy… Philosophy cannot become reality without the abolition of the proletariat; the proletariat cannot abolish itself without making philosophy a reality.” [16]16 Ibid., p. 214. It can be seen that at this stage, influenced by Feuerbach’s abstract humanism, Marx still thinks about morality from an internal, evaluative viewpoint, examining the relationship between the development of material production and morality from an abstract view of human nature, and his discussion of morality carries a certain naturalistic tendency and a relatively strong flavor of legal philosophy.

在《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中，马克思的革命人本主义道德观得到了更为详尽的阐发，马克思更多使用“人的本质”“奴役”“非人化”等费尔巴哈式的术语来表达他的道德观点，“由于有了费尔巴哈的中介，使马克思能够从对人的感性存在和自然本质的认识中发现人之为人的一般原理”,将道德奠基于人之为人所固有的本质特征的实现，强调人的自由全面发展的道德理想就是实现人的最高本质。例如在讲到德国人的解放时，马克思强调德国人的解放是以“宣布人是人的最高本质这个理论为立足点的解放”,而且“必须推翻使人成为被侮辱、被奴役、被遗弃和被蔑视的东西的一切关系”,否则德国就无法进行彻底的革命。但此时马克思对人的本质的理解还停留在“人自身”,将人的本质描述为与自然联系起来的单个人所固有的类的共同性和普遍性，这一理解也同样影响着马克思对无产阶级在社会革命中的地位和作用的阐释。在这一阶段，马克思已经意识到了无产阶级才是人类解放的最终完成者，开始将先验悬设的规范性的道德主张(如“向人的本质复归”)同无产阶级的现实境况和社会地位联系起来。但正是对人类解放的人性复归式的理解，马克思将无产阶级参与革命的内在动机描述为人的完全回复，将无产阶级视为“一个被戴上彻底的锁链的阶级，一个并非市民社会阶级的市民社会阶级，形成一个表明一切等级解体的等级，形成一个由于自己遭受普遍苦难而具有普遍性质的领域”。也正因如此，马克思不是从经济学的批判视角揭示社会革命的实践力量，而是将哲学批判看作是实现社会变革的主要途径，“哲学把无产阶级当作自己的物质武器，同样，无产阶级也把哲学当作自己的精神武器……哲学不消灭无产阶级，就不能成为现实；无产阶级不把哲学变成现实，就不可能消灭自身”。可见，在这一阶段，受费尔巴哈抽象人本主义的影响，马克思仍然是从内在的、评价性的观点来思考道德，从抽象的人性观出发考察物质生产发展与道德之间的关系，对道德的论述带有一定的自然主义倾向以及较为浓厚的法哲学色彩。

Subsequently, with the help of Feuerbach’s materialist anthropology, Marx undertook research on and critique of classical political economy, forming the “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” and began to explore the relationship between the mode of production, economic laws, social interests, and morality, thereby overcoming the idealist essence and conservative tendency of Hegel’s philosophy. At this stage, Marx began to focus on economic phenomena, no longer treating morality as a field of rational autonomy, but instead taking actual economic facts as the starting point, emphasizing that morality is influenced by the division of labor, private property, and private ownership, and regarding morality as a special mode of production governed by the universal laws of production: “The movement of private property—production and consumption—is the sensuous manifestation of the movement of all previous production… Religion, family, state, law, morality, science, art, etc., are only particular modes of production and fall under its general law.” [17]17 Karl Marx, “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 42, p. 121. [Translator’s note: The English translation follows the standard MECW version.] At the same time, Marx’s critique of moral relations under the conditions of private ownership and his pursuit of the moral ideal of fairness and justice are no longer entrusted to the state and law, but instead emphasize that the human being must, in the sensuous society, fully appropriate their own essence through objective practical activity, creating a human being with rich, comprehensive, and profound senses, and thereby approaching or confirming the essential core of the moral ideal of the human essence. It can be seen from this that at this time Marx is more often explaining morality from an external, descriptive viewpoint, placing morality on the foundation of social economics, and carrying out empirical explanations of moral concepts, value judgments, etc. This also fully demonstrates that Marx’s attitude and position toward morality are undergoing a transformation.

之后，马克思借助费尔巴哈的唯物主义人本学展开对古典政治经济学的研究和批判，形成了《1844年经济学哲学手稿》,开始探寻生产方式、经济规律和社会利益与道德之间的关系，并以此克服黑格尔哲学的唯心主义本质和保守倾向。在这一阶段，马克思开始关注经济现象，不再把道德说成是一个理性自律的领域，而是以现实的经济事实为出发点，强调道德受劳动分工、私有制和私有财产的影响，认为道德是受生产普遍规律支配的特殊生产方式，“私有财产的运动—生产和消费—是迄今为止全部生产的运动的感性展现……宗教、家庭、国家、法、道德、科学、艺术等等，都不过是生产的一些特殊的方式，并且受生产的普遍规律的支配”。同时，马克思对私有制条件下道德关系的批判和对公平正义的道德理想的追求也不再寄托于国家和法律，而是强调人要在感性的社会中通过对象性的实践活动而全面占有自己的本质，创造具有丰富的、全面深刻的感觉的人，进而去接近或确证人的本质这一道德理想的本质内核。从中可以看出，此时马克思更多的是从外在的、描述性的观点来阐释道德，将道德置于社会经济学的基础之上，对道德概念、价值判断等展开经验性解释，这也充分说明了马克思对待道德的态度和立场在发生转变。

Although Marx in the “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844” began to shift from a humanist philosophical perspective to an economic perspective, and his discussion of morality also revealed social and political realism, becoming more empirical and scientific, overall, this discussion consistently carried through humanist thought and was a more detailed explanation of the humanist moral view. For example, Marx’s critique of alienated labor and his sublation of private property are not because they contradict objective laws of historical development, but because they contradict the essence of the human being. Another example is the discussion of communism, which is also a kind of pastoral idyllic imagination, emphasizing that communism is “the actual generation of the essence of the human being,” an ideal that reality should correspond to and that conforms to the human essence, rather than an inevitable trend following objective laws of historical development. “Communism is the positive sublation of private property, i.e., of human self-alienation, and therefore the true appropriation of the human essence through and for the human being; it is therefore the complete return of the human being to itself as a social, i.e., human, being—a return accomplished consciously and embracing the entire wealth of previous development.” [18]18 Ibid., p. 120. It can be seen that in the “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” Marx’s analysis and critique of the capitalist economic system remain philosophical and anthropological, generally leaning toward philosophical logical analysis rather than historical scientific analysis.

虽然马克思在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中开始从人本主义哲学视角转向经济学视角，对道德的论述也显露出社会的和政治的现实主义，更具经验性和科学性。但从整体上看，这一论述始终贯彻了人本主义思想，是对人本主义道德观更为详尽的说明。例如马克思对异化劳动的批判和对私有财产的扬弃，不是因为它们与客观的历史发展规律相矛盾，而是因为它们和人的本质相矛盾。又例如对共产主义的论述也是一种田园牧歌式的想象，强调共产主义是“人的本质的现实的生成”,是现实应当与之相适应的符合人类本质的理想，而不是遵循客观历史发展规律的必然趋势。“共产主义是对私有财产即人的自我异化的积极的扬弃，因而是通过人并且为了人而对人的本质的真正占有；因此，它是人向自身、也就是向社会的即合乎人性的人的复归，这种复归是完全的复归，是自觉实现并在以往发展的全部财富的范围内实现的复归”。可见，在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，马克思对资本主义经济制度的分析和批判仍然是哲学人本学的，总体上是偏向哲学的逻辑分析，而不是历史的科学分析。

In summary, the methodology of this period presents an interweaving and conflict between speculative philosophical nature and the germination of scientific analysis. This period’s methodology both retains the logical framework of Hegel’s dialectics and the abstract critique of Feuerbach’s anthropology, and, through preliminary research on political economy, opens up a concrete analysis of social history. It can be said that the moral view of this stage is both the part of Marx’s thought with the strongest philosophical-anthropological coloring and the key turning point for its methodological breakthrough; it is both the “final stage” of his speculative philosophy and the “initial laboratory” of his scientific analysis. The internal tension and intense collision of these two methodologies propelled Marx to shift the focus of moral critique from “the return of the human essence” to “changing the relations of production,” realizing “the transformation from a speculative abstract moral theoretical paradigm to a practical, historical moral theoretical paradigm,” [19]19 Gu Qingqing, “The Historical Turn of Marx’s Moral View: From Value Critique to Practical Generation,” *Studies on Marxist Theory and Discipline Construction*, 2025, no. 1, p. 5. The original source note for this quotation is: “See Zhang Shuangli, ‘The Practical Turn of Marx’s Moral Theory,’ *Philosophical Research*, 2015, no. 4.” thereby laying the historical materialist epistemological foundation for his moral theory.

总结来看，这一时期的方法论呈现出思辨哲学性与科学分析萌芽的交织与冲突，这一时期的方法论既保留了黑格尔辩证法的逻辑框架与费尔巴哈人本学的抽象批判，又通过对政治经济学的初步研究，开启了对社会历史的具体分析。可以说，这一阶段的道德观既是马克思思想中最具哲学人类学色彩的部分，也是其方法论突破的关键转折点，既是其思辨哲学的“最后舞台”,也是其科学分析的“最初实验室”,这两种方法论的内在张力和激烈碰撞，推动马克思将道德批判的重心从“人的本质复归”转向“改变生产关系”,实现“从思辨抽象的道德理论范式到实践的、历史的道德理论范式的转换”,奠定其道德理论的历史唯物主义认识论基础。

IV. Mature Period: A Practical Moral View Based on the Analysis of Political Economy

四、成熟时期：基于政治经济学分析的实践道德观

Subsequently, with the deepening of research into economic questions, Marx gradually realized that Feuerbach’s approach to explaining human nature from the perspective of mere perceptual intuition was merely an expression of abstract ethical spirit and religious sentiment, lacking the practical power to change reality. Only by placing human beings within the social-historical process and concretely and historically explaining their social needs, as well as the mode of production and relations of production that satisfy these social needs, could a scientific revolutionary practical method be provided for eliminating exploitation and achieving communism. This shift in thinking is primarily manifested in texts such as *Theses on Feuerbach* and *The German Ideology*. Here, Marx transcended Feuerbach’s philosophical paradigm and mode of expression of revolutionary humanism, emphasizing that “all social life is essentially practical.” “Practice” is the key to bridging nature and society, and the key to resolving the contradiction between the logic of humanism and the scientific logic based on social history. It is precisely on this basis that Marx for the first time developed the fundamental principles of all his empirical social scientific theories, namely the theory of historical materialism. In this process, Marx’s moral view also achieved a breakthrough, transforming from a humanist moral view to a practical moral view, emphasizing that “the philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.” This not only laid the epistemological foundation of historical materialism for morality but also clarified the practical orientation and revolutionary spirit of morality.

之后，随着对经济学问题研究的不断深入，马克思逐渐意识到费尔巴哈从单纯的感性直观角度来说明人的本质的思路只是抽象的爱的伦理精神和宗教情感的体现，不具备改变现实的实践力量，只有把人放置于社会历史进程中，并具体的、历史的去说明人的社会性需要以及满足这种社会性需要的生产方式和生产关系，才能为消灭剥削、实现共产主义提供科学的革命实践方法。这一思维路向的转变首要体现在《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》《德意志意识形态》等文本中，在这里，马克思超出了费尔巴哈革命人本主义的哲学范式和表达方式，强调“全部社会生活在本质上是实践的”,“实践”才是打通自然与社会的关键，才是解决人道主义逻辑和基于社会历史的科学逻辑之间矛盾的关键。也正是基于此，马克思第一次发展出他所有经验性的社会科学理论的基本原理，即历史唯物主义理论，在这一过程中，马克思的道德观也有了突破性进展，实现了从人本主义道德观向实践道德观的转变，强调“哲学家们只是用不同的方式解释世界，问题在于改变世界”,不仅为道德奠定了历史唯物主义认识论基础，同时也明确了道德的实践倾向和革命精神。

First, Marx put forward the theory of the ideological essence of morality. He argued that morality belongs to social ideology, is a reflection of social material production, and is the result of the development of the social division of labor. This is the epistemological and methodological foundation for Marx’s construction of a practical moral view. “It sets out from civil society and explains the various different theoretical products and forms of consciousness, such as religion, philosophy, morality, etc., and traces their process of genesis. … It does not seek a category in every epoch, but always stands on the basis of real history; it does not explain practice from the idea, but explains the formation of ideas from material practice.” Marx used the scientific method of explaining social-historical phenomena—that social being determines social consciousness—to clarify the real determinacy of morality, emphasizing that morality is historically generated and developed, and that different living conditions and class interests determine the different forms of expression and specific content of morality. It is precisely on the basis of this more empirical social scientific explanation that Marx endowed his practical moral view with profound class character and people-centeredness. Morality is always the morality of a class; a universal morality transcending classes does not exist. Only by scientifically analyzing and grasping the real basis of morality from the contradictory movement of productive forces and relations of production, breaking free from the shackles of universal or eternal morality, and elevating the realization of “truly human morality” to the entire height of the proletariat’s and humanity’s liberation cause, can the liberating power inherent in the practical moral view be truly unleashed.

首先，马克思提出了道德的意识形态本质论。他认为道德属于社会意识形态，是社会物质生产的反映，是社会分工发展的结果，这是马克思构建实践道德观的认识论和方法论基础。“从市民社会出发阐明意识的所有各种不同的理论产物和形式，如宗教、哲学、道德等等，而且追溯它们产生的过程。……它不是在每个时代中寻找某种范畴，而是始终站在现实历史的基础上，不是从观念出发来解释实践，而是从物质实践出发来解释各种观念形态”。马克思用社会存在决定社会意识这一解释社会历史现象的科学方法来阐明道德的现实规定性，强调道德是历史地产生与发展的，不同的生活条件和阶级利益决定着道德不同的表现形式和具体内容。正是基于此种更具经验性的社会科学解释，马克思赋予其实践道德观以深刻的阶级性和人民性。道德始终是阶级的道德，超越阶级的普遍道德并不存在，只有从生产力与生产关系的矛盾运动中去科学分析和把握道德的现实基础，走出普遍道德或永恒道德的桎梏，将“真正人的道德”的实现上升到无产阶级和人类解放事业的整个高度，才能真正释放实践道德观所具有的解放力量。

Of course, the subject of the practical activity of material production is the masses of the people, and the masses of the people are the creators of history. This internally prescribes the people-centered character of the practical moral view, namely, that it must fully reflect and comply with the fundamental interests and demands of the masses of the people, and realize the comprehensive development of the individual and the overall progress of society. To this end, the practical moral view is not an abstract, idealized morality that constructs eternal moral principles or posits moral ideals—this would be unhelpful for the cultivation of proletarian class consciousness—but rather a scientific analysis based on concrete facts. “They will make the members of the working class know who they are, what their class interests are, who they once were, and what they will become.” Only by delving into the practical activities of material production to explore the historical roots of the proletariat’s inhuman condition can the material basis and practical path for changing this value relationship be found. Therefore, in this sense, the class character and people-centered character of the practical moral view are internally consistent. Only by emphasizing the material, social, and class bases of morality, and by promoting the generation of the proletariat’s class character and the communist moral consciousness of thorough revolution in the process of material production practice, can a powerful fighting collective be formed and all existing social systems be overthrown by violent practical means to achieve the association of free individuals.

当然，物质生产的实践活动的主体是人民群众，人民群众是历史的创造者，这就内在规定了实践道德观所具有的人民性特质，即要充分反映和顺应人民群众的根本利益诉求，实现人的全面发展和社会的全面进步。为此，实践道德观不是一种构建永恒道德原则或悬设道德理想的抽象化、理念化的道德，这无益于无产阶级阶级意识的养成，而是一种基于具体事实之上的科学分析，“它们将使工人阶级成员知道他们是谁、他们的阶级利益何在、他们曾经是谁、他们又会变成怎样”。只有深入到物质生产的实践活动中去探索造成无产阶级非人处境的历史根源，才能找到改变这种价值关系的物质基础和实践路径。为此，从这一意义上来讲，实践道德观的阶级性与人民性是内在一致的，只有强调道德的物质基础、社会基础和阶级基础，从物质生产实践过程中促成无产阶级的阶级性以及彻底革命的共产主义道德意识的生成，才能形成强有力的战斗集体并用暴力实践手段推翻全部现存的社会制度以实现自由人的联合体。

At the same time, Marx also constructed the core content of his practical moral view through a critique of the old materialist moral view and the idealist moral view. In the process of “drawing closer” to Feuerbach, Marx gradually realized “how mistaken Feuerbach was.” Feuerbach, setting aside the historical process, understood human nature solely from the objective side, from the perspective of perceptual intuition, and defined the natural commonality of human nature through the abstract community of “species.” Therefore, the morality understood by Feuerbach was merely a propagation of universal love for people. “This sentimental, utopian philosophy ultimately became an ambiguous ethics, a kind of intangible religion of universal happiness and love.” Marx opposed this ambiguous philosophy that had lost all revolutionary enthusiasm, emphasizing that the practical interactive relationship between humans and nature, and between humans and their surrounding environment, is the basis for understanding moral relations. He insisted on interpreting morality from the height of class struggle and social-historical transformation, to attend to the liberation of each individual’s sensuous life, endowing his practical moral view with the revolutionary power of practical critique and the mission of liberation. In texts such as *The German Ideology* and *Moralizing Criticism and Critical Morality*, Marx criticized petty-bourgeois figures like Stirner and Heinzen for indulging in empty moral preaching, measuring social-historical development with outdated moral concepts, and using universal human nature to erase class differences—practices lacking reality and historicity. He argued that this moralizing approach, which obscures the historical process with moral conceptual analysis, not only fails to awaken the class consciousness of the proletariat but also damages the communist revolutionary movement. “Communists do not oppose egoism to self-sacrifice, nor self-sacrifice to egoism; theoretically, they do not grasp this opposition either in its sentimental form or in its exaggerated ideological form; rather, they reveal its material roots, and with the disappearance of these material roots, this opposition naturally disappears. … Communists do not make moral demands on people, such as you should love one another, do not be egoists, etc.; on the contrary, they clearly know that both egoism and self-sacrifice are necessary forms of individual self-realization under certain conditions.” In Marx’s view, morality is not the foundation of society, but a product of social history, a conceptual manifestation of the process of social-historical development. Any approach that opposes history to morality is absurd.

同时，马克思也通过对旧唯物主义道德观和唯心主义道德观的批判来建构其实践道德观的核心内容。在向费尔巴哈“靠拢”的过程中，马克思逐渐意识到“费尔巴哈是多么错误”。费尔巴哈撇开历史进程，单纯从客体方面、从感性直观角度来理解人的本质，以“类”这一抽象的共同体来规定人的本质的自然共同性。因此，费尔巴哈所理解的道德只是宣扬对于人们的普遍的爱，“这种伤感的空想的哲学，最终成了一种暧昧的伦理学，成了一种所谓普遍幸福和爱的无形的宗教”,马克思反对此种丧失一切革命热情的暧昧哲学，强调人与自然界、与周围环境之间的实践互动关系才是理解道德关系的基础，并要从阶级斗争和社会历史变革的高度来阐释道德，来观照每一个体感性生命的解放，赋予其实践道德观以实践批判的革命性力量和解放使命。在《德意志意识形态》《道德化的批评和批评化的道德》等文本中，马克思批判施蒂纳、海因岑等小资产阶级沉迷于空洞的道德说教、用陈旧的道德观念来衡量社会历史发展、用普遍的人性来消弭阶级差别等缺乏现实性和历史性的做法，认为此种以道德概念分析遮蔽历史发展过程的道德化处理方式不仅无益于唤醒无产阶级的阶级意识，更是有损于共产主义的革命运动。“共产主义者既不拿利己主义来反对自我牺牲，也不拿自我牺牲来反对利己主义，理论上既不是从那情感的形式，也不是从那夸张的思想形式去领会这个对立，而是在于揭示这个对立的物质根源，随着物质根源的消失，这种对立自然而然也就消灭。……共产主义者不向人们提出道德上的要求，例如你们应该彼此互爱呀，不要做利己主义者呀等等；相反，他们清楚地知道，无论利已主义还是自我牺牲，都是一定条件下个人自我实现的一种必要形式”。在马克思看来，道德不是社会的基础，而是社会历史的产物，是社会历史的发展过程在观念上的表现形态，任何把历史与道德对立起来的做法都是荒谬的。

Subsequently, during the period from the writing and publication of *The Communist Manifesto* to *Capital*, Marx’s reflections on morality acquired a more solid scientific and empirical foundation, and his practical moral view thereby tended toward greater maturity and perfection. In this phase, Marx increasingly employed economic concepts such as commodities, productive forces, and surplus value to conduct a scientific analysis of the inner operating mechanisms of capitalism. Through a profound exposure and thorough critique of the internal contradictions of capitalist society, he explained the inner principles and concrete manifestations of how the logic of capital dominates people’s everyday perceptual life, blocks the rich and diverse essence of human beings, and imprisons the destiny of human freedom and liberation. For example, Marx revealed that the so-called equal exchange of commodities and the exchange relationship between labor and capital in the sphere of capitalist circulation merely reduce the value and meaning of human life to homogenized exchange value; this formal equality and freedom only serve to conceal the fact of the proletariat’s oppression and exploitation. At the same time, by deciphering the particularity of the value of labor power and exposing the process by which capitalists appropriate surplus value without compensation, Marx identified the fundamental limitations on and the fundamental way out for the realization of the free and comprehensive development of human beings. This way out can only be realized in the realm of freedom, where the development of human capacities is an end in itself, “but this realm of freedom can only flourish on the basis of the realm of necessity. The shortening of the working day is its fundamental condition.” [26]26 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 25, p. 927. It can be seen that, although Marx put forward fewer explicit moral propositions in this phase, the value orientation and moral ideals implicit in this series of economic facts and economic propositions did not change. This profound thread of humanistic value always runs through Marx’s concrete, historical, and scientific analysis of real economic activities such as commodities, exchange, and capital under the capitalist system. This scientific analysis all the more highlights the critical, revolutionary, and liberating spirit of Marx’s practical moral view. The moral ideal of human liberation is an irreversible necessity of the law of development of human society. What we must do is strive to discover the material basis, the mechanism of existence, and the historical significance of this historical necessity, to clarify the goal orientation of the practical moral view through social practical activities based on the movement of internal contradictions, and thereby to realize this lofty moral ideal of human liberation.

随后从《共产党宣言》到《资本论》的写作发表期间，马克思对道德的思考有了更为坚实的科学实证基础，其实践道德观也由此更趋向于成熟和完善。在这一阶段，马克思更多使用商品、生产力、剩余价值等经济学概念来展开对资本主义内在运行机制的科学分析，通过对资本主义社会内在矛盾的深刻揭露和彻底批判来说明资本逻辑宰制人们的日常感性生活、堵塞人的丰富多样性本质、禁锢人的自由解放命运的内在原理和具体表现。例如马克思揭示了资本主义流通领域中所谓平等的商品交换、劳资交换关系只是将人生命存在的价值和意义被简单规约为同质化的交换价值，这种形式上的平等与自由只为掩盖无产阶级被压迫和被剥削的事实。同时马克思通过解密劳动力价值的特殊性，揭露资本家无偿占有剩余价值的过程来说明实现人的自由全面发展的根本性限制及根本出路，这一出路只有在作为目的本身的人类能力的发挥的自由王国中才能实现，“但是，这个自由王国只有建立在必然王国的基础上，才能繁荣起来。工作日的缩短是根本条件”。可见，虽然这一阶段马克思更少提出明确的道德主张，但隐含在这一系列的经济事实和经济主张中的价值取向和道德理想并没有发生改变，这一条深刻的人文价值线索始终贯穿于马克思对资本主义制度下有关商品、交换、资本等现实经济活动具体的、历史的科学分析之中。这一科学分析更加凸显了马克思实践道德观的批判、革命和解放精神，人类解放的道德理想是人类社会发展规律不可逆转的必然，我们要做的是力求去发现这种历史必然的物质基础、存在机制和历史意义，通过以内在矛盾运动为基础的社会实践活动来明确实践道德观的目标导向，并以此实现人类解放这一崇高的道德理想。

In this period, the formation of Marx’s practical moral view also marked his revolutionary methodological leap from speculative philosophy to historical science. The moral view of this period no longer relied on abstract presuppositions of human nature or transcendental value standards; instead, it revealed the social and historical roots of moral phenomena through the critique of political economy. As McCarthy pointed out in his interpretation of Marx’s moral theory, Marx transformed the modern tradition’s questioning of moral issues such as right and wrong, good and bad, the nature of the good life, and material happiness into an examination of the structural institutions of modern society—that is, into political economy. Social class, power relations, the ownership of wealth, and social relations of production became the entire background for understanding moral issues. For this reason, in this phase, Marx transformed moral issues into a practical critique of the capitalist mode of production, integrated moral demands into the revolutionary liberation movement of the proletariat, thereby sublimated the theoretical critique of morality into a material force for transforming the world, and provided a scientific practical weapon for the proletarian revolution.

在这一时期，马克思实践道德观的形成也标志着其在方法论上完成了从思辨哲学到历史科学的革命性跨越。这一时期的道德观不再依托抽象的人性预设或先验价值尺度，而是通过政治经济学批判揭示道德现象的社会历史根源。正如麦卡锡在阐释马克思的道德理论时所指出的，马克思把现代传统关于对与错、好与坏以及美好生活的本质与物质幸福这些道德问题的质疑，转换成了对现代社会制度结构的审查，也即转换成了政治经济学。社会阶级、权力关系、财富所有制以及社会生产关系变成了理解道德问题的整个大背景。为此，在这一阶段中，马克思将道德问题转化为对资本主义生产方式的实践批判，将道德诉求融入进无产阶级的革命解放运动中，从而将道德理论批判升华为改造世界的物质力量，为无产阶级革命提供科学的实践武器。

Conclusion

结 语

Through a review of the historical generative thread of Marx’s moral view, we find that Marx, on the whole, placed morality within the overall process of historical change characterized by the two-way interaction between productive forces and relations of production, and between the economic base and the superstructure. He gradually completed the paradigm shift from philosophical interpretation to practical critique, ultimately forming a practical moral view grounded in historical materialism. The practical moral view possesses a high degree of social practical characteristics, unifying scientificity and value, class character and people-centeredness, and reality and ideality. Among these, scientificity is primarily based on the revelation of the objective laws of historical materialism, manifested as the material conditioning of moral forms and the historical dialectics of moral development—that is, moral phenomena are constrained by the social mode of production and develop with the development of productive forces. The historicist analytical path constitutes the epistemological foundation of the scientificity of Marx’s practical moral view. At the same time, while conforming to the objective laws of the transformation of relations of production, the practical moral view also bears the moral mission of adhering to the comprehensive development of human beings and abolishing the system of exploitation. Secondly, the unity of class character and people-centeredness is manifested in the fact that the practical moral view is both an ideological expression of the class interests of the proletariat and bears the moral critical function of class struggle. On the other hand, class liberation and human liberation are internally unified; the class interests of the proletariat are isomorphic with the fundamental interests of the broadest masses of laborers. This means that the moral demands of the practical moral view naturally contain the negation of the system of exploitation and the pursuit of the comprehensive development of human beings, and its moral norms are transformed from instruments of class rule into conditions for the realization of the free essence of human beings. Finally, the dialectical unity of reality and ideality is manifested in the fact that the practical moral view is both an understanding of objective historical laws and a value choice of humanity’s pursuit of liberation. It neither indulges in the illusion of moral idealism nor succumbs to the compromise of cynical realism; in essence, it is a revolutionary dialectics that continuously sublates the existing world through practical activity.

通过对马克思道德观历史生成脉络的梳理，我们发现，马克思总体上是将道德放置于生产力和生产关系、经济基础和上层建筑双向互动的历史变革的总进程之中，逐步完成了从哲学阐释向实践批判的范式转换，最终形成了以历史唯物主义为根基的实践道德观。实践道德观具有科学性与价值性、阶级性与人民性、现实性与理想性相统一的高度的社会实践特质。其中，科学性主要是基于历史唯物主义客观规律的揭示，体现为道德形态的物质制约性和道德发展的历史辩证法，即道德现象受制于社会生产方式的制约并随着生产力的发展而发展，历史主义的分析路径构成了马克思实践道德观科学性的认识论基础。同时，实践道德观在符合生产关系变革之客观规律的基础上，又承载着坚守人的全面发展、消灭剥削制度的道义使命。其次，阶级性与人民性的统一，体现为实践道德观既是无产阶级阶级利益的意识形态表达，同时也承担着阶级斗争的道德批判功能。而另一方面，阶级解放与人类解放是内在统一的，无产阶级的阶级利益与最广大劳动者的根本利益具有同构性，这就意味着实践道德观的道德诉求天然包含着对剥削制度的否定和对人的全面发展的追求，其道德规范也从阶级统治工具转变为人的自由本质的实现条件。最后，现实性与理想性的辩证统一，体现为实践道德观既是对客观历史规律的认识，也是人类追求解放的价值选择，它既拒绝沉溺于道德理想主义的空幻，也反对屈服于现实犬儒主义的妥协，其本质上是通过现实实践不断扬弃现存世界的革命辩证法。

The proposal of the practical moral view, to a certain extent, resolves the historical debate between moralism and anti-moralism within Marxism. It indicates that Marx’s moral theory is neither a Kantian formalist deontology nor a utilitarian consequentialism, but rather a practical ethics that achieves the unity of normativity and descriptiveness, critique and constructiveness, through the very practice of revealing the self-liberation of the working class. At the same time, through an examination of the historical periodization of Marx’s moral view, we further clarify the production mechanism of Marx’s moral view, so that communist ethics is no longer regarded as a utopian presupposition but is presented as the inevitable demand of the movement of historical contradictions. The revolutionary practice of the proletariat necessarily gives rise to new types of ethical relations. In summary, the historical generative path of Marx’s practical moral view and the above practical characteristics, on the one hand, elaborate in detail how Marxist ethics opens up a practical path toward the “realm of freedom” in the concrete practice of the working class’s struggle for liberation; on the other hand, they also provide a new perspective for modern ethics to understand the relationship between morality and society, and have important guiding significance for resolving contemporary moral dilemmas.

实践道德观的提出，在一定程度上破解了马克思主义的道德主义与非道德主义之间的历史争论，指明了马克思的道德理论既非康德式的形式主义义务论，也非功利主义的后果论，而是通过揭示工人阶级自我解放这一实践本身实现规范性与描述性、批判性与建构性相统一的实践伦理学。同时，通过对马克思道德观历史分期的考察，我们进一步明确了马克思道德观的生产机制，从而使得共产主义伦理不再被视为乌托邦预设，而是呈现为历史矛盾运动的必然诉求，无产阶级的革命实践必然生发出新型的伦理关系。总结来看，马克思实践道德观的历史生成路径以及上述实践特质，一方面详细阐明了马克思主义伦理学在工人阶级争取解放的具体实践中开辟通向“自由王国”的实践道路；另一方面也为现代伦理学提供了理解道德与社会关系的全新视角，对解决当代道德困境具有重要指导意义。

Author’s bio: Gu Qingqing is an Associate Professor at the School of Marxism, Hangzhou Normal University, and a researcher at the Hangzhou Normal University Research Base of the Zhejiang Provincial Research Center for Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.

作者简介：顾青青，杭州师范大学马克思主义学院副教授、浙江省习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想研究中心杭州师范大学研究基地研究员。