On Historical Materialism’s Transcendence of Traditional Moral Philosophy

Traditional moral philosophy takes abstract concepts as its object of thought, holding that morality is merely a form of consciousness independent of the real world. However, from the perspective of historical materialism, morality, as a form of social consciousness, is determined by the mode of material life production, which is the actual social existence. That is to say, Marx and Engels completely transformed the mode of thinking of traditional moral philosophy, beginning instead to consider moral questions from the standpoint of real people and their material productive practical activity.

传统道德哲学以抽象观念为致思，认为道德只是一种独立于现实世界之外的意识形式。然而，从历史唯物主义来看，道德作为一种社会意识，其决定于作为现实社会存在的物质生活生产方式。也就是说，马克思恩格斯彻底变革了传统道德哲学的思考方式，开始从现实的人及其物质生产实践活动出发来思考道德问题。

Take the “Hume problem” as an example. It originated from a debate in the field of moral philosophy in the 17th century concerning the origin of morality, and was so named because Hume first described the problem in his book *A Treatise of Human Nature*. Hume described it as follows: people are unable to explain the leap from factual judgments connected by “is” or “is not” to value judgments connected by “ought” or “ought not.” This is the dualistic distinction between factual knowledge and value knowledge.

以“休谟问题”为例，其缘起于17世纪道德哲学领域兴起的一场关于道德起源问题的论争，因被休谟在其《人性论》一书中对该问题作了第一次描述而被如是命名。休谟将其描述为：人们无法解释从以“是”或“不是”为关系词的事实判断到以“应该”或“不应该”为关系词的价值判断所发生的跃迁。这也就是关于事实知识与价值知识的二元论区分。

The raising of the “Hume problem” had a profound impact on the development of all Western philosophy. In the field of epistemology, especially with the development of modern European empiricism and rationalism, people shifted knowledge from a judgment that unifies the subjective and objective to a judgment that is purely subjective construction—that is, they understood all cognitive activity (including both theoretical and practical knowledge) as a purely logical movement within thought. This not only caused a long-standing dispute in the history of Western philosophy over the relationship between “what is” and “what ought to be,” and between truth and value, but also extended into the field of the philosophy of history, creating a proliferation of disagreements over the relationship between historical outlook and values, and between objective practice and value ideals. It even led some theoretical misreadings to question and challenge the scientific nature of historical materialism.

“休谟问题”的提出，对整个西方哲学的发展产生了深远影响。在认识论领域，特别是随着近代欧洲的经验论和唯理论的发展，人们将知识从作为主观与客观统一的判断转向作为纯粹主观建构的判断，即把全部认识（包括理论知识和实践知识）活动理解为思维内部的纯粹逻辑运动。这不仅造成了西方哲学史上的“实然”与“应然”、真理与价值的关系问题的长期纷争，而且进一步延伸到历史哲学领域，造成了历史观与价值观、客观实践与价值理想关系问题的歧见丛生，甚至导致一些理论误读对历史唯物主义的科学性作出质疑和诘难。

Throughout the history of the development of traditional moral philosophy, it has consistently faced a dilemma of the separation of what ought to be from what is. This caused the unified thinking and being of traditional epistemology to separate, forming a cognitive approach different from traditional philosophy, which produced enormous theoretical effects in the history of thought. Kant, Hegel, and Feuerbach all constructed their epistemologies on this basis. However, returning to the theoretical horizon of historical materialism, the problem of the relationship between what ought to be and what is within the horizon of traditional moral philosophy has actually been transformed from a purely epistemological problem into a practical problem of real life. In different stages of the development of historical materialism, it has been concretely transformed into three successive problems.

纵观传统道德哲学发展的历史，其一直面临着一种应然与实然相分离的困境。这就使传统认识论中统一的思维与存在发生了分离，形成了一种不同于传统哲学的认知理路，并在思想史上产生了巨大的理论效应，康德、黑格尔和费尔巴哈实际上都是在此基础上建构了自己的认识论。然而，回到历史唯物主义的理论视域，传统道德哲学视域中应然与实然的关系问题实际上已经从一个纯粹的认识论问题转化成了现实的实践论问题，其在历史唯物主义发展的不同阶段具体地转化成了前后相继的三个问题。

The first is the practical transformation during the foundational period of historical materialism, that is, its transformation into the problem of the unity of the “what is” and the “what ought to be” of human practical activity. This originates from Marx’s inheritance and development of classical German philosophy, and is concretely expressed in the resolution of the relationship between “real people” and “true people.” In the view of Marx and Engels, “real people” are the factual basis of “true people,” while “true people” are the value orientation of “real people”; the two are unified in the actual development of social history.

第一是在历史唯物主义奠基时期的实践转化，即转化为人的实践活动的“实然”与“应然”的统一问题。这根源于马克思对德国古典哲学的继承与发展，其具体地表现为对“现实的人”与“真正的人”的关系问题的解答。在马克思恩格斯看来，“现实的人”是“真正的人”的事实基础，而“真正的人”则是“现实的人”的价值指向，二者统一于现实的社会历史发展中。

The second is the historical transformation during the period of the initial establishment of historical materialism, that is, its transformation into the problem of the unity of the “what is” and the “what ought to be” of the historical development process. This originates from Marx’s thorough liquidation of the philosophy of the Young Hegelians, and is concretely expressed in the resolution of the relationship between “historical laws” and “choice of path.” In the view of Marx and Engels, historical laws contain elements of the subject’s value choice, while the realization of the subject’s value choice requires following historical laws; the two are unified in the objective process of real people and their material production.

第二是历史唯物主义初步确立时期的历史转化，即转化为历史发展过程的“实然”与“应然”的统一问题。这根源于马克思对青年黑格尔派哲学的彻底清算，其具体表现为对“历史规律”与“道路选择”的关系问题的解答。在马克思恩格斯看来，历史规律包含主体价值选择的因素，而主体价值选择的实现需要遵循历史规律，二者统一于现实的人及其物质生产的客观过程中。

The third is the social transformation during the period of the deepening and perfection of historical materialism, that is, its transformation into the problem of the unity of the “what is” and the “what ought to be” in communist practice. This originates from Marx’s thorough critique of various erroneous socialist trends and idealist economics, and is concretely expressed in the scientific analysis of the relationship between “capitalism” and “communism.” In the view of Marx and Engels, “capitalism” provides the real field for the emergence of “communism,” while the self-negation of the logic of capital is the internal driving force for the transition from “capitalism” to “communism”; the two are unified in the actual movement of the contradictions of capitalist society.

第三是历史唯物主义深化完善时期的社会转化，即转化为共产主义实践中的“实然”与“应然”的统一问题。这根源于马克思对各种错误的社会主义思潮和唯心主义经济学的彻底批判，其具体表现为对“资本主义”与“共产主义”关系的科学分析。在马克思恩格斯看来，“资本主义”为“共产主义”的出场提供了现实场域，而资本逻辑的自我否定是“资本主义”向“共产主义”过渡的内在动力，二者统一于现实的资本主义社会矛盾运动中。

Clearly, examining traditional moral philosophy from the perspective of historical materialism has distinct contemporary value and significance. This not only helps to clarify the essence of the problem of the relationship between what ought to be and what is and the basic approach to its scientific resolution, but also has very important academic value and practical significance for deepening the scientific understanding of “people” and their dual activities, advancing the in-depth study and scientific interpretation of historical materialism, countering people’s questioning and challenges to the scientific nature of historical materialism, and systematically advancing the scientific interpretation of the relationship between the “movement” and the “ideal” of communism. Therefore, it is very necessary to return to the theoretical horizon of historical materialism to re-examine the relationship between what ought to be and what is in traditional moral philosophy. From the perspective of historical materialism, this problem can actually be scientifically resolved on the basis of the practical theory of historical materialism.

显然，对传统道德哲学进行历史唯物主义审视，具有其鲜明的当代价值和意义。这不仅有助于澄清其应然与实然关系问题的实质及其科学解决的基本思路，而且对于深化对“人”及其双重活动的科学理解、推进历史唯物主义的深入研究和科学阐释、反击人们对历史唯物主义的科学性的质疑和诘难、系统推进对共产主义“运动”与“理想”关系的科学阐释，都有着十分重要的学术价值和现实意义。因此，回到历史唯物主义的理论视域去重新审视传统道德哲学中应然与实然的关系问题，就显得十分必要。从历史唯物主义角度看，这一问题实际上可以在历史唯物主义的实践论基础上得到科学解答。

In fact, the dualistic opposition between factual knowledge and value knowledge, truth and value, historical outlook and values, and objective practice and value ideals, caused by the separation of what ought to be and what is in traditional moral philosophy, has already been unified by historical materialism through its scientific revelation of the historical development process and its laws and trends driven by human practical activity. Therefore, conducting a historical-materialist examination of this problem from a theoretical perspective not only helps to promote the concrete resolution of disputes in the history of philosophy, but also helps to advance the study and scientific interpretation of historical materialism.

事实上，传统道德哲学的应然与实然的分离所引发的事实知识与价值知识、真理与价值、历史观与价值观、客观实践与价值理想的二元对立关系，历史唯物主义已经通过对人类实践活动所推动的历史发展过程及其规律趋势的科学揭示而统一起来了。因此，从学理上展开对这一问题的历史唯物主义审视，不仅有助于推动哲学史上纷争的切实解答，而且有助于推进历史唯物主义研究及其科学阐释。

Through analysis and assessment of the current state of research on the relationship between what ought to be and what is within the horizon of traditional moral philosophy, it is found that the crux of its continued lack of resolution lies in people’s failure to correctly understand and grasp the theoretical essence of this problem. This is because people still follow the cognitive approach of earlier thinkers regarding this problem, causing their understanding and knowledge of it to remain confined to the abstract spiritual realm, thereby overlooking the deep-seated reasons for the problem’s emergence. This requires us to return to the theoretical horizon of historical materialism as the “science of real people and their historical development” for further analysis and study.

通过对传统道德哲学视域中应然与实然关系问题的研究现状进行分析与研判，发现其至今无解的症结就在于人们没能正确理解和把握这一问题的理论实质。这是因为，人们依然因循着先贤们关于这一问题的认知理路而导致其关于这一问题的理解和认识仍然被局限在抽象的精神领域之中，从而忽视了这一问题得以提出的深沉根由。这就需要我们回到作为“现实的人及其历史发展科学”的历史唯物主义理论视域中来对其进一步分析与研究。

In summary, historical materialism scientifically resolves the theoretical dilemma of traditional moral philosophy, that is, it unifies the relationships between “what is” and “what ought to be,” factual knowledge and value knowledge, truth and value, historical outlook and values, and objective practice and value ideals, onto the scientific revelation of the objective process of practical activity and the objective laws and trends of the historical development of real individuals. Thus, it reduces this to a problem of practical theory. It is precisely through this that Marx and Engels achieved the critical transcendence of historical materialism over traditional moral philosophy. Therefore, breaking the shackles of the previous epistemological understanding of moral questions, returning to historical materialism for a practical-theoretical examination and analysis, clarifying its theoretical essence, clearing up a series of debates among people on this issue, and thereby deepening and advancing people’s scientific understanding and interpretation of historical materialism, is a major theoretical issue that urgently requires extensive and in-depth discussion within the academic community.

概言之，历史唯物主义科学地解决了传统道德哲学的理论困境，即将“实然”与“应然”、事实知识与价值知识、真理与价值、历史观与价值观、客观实践与价值理想的关系统一到现实的个人及其历史发展的客观实践运动过程及客观规律趋势的科学揭示上，从而将其还原为一个实践论问题，马克思恩格斯也正是借此实现了其历史唯物主义对传统道德哲学的批判性超越。因此，打破以往关于道德问题的认识论理解的桎梏，回到历史唯物主义对其进行实践论的审视与分析，阐明其理论实质，廓清人们关于这一问题的一系列争论，进而深化和推进人们对历史唯物主义的科学理解和阐释，是一个亟待学界展开广泛深入讨论的重大理论问题。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗