A Methodological Exploration of the Construction of the Discourse System of Socialist Ethics with Chinese Characteristics

The construction of the “disciplinary system, academic system, and discourse system” is the three major strategic tasks for accelerating the development of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. Among these, the construction and innovation of the discourse system serve as the expressive form and effective tool for showcasing the features, style, and ethos of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. Socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics, as a new form of ethics, represents the innovative development of Marxist ethics adapted to the new stage of socialist construction with Chinese characteristics. For socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics to manifest Chinese features, Chinese style, and Chinese ethos, it must, in a timely and context-appropriate manner, carry out the transformation and innovation of the discourse system to enhance the Chinese expression of ethical discourse. The construction and innovation of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics cannot be confined to linguistic framework analysis and conceptual articulation; more importantly, it requires achieving methodological self-awareness to enhance the explanatory power, influence, and guiding force of ethical discourse on Chinese practice.

“学科体系、学术体系、话语体系”建设是加快构建中国特色哲学社会科学的三大战略任务，其中话语体系的建设和创新是展现中国特色哲学社会科学的特色、风格、气派的表达形式和有效工具。中国特色社会主义伦理学作为伦理学新形态，是马克思主义伦理学适应中国特色社会主义建设新阶段的创新发展。中国特色社会主义伦理学要展现中国特色、中国风格和中国气派，必须适时适势做好话语体系的转换与创新以提升伦理话语的中国表达。建设和创新中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系，不能囿于语言学上的框架分析和概念表述，更重要的是如何获致方法论自觉以提升伦理学话语对中国实践的解释力、影响力和引导力。

I. The Epistemological Foundation of the Methodology for Constructing the Discourse System of Socialist Ethics with Chinese Characteristics

一、中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系建设方法论的认识论基础

Socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics is a new theoretical form of the Sinicization of Marxist ethics. It inherits the critical essence and methodological fundamentals of Marxist ethics, carries forward the essence of the traditional Chinese ethical cultural lineage, and, because it possesses the characteristics and innovative features of the New Era of socialism with Chinese characteristics, differs markedly from Marxist ethics under the Soviet model. To analyze the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics is essentially to explore the dialectical interactive relationship between contemporary Chinese ethical discourse practice and social ethical reality. The study of the methodology of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics aims to approach the magnificent social life of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era so as to open up pathways for enhancing the power of ethical discourse. Undoubtedly, the Marxist active and revolutionary theory of reflection constitutes the epistemological foundation of the methodology for the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics. The study of the methodology of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics is not oriented toward the logical construction of abstract linguistic forms, but is based on the practical activities of social life, because life practice is the living source of the ethical discourse system. Nor is it a metaphysical discourse interpretation of the binary opposition between phenomenon and noumenon; rather, it applies historical materialism and dialectics to the analysis of ethical discourse, promoting the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics from theoretical research to practical construction, from semantic analysis to the context of life, from textual scrutiny to social life, and from clinging to texts to social history. Nor does it simply follow cognitive reason for conceptual analysis and logical deduction; instead, it integrates elements such as cognition, emotion, and will to carry out a series of processes of reflection, depiction, selection, and construction, which inevitably contain value expectations and the pursuit of meaning. In essence, the methodology of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics is committed to adhering to the epistemology of dialectical materialism and historical materialism, and, on the basis of practical reason and practical methods, to summarizing, applying, developing, and innovating the basic experiences and laws of the ethical discourse system.

中国特色社会主义伦理学是马克思主义伦理学中国化的理论新形态，既秉承马克思主义伦理学的批判精髓和方法论基元，又传承中国传统伦理文化命脉的精华，还因为其具有中国特色社会主义新时代特征和创新特点，所以迥异于苏联模式下的马克思主义伦理学。对中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系进行分析，实质就是探讨当代中国伦理学话语实践与社会伦理现实的辩证互动关系；对中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系方法论的研究，则旨在切近新时代中国特色社会主义波澜壮阔的社会生活以敞开伦理话语权的提升路径。毋庸置疑，马克思主义能动的革命的反映论构成了中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系方法论的认识论基础。对中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系方法论的研究，不是以抽象语言形式的逻辑建构为指向，而是依据社会生活实践活动，因为生活实践是伦理学话语体系的源头活水；也不是对现象与本体二元对立的形而上学话语诠释，而是将唯物史观和辩证法贯彻到伦理话语的分析中，推动中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系从学理研究走向现实建构、从语义分析走向生活语境、从字句考辨走向社会生活、从抱守文本走向社会历史；也不是单纯地遵从认知理性作概念分析和逻辑推演，而是综合知、情、意等要素展开反映、摹写、选择、建构的系列过程，其中必然蕴含着价值期盼和意义追寻。质而言之，中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系方法论致力于坚持辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义认识论，以实践理性和实践方法为基础对伦理学话语体系基本经验与规律进行总结、运用、发展和创新。

Dialectical materialism and historical materialism, as the fundamental content of Marxist epistemology, are the fundamental guarantees for realizing the innovation of thinking, theory, and practice in the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics. What most fundamentally distinguishes Marxist epistemology from modern metaphysical epistemology is the introduction of dialectics and historical materialism into epistemology, understanding “cognition” both as a dialectical developmental process and as a historical developmental process. Dialectics breaks through the metaphysical speculation of the binary opposition between subject and object in traditional epistemology, overcomes the obsession of empiricism and rationalism with the mode of knowledge inquiry, and directs epistemology toward the real world of life. Thus, dialectics sublates the “correspondence theory” of truth in old materialism, asserting that the “correspondence” between truth and objective things is established on the basis of humanity’s active transformation of the objective world through practice, and is realized through humanity’s active reflective activity. Dialectics also breaks the metaphysical dogmatism of the binary opposition between language and reality in the understanding of truth, criticizing the error of attributing the source of truth and knowledge to innate ideas and self-evident principles latent in the a priori intellect, and insisting that cognitive activity cannot stagnate at “interpreting the world,” but more importantly lies in “changing the world.” Dialectics constitutes the fundamental principle for the innovation of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics. The study of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics is not a purely linguistic study of linguistic symbols and discourse semantics; its orientation should be toward the new ethical problems, new situations, and new solutions in the life practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics. That is, it applies dialectical methodology to create a social ethical critique theory from the discourse practice of ethics, grasping the generative laws of ethical discourse in the critique of ethical reality, expanding the new context of ethical discourse that unifies truth and value, and thereby renewing the ethical discourse system. At the same time, the introduction and application of historical materialism in epistemology opens up the developmental path of truth cognition and initiates a new existential situation. As Engels pointed out in the 1892 English edition introduction to *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific*: historical materialism “holds that the ultimate causes and the great moving power of all important historical events are to be sought in the economic development of society, in the changes in the modes of production and exchange, in the consequent division of society into distinct classes, and in the struggle of these classes against one another.” [1]1 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *Selected Works* (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1977), vol. 1, p. 13. The Marxist historical materialism reduces or dissolves the speculative dimension of cognition, highlighting the practical dimension of knowledge. That is to say, the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics, or the power of moral discourse, is not determined by subjective will, but depends on the practical developmental needs of the modes of production and exchange. Neglect of this issue will inevitably fail to grasp the epochal requirements and developmental direction of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics. The application of historical materialism in the construction of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics transcends the narrow horizon of metaphysics. Its positive value lies in: the construction and innovation of the ethical discourse system must be rooted in contemporary economic and social life. Only on the basis of critical reflection on issues such as alienation, consumption, production, value, and meaning can ethical discourse evaluate and guide social construction and material life, and avoid degenerating into a “language game.” The construction and innovation of the ethical discourse system must be directed at the various problems in contemporary economic and social life, especially “value nihilism” as the greatest problem of modernity. Only then can it break the “moral discourse hegemony” that provides ethical justification for the capitalist mode of production, and make an ethical critique of the legitimacy of transcending the social development stage characterized by “dependence on things,” thereby opening up the bright path for the construction of socialist ethics and morality with Chinese characteristics in the New Era.

辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义作为马克思主义认识论的根本内容，是实现中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系思维创新、理论创新和实践创新的根本保障。马克思主义认识论超越近代形而上学认识论，最根本在于将辩证法和唯物史观引入认识论，将“认识”既理解为辩证发展过程，又理解为历史发展过程。辩证法打破了传统认识论主客二元对立的形而上学思辨，破除了经验论和唯理论对知识探求方式的偏执，将认识论导向现实生活世界。由此，辩证法扬弃了旧唯物主义的“符合论”真理观，主张真理与客观事物之间的“符合”是建立在人类能动改造客观世界的实践基础上的，并通过人的能动的反映活动而实现；辩证法也打破了语言和实在二元对立的形而上学对真理认识的独断论，批判了把真理和知识的来源归结为先天理智中潜在的天赋观念和自明原则的错误，主张认识活动不能停滞于“解释世界”，更重要的在于“改变世界”。辩证法构成了中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系创新的根本原则，中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系研究并不是纯粹语言符号和话语语义的语言学研究，其指向应该是中国特色社会主义生活实践中的伦理新问题、新情况和新解答，即运用辩证法方法论从伦理学的话语实践中创造一种社会伦理批判理论，在伦理现实的批判中把握伦理话语的生成规律、拓展真理与价值相统一的伦理话语新语境，从而更新伦理话语体系。同时，在认识论中引入和运用唯物史观，开辟了真理认识的发展道路，开启了一种存在论新境遇。正如恩格斯在《社会主义从空想到科学的发展》1892年英文版导言中指出：历史唯物主义“这种观点认为，一切重要历史事件的终极原因和伟大动力是社会的经济发展，是生产方式和交换方式的改变，是由此产生的社会之划分为不同的阶级，是这些阶级彼此之间的斗争”。马克思主义的唯物史观降低或者说消解了认识的思辨性维度，凸显了知识的实践性向度。也就是说，中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系或道德话语权不是由主观意志决定的，而是取决于生产方式和交换方式的实践发展需要。对此问题的忽视，必然无法把握中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系的时代要求和发展方向。唯物史观在中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系建设中的运用，超越了形而上学的狭窄视域，其积极的价值在于：伦理学话语体系建设与创新必须立足于当代经济社会生活，只有在对异化、消费、生产、价值、意义等问题进行批判性思索的基础上，伦理话语才能够对社会建设和物质生活作出评价和指导，才不至于沦为“语言游戏”；伦理学话语体系建设与创新必须指向当代经济社会生活中的种种问题，尤其是作为现代性最大问题的“价值虚无主义”，才能打破为资本主义生产方式作伦理辩护的“道德话语霸权”，并为超越“以物的依赖关系”为特征的社会发展阶段作出伦理正当性批判，从而敞开新时代中国特色社会主义伦理道德建设的光明之途。

The viewpoint of practice, as the primary and fundamental viewpoint of Marxist epistemology, is the fundamental marker that transcends traditional empiricist epistemology, endowing Marxist epistemology with unprecedented scientificity. The practical method constitutes the key to the innovation of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics. Marxism holds that practice is the mode of existence of human beings, and that social life is in essence practical. Unlike activities that grasp objects through concepts, practice is a species-specific, "perceptual" activity through which human beings grasp the material world. In particular, "for the practical materialist, i.e., the communist, the whole question is to revolutionize the existing world, practically to oppose and change existing things." [1]1 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *Selected Works* (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1977), vol. 1, p. 13. In practice, subject and object interact through the two-way movement of the objectification of the subject and the subjectification of the object. This two-way interaction is in fact a process of "double negation": on the one hand, it negates the ready-made objectivity of the object that serves as the premise of the purpose; in this process, the object as the premise of the purpose does not disappear, but changes its original form of being-in-itself and is transformed into an objective thing that conforms to the requirements of the purpose. On the other hand, it negates the mere subjectivity of the purpose itself; in this process, the purpose itself does not disappear, but changes its original conceptual form, i.e., through practice it is actualized and objectified in the objective thing whose form has been changed. The practical logic of "double negation" sets the logical foundation for the construction and innovation of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics: it is impossible to construct a purely abstract ethical discourse system divorced from the real life-world; constructing an ethical discourse system through "simple description" or "empirical identification" of everyday forms of practice is like building a house on sand—either lacking or futile. The important value of implementing the practical method lies in achieving the transformation and transcendence of the real life-world through the critique of the practical discourse of ethics. Therefore, the innovation of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics should be committed to: first, recasting and refining ethical discourse symbols in the practice of social life, defining conceptual categories, word meanings and semantics, and the nature of discourse in a manner that conforms to the characteristics of the times; second, grasping the constituent elements of discourse with practical logic, appropriately combining and utilizing discourse subjects, discourse audiences, discourse means, discourse media, sentence expressions, and discourse modes; third, correcting the patterns of discourse behavior in the process of practice, examining and improving discourse motives, discourse attitudes, discourse psychology, discourse expectations, and discourse rights, so as to achieve better ethical cultivation; fourth, taking practical effects as the standard for enhancing discourse dissemination capacity, testing the effectiveness of discourse expression, discourse integration, discourse dissemination, discourse identification, and discourse guidance, and thereby improving discourse means.

实践的观点作为马克思主义认识论首要的和基本的观点，是超越传统经验主义认识论的根本标志，赋予了马克思主义认识论前所未有的科学性，实践方法构成了中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系创新的关键。马克思主义认为，实践是人的存在方式，社会生活在本质上是实践的。与以观念的方式把握客体的活动不同，实践是人所特有的、以“感性”的方式把握物质世界的对象性活动。尤其“对实践的唯物主义者即共产主义者来说，全部问题都在于使现存世界革命化，实际地反对并改变现存的事物”。在实践中，主客体之间以主体客体化和客体主体化的双向运动而实现相互作用，这种双向互动实际上是一个“双重否定”的过程：一方面否定了作为目的前提的对象的现成客观性，在此过程中作为目的前提的对象没有消失，但改变了原先的自在形式而转化为符合目的要求的客观事物；另一方面又否定了目的本身的单纯的主观性，在此过程中目的本身并没有消失，但改变了它原先的观念形态，即通过实践而实在化、对象化于被改变了形式的客观事物中。“双重否定”的实践逻辑设定了中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系建设与创新的逻辑基础：脱离现实生活世界去建构纯粹的抽象的伦理学话语体系是不可能的，对日常实践形式的“简单描述”或“经验性认同”式的伦理学话语体系建构恰似沙上垒房，亦是付之阙如或徒劳无功。贯彻实践方法论的重要价值在于，通过对伦理学话语实践的批判来实现对现实生活世界的变革与超越。因此，中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系创新应该致力于：其一，在社会生活实践中重铸和修饰伦理话语符号，对概念范畴、词义语义、话语性质等作出符合时代特征的界定；其二，以实践逻辑来把握话语构成元素，对话语主体、话语受众、话语手段、话语媒介、语句表述、话语方式等进行适宜性的组合与运用；其三，在实践过程中矫正话语行为样态，对话语动机、话语态度、话语心理、话语期待、话语权利等进行审视和改进，以实现更好的伦理教化；其四，把实践效果作为提升话语传播能力的标准，以检验话语表达、话语整合、话语传播、话语认同、话语引领的有效性，进而改进话语手段。

Furthermore, Marxist epistemology emphasizes that cognitive activity is the result of the joint action of knowledge, emotion, and will, and is a complex social-psychological process, thereby endowing the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics with richness, emotionality, and creativity. Regarding the status of cognitive activity in all of human life activities, its essence is a relationship of reflection and being reflected between subject and object based on practice. However, cognition is simultaneously permeated by the subject's value judgments, psychological consciousness, emotional biases, and volitional efforts, which advance the non-procedural development of cognitive activity in non-logical forms. In this way, cognitive activity includes both the conceptual argumentation and logical deduction of cognitive rationality and the unity of transcription, selection, construction, and creation involving non-rational factors; it is this that creates the richness and diversity of cognitive activity. The discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics does not passively reflect ethical facts and describe ethical phenomena, but actively reveals, constructs, and creates reality. Therefore, a purely logical construction entirely confined to cognitive rationality will either fall into abstraction, formalization, and proceduralization, suffocating the vitality of discourse, or it will stubbornly cling to "word games" such as the creation of descriptive symbols of discourse and the intuitive replication of information, severing the vital connection between discourse and reality—to a certain extent, the role of non-rational factors in cognitive activity is no less important than that of rational factors, because it is non-rational factors, not rational factors, that endow ethical discourse with more passion, emotion, vitality, and creativity. Therefore, the generation of the discourse of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics must be the co-creation of the social-psychological elements of knowledge, emotion, and will, reflecting and simultaneously transforming social life, ultimately presenting the value orientation of truth, goodness, and beauty, so as to regulate behavioral practice and social development; the construction of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics must be a constructive and continuous activity. Through the forms of habit, intuition, emotion, will, belief, and faith, the discourse system can, with richer, more inspiring, and more cohesive "Chinese expressions," tell "Chinese stories" and transmit "Chinese values."

此外，马克思主义认识论强调认识活动是知、情、意共同作用的结果，是复杂的社会心理过程，从而赋予中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系以丰富性、情感性和创造性。就认识活动在人的全部生存活动中的地位而言，其本质是一种以实践为基础的主客体间反映与被反映的关系，但认识同时渗透着主体的价值评价、心理意识、情感偏向和意志努力等，这些因素以非逻辑化的形式推进认识活动非程序化发展。这样，认识活动既有认知理性的概念论证和逻辑推演，又有非理性因素参与的摹写、选择、建构和创造的统一，如此才造就了认识活动的丰富多彩。中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系不是被动地反映伦理事实和描述伦理现象，而是主动地揭示现实、建构现实和创造现实。因此，完全囿于认知理性的纯粹逻辑建构要么就会陷入抽象化、模式化、程序化而窒息了话语的生命力，要么就会偏执于话语的描述符号创造和信息的直观复制等“文字游戏”而割断话语与现实的生命联络——从某种程度而言，在认识活动中非理性因素的作用并不亚于理性因素的作用，因为是非理性因素而不是理性因素赋予伦理话语更多的激情、情感、活力和创造。因此，中国特色社会主义伦理学话语生成必定是知、情、意的社会心理要素的共同创造，反映并同时改造社会生活，最终呈现出真、善、美的价值旨归，以规导行为实践和社会发展；中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系建设必定是一种建设性和持续性的活动，借助习惯、直觉、情感、意志、信念、信仰等形式，话语体系才能以更丰富多彩、更鼓舞人心、更凝聚力量的“中国表达”，讲述“中国故事”，传递“中国价值”。

II. The Methodological Composition of the Construction of the Discourse System of Socialist Ethics with Chinese Characteristics

二、中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系建设的方法论构成

The discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics is an organic composition of traditional Chinese ethical discourse, Marxist ethical discourse, and the ethical discourse created by contemporary Chinese socialist practice. It is a rich system, and the application of its methodology is to achieve a comprehensive observation of the discourse system construction of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics in terms of phenomenon and essence, form and content, and truth and value. The methodology of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics is an organic composition with layers, including philosophical methodology, general scientific methodology, and specific scientific methodology.

中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系是中国传统伦理话语、马克思主义伦理话语和当代中国社会主义实践创造的伦理话语的有机构成，是一个丰富的系统，其方法论运用就是要对中国特色社会主义的伦理学话语体系建设实现现象与本质、形式与内容、真理与价值的全方位观照。中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系方法论是一个包含哲学方法论、一般科学方法论、具体科学方法论的层次性的有机构成。

Philosophical methodology constitutes the highest level of methodology in the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics, providing epistemological and axiological guidance for the construction of the ethical discourse system. Philosophical methodology is an “ultimate” mode of thinking, addressing “important problems” or “big problems” that cannot be resolved by any finite knowledge or discipline. Marxist philosophical methodology critically inherits the positive achievements in the history of human cognition, overcomes the methodological limitations of idealism and old materialism, and achieves a revolutionary transformation of philosophical methodology. It is a complete and scientific methodology that unifies theoretical cognitive methods and revolutionary practical methods. On the one hand, Marxist philosophical methodology overcomes the apriorism and agnosticism of idealist methodology in understanding problems, advocating that the study of social history must investigate the material conditions of social life on which society depends (i.e., social existence), and on this basis explain the laws of the emergence and development of social consciousness such as politics, law, philosophy, and religion. Just as Darwin discovered the laws of development of nature, Marx discovered the laws of development of human social history, expelling idealism from its last refuge—the realm of social history. On the other hand, Marxist philosophical methodology criticizes the defects of old materialism, namely, that “it comprehends objects, reality, sensuousness only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, as practice… it does not comprehend the significance of ‘revolutionary,’ ‘practical-critical’ activity.” [1]1 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *Selected Works* (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1977), vol. 1, p. 13. Historical materialism, as the science of the general laws of social development, is “the greatest achievement of scientific thought” [2]2 V. I. Lenin, “The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism,” in *Lenin Collected Works* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1972), vol. 19, p. 23. and “the only scientific view of history,” [3]3 V. I. Lenin, “What the ‘Friends of the People’ Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats,” in *Lenin Collected Works* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1972), vol. 1, p. 142. replacing “the confusion and arbitrariness that previously dominated views of history and politics with an extremely complete and rigorous scientific theory.” [4]4 V. I. Lenin, “The State,” in *Lenin Collected Works* (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1972), vol. 29, p. 471. Thus, historical materialism becomes the theoretical foundation of all social sciences and the fundamental method for understanding and transforming society. The innovation of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics must be guided by Marxist philosophical methodology and adhere to the basic principles of dialectical materialism and historical materialism. First, from the perspective of discourse ontology, the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics should take discursive practice as its basic unit, opposing abstract linguistic construction and logical analysis. Abstract linguistic metaphysics detached from reality deviates from the practical principle of historical materialism and is a crude trampling on the essence of historical materialism, that “all social life is essentially practical.” [5]5 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *Selected Works* (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1977), vol. 1, p. 15. The study of discursive practice in socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics emphasizes that discourse originates from real life, discourse reflects real life, and discourse manifests the ethical practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics in real life. Second, from the perspective of discourse construction, the innovation of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics must avoid both the defect of empiricism, which lingers in treating experience as knowledge and one-sidedly emphasizing experience while neglecting reason, thereby simplistically equating ethical discourse innovation with the inductive analysis of language or the piling up of linguistic materials; and the defect of rationalism, which is confined to relying on reason for logical deduction and the view that “knowledge gained through reason is the only reliable knowledge,” thereby treating the construction of the ethical discourse system as logical deduction or the building of a closed theoretical framework detached from real life. The innovation of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics should transcend both empiricism and rationalism, emphasizing both the richness of perceptual experiential materials and the sublimation of experience by reason, achieving a two-way interaction between experience and law, thereby promoting the emergence and construction of discourse in real life, and its development and renewal in real life. Third, from the perspective of discourse value, the study of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics must oppose both purely speculative methods of discourse research, which cause ethical discourse to become detached from real life and degenerate into discourse metaphysics, turning ethical discourse construction into a self-contained “pure scholarship” or “armchair problem,” resulting in a serious divergence between reality and academic nature and thus stifling the vitality of ethics; and oppose realistic utilitarian research methods that abandon value realization theory and uphold so-called “value neutrality” or “value-free” approaches, causing ethical discourse to lose its critical function in reality and deviate from the realistic value dimension of theory. The value realization of the discourse of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics emphasizes that ethical discourse achieves value expansion, value clarification, and value guidance in people’s actual activities and in real life.

哲学方法论是中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系方法论的最高层次方法论，为伦理话语体系建设提供认识论和价值论的思维指导。哲学方法论是一种“极致的”思维方式，处理任何有限知识或学科所不能解决的“重要问题”或“大问题”。马克思主义哲学方法论批判继承人类社会认识史上的积极成果，克服唯心主义和旧唯物主义在方法论上的局限，实现了哲学方法论的革命变革，它是理论认识方法和革命实践方法统一的、完整的、科学的方法论。一方面，马克思主义哲学方法论克服了唯心主义方法论在认识问题上的先验论和不可知论，主张研究社会历史必须研究社会赖以存在的物质生活条件（即社会存在），并据此说明政治、法律、哲学、宗教等社会意识产生和发展规律。正如达尔文发现自然界发展规律一样，马克思发现了人类社会历史发展规律，将唯心主义从其最后的避难所——社会历史领域驱逐出去。另一方面，马克思主义哲学方法论批判了旧唯物主义的缺陷，即“对对象、现实、感性，只是从客体的或者直观的形式去理解，而不是把它们当做感性的人的活动，当做实践去理解……他不了解‘革命的’、‘实践批判的’活动的意义”。历史唯物主义作为社会发展一般规律的科学，是“科学思想中的最大成果”，是“唯一科学的历史观”，使得“过去在历史观和政治观方面占支配地位的那种混乱和随意性，被一种极其完整严密的科学理论所代替”，由此历史唯物主义成为一切社会科学的理论基础，成为认识和改造社会的根本方法。中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系创新必须以马克思主义哲学方法论为指导，坚持辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义的基本原则。其一，从话语本体角度而言，中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系应以话语实践为基元，反对抽象的语言建造和逻辑分析。脱离现实的抽象的语言形而上学背离了历史唯物主义实践原则，是对“全部社会生活在本质上是实践的”历史唯物主义真谛的粗暴践踏。中国特色社会主义伦理学话语实践研究，就是要强调话语来源于现实生活、话语反映现实生活、话语在现实生活中展现中国特色社会主义伦理实践。其二，从话语建构层面而言，中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系创新既要避免经验论踯躅于把经验看作知识、片面强调经验而忽视理性的弊端，将伦理话语创新简单地等同于语言的归纳分析或语言材料的堆砌；又要避免唯理论囿于依靠理性进行逻辑推理得来的“知识即理性认识才是可靠的”缺陷，将伦理话语体系建设视作逻辑演绎或封闭的理论框架搭建而脱离现实生活。中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系创新应当是超越经验论和唯理论，既注重感性经验材料的丰富又注重理性对经验的升华，实现经验和规律的双向互动，从而推进话语在现实生活中产生和建构、在现实生活中发展和更新。其三，从话语价值层面而言，中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系研究既要反对纯粹思辨的话语研究方法，致使伦理话语远离现实生活而沦为话语形而上学，致使伦理话语建设沦为自成一隅的“纯学术”或“书斋问题”造成现实性与学术性的严重背离，从而禁锢了伦理学的生命力；又要反对抛弃价值实现论的现实功利主义研究方法而秉持所谓的“价值中立”或“价值无涉”，致使伦理话语丧失了现实的批判功能、背离了理论的现实价值向度。中国特色社会主义伦理学话语的价值实现，就是要强调伦理话语在人的实际活动中、在现实生活中实现价值展开、价值澄明和价值引领。

General scientific methodology is the middle-level methodology of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics, providing structural and processual logical guidance for the construction of the ethical discourse system. General scientific methodology is a theory concerning the general research methods of science. It is based on epistemology, takes the scientific research process as its thread, and establishes a system of scientific research methods with the main content of exploring the logical structure of thought, the process and laws of its development, and its mechanisms of realization. First, regarding the logical structure of thought, the pattern of general scientific methodology influences the generation of discourse, the formation of discursive modes, the establishment of the discourse system, and the enhancement of discursive capacity. This is because the social life practices of different ethnic groups, nations, and regions, and the different cultures formed on this basis, give rise to unique discursive concepts, modes of judgment, and logical reasoning, thereby promoting the formation of different “discursive expressions,” “ways of speaking,” “linguistic frameworks,” and “linguistic systems.” Second, regarding the process and laws of the development of thought, general scientific methodology follows a cyclical process from practice to cognition and then from cognition back to practice, realizing a dialectical development from perceptual cognition, mainly in the forms of sensation, perception, and representation, to rational cognition, mainly in the forms of concepts, judgments, and reasoning. Unlike specific scientific research, the starting point of general scientific methodology is “experience” rather than “problems”; its “important task is to strive to explore the pathways, principles, and processes for realizing known scientific problems, which requires it to root the ‘starting line’ of research in the ‘experiential’ facts that give rise to scientific problems.” [6]6 The author’s citation here is a paraphrase of a common formulation in Chinese Marxist philosophy of science; the original source is not specified. Therefore, the construction and development of the ethical discourse system guided by general scientific methodology requires, based on the empirical facts of ethical discourse (mainly the positive achievements of Marxist ethical discourse, the excellent traditional ethical discourse of the Chinese nation, and Western ethical discourse), in the process of the development of thought and cognition, to interpret continuously emerging ethical facts, evaluate diverse and changing ethical values, and express increasingly prominent ethical demands through concepts, judgments, and reasoning, thereby forming a rational self-awareness of ethical discourse. Third, regarding the mechanism of realization of thought, general scientific methodology is not a simple logical deduction but a methodology with strong subjective initiative and creativity. It thus guides the subject to have strong subjective initiative effects in the selection, application, transplantation, penetration, reorganization, integration, abstraction, and sublimation of methods. Therefore, the application of general scientific methodology in the construction of the ethical discourse system must, on the one hand, respect the existing life practice creations of the people, respect the national character and diversity of ethical discourse, and respect the laws of the generation of ethical discourse; on the other hand, it must fully exert the subjective initiative of the subject, realize a positive interaction between practice and discourse in the concrete realities of society, promote the timely renewal, healthy operation, active creation, and maturation of the ethical discourse system, and thereby distill an ethical discourse model of socialism with Chinese characteristics with Chinese characteristics, Chinese style, and Chinese manner.

一般科学方法论是中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系方法论的中间层次方法论，为伦理话语体系建设提供结构论、过程论的逻辑指导。一般科学方法论是关于科学的一般研究方法的理论，它以认识论为基础，以科学研究过程为线索，以探讨思维的逻辑结构、发展过程及规律、实现机制为主要内容建立起来的科学研究方法体系。其一，就思维的逻辑结构而言，一般科学方法论的样式会影响话语的产生、话语方式的生成、话语体系的建立、话语能力的提升。因为不同民族、不同国家和不同地域的社会生活实践及其在此基础上形成的不同文化，会促成独特性的话语概念、判断方式和推理逻辑，从而推动形成不同的“话语表达”“言说方式”“语言框架”和“语言体系”。其二，就思维的发展过程及规律而言，一般科学方法论是一个遵循从实践到认识、再从认识到实践的循环往复的发展过程，实现从以感觉、知觉到表象为主要形式的感性认识到以概念、判断、推理为主要形式的理性认识的辩证发展过程。与具体科学研究不同，一般科学方法论的出发点是“经验”而不是“问题”，其“重要的任务是努力探求已知科学问题的实现途径、原则及其过程，这就要求它必须把研究的‘起跑线’植根于产生科学问题的‘经验’事实上”。因此，以一般科学方法论为指导的伦理话语体系的建构和发展，就要求基于伦理话语的经验事实（主要是马克思主义伦理话语、中华民族优秀传统伦理话语、西方伦理话语的积极成果），在思维和认识的发展过程中以概念、判断、推理等方式对不断推陈出新的伦理事实进行阐释、对多元变化的伦理价值进行评判、对日渐高涨的伦理诉求进行表述，从而形成伦理话语的理性自觉。其三，就思维的实现机制而言，一般科学方法论不是简单的逻辑推导，而是具有强烈的主体能动性和创造性的方法论，从而指导主体在方法的选择、运用、移植、渗透、重组、整合、抽象和升华等方面都具有强烈的主体能动效应。因此，伦理学话语体系建设的一般科学方法论运用，一方面必须尊重人民已有的生活实践创造、尊重伦理话语的民族性和多样性、尊重伦理话语的生成规律；另一方面必须充分发挥主体的能动作用，在社会具体实际中实现实践与话语的积极互动，促进伦理话语系统的适时更新、良性运行、积极创造、走向成熟，从而凝练出具有中国特色、中国风格和中国气派的中国特色社会主义伦理话语模型。

Concrete scientific methodology, also known as disciplinary methodology, constitutes the lowest level of the methodology of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics, providing guidance from disciplines such as linguistics, communication studies, psychology, sociology, and logic for the construction of the discourse system. Concrete scientific methodology focuses on themes such as theories of disciplinary knowledge structure, theories of thinking structure, as well as the thinking methods, research methods, and developmental laws of knowledge. Different disciplines have different disciplinary methods. The discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics is a joint construction of interdisciplinary fields, requiring the integrated application of multiple disciplines and the collaborative innovation of multi-disciplinary methodologies. Specifically, first, drawing on linguistic methodology, only through the Sinicization of Marxist ethical discourse, the effective inheritance of traditional Chinese ethical discourse, and the critical absorption of Western ethical discourse can the innovative path of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics be opened up. Second, drawing on communication studies methodology, only by comprehensively analyzing elements such as communication subjects, communication media, communication audiences, and communication effects can the shaping of discourse subjects, the use of discourse media, and the evaluation of discourse effects in the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics be analyzed, thereby positioning ethical discourse power. Third, drawing on psychological methodology, attention should be paid to the psychological mechanisms of discourse generation, establishing a mechanism of psychological identification with discourse in discourse production, discourse dissemination, discourse reception, discourse description, and discourse interpretation, thereby making the discourse of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics “deeply rooted in people’s hearts.” Fourth, drawing on sociological methodology regarding the nature of social phenomena and the role of their values in social research, the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics should attach importance to changes in social phenomena and to the importance and guiding role of values, realizing the interpretive function of discourse in describing phenomena and clarifying values. Fifth, drawing on logical methodology, in concept generation, discourse judgment, and logical reasoning, the truth standard of discourse knowledge and the rational standard of speech modes should be established. This concerns the validity of ethical discourse—as Foucault pointed out: “Speech modes that violate the rational standards recognized by people or cannot be assigned precise meaning are considered invalid.”

具体科学方法论亦称作学科方法论，是中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系方法论的最低层次，为话语体系建设提供语言学、传播学、心理学、社会学、逻辑学等学科方法指导。具体科学方法论关注的主题是学科知识结构理论、思维结构理论，以及知识的思想方法、研究方法、发展规律等。不同学科有不同的学科方法。中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系是交叉学科的共同建构，需要多学科的整合运用，多学科方法论的协同创新。具体而言，一是借鉴语言学方法论，只有通过马克思主义伦理学话语的中国化发展、中国传统伦理学话语的有效继承、西方伦理学话语的批判吸收，才能开辟中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系的创新路径。二是借鉴传播学方法论，只有综合传播主体、传播媒介、传播受众、传播效果等要素分析，才能解析中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系的话语主体塑造、话语媒介运用、话语效果评价，从而为伦理话语权力作出定位。三是借鉴心理学方法论，关注话语生成的心理机制，在话语产生、话语传播、话语接受、话语描述、话语阐释中建立话语的心理认同机制，从而使中国特色社会主义伦理学话语“深入人心”。四是借鉴社会学方法论对社会现象的性质及其价值在社会研究中的作用，中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系应重视社会现象的变化，重视价值的重要性和导向性，实现话语对现象描述和价值澄明的阐释功能。五是借鉴逻辑学方法论，在概念生成、话语判断、逻辑推理中确立话语知识的真理标准和言说方式的理性标准，这关切着伦理话语的有效性——正如福柯所指出的：“言说方式违反人们认同的理性标准或不能被赋予确切意义则被认为是无效的。”

III. Practical Innovation of the Discourse System of Socialist Ethics with Chinese Characteristics under the Guidance of Methodology

三、方法论指导下中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系的实践创新

The methodology of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics, composed of philosophical methodology, general scientific methodology, and concrete scientific methodology, is an organic whole. The collaborative innovation function of this overall methodological system is not to “interpret the world” but to “change the world.” Therefore, the innovation of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics must be a practical construction.

由哲学方法论、一般科学方法论、具体科学方法论组成的中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系方法论是一个有机整体，这一整体方法论体系的协同创新功能不是“解释世界”，而是“改变世界”。那么，中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系创新必定是一种实践的建构。

(I) Adhering to the Marxist Practical Methodology, Promoting the Discourse Practice of Socialist Ethics with Chinese Characteristics

（一）坚持马克思主义实践方法论，推进中国特色社会主义伦理学话语实践

Engels pointed out: “Marx’s entire worldview is not a dogma, but a method.” The greatest function of Marxist philosophical methodology is to guide people in actively understanding and transforming the world through practical activities. Marxist philosophical methodology is essentially a practical methodology, and social critique is the soul of its practical methodology. The spirit of critique runs through the entire theoretical system of Marxism. As Horkheimer commented on this: “No matter how extensive the interconnections between critical theory and concrete sciences, the purpose of this theory is by no means merely to increase knowledge itself. Its goal is to liberate people from servitude.” The direction of constructing the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics, guided by Marxist philosophical methodology, must be to directly face social life, directly face existential reality, directly face communicative practice, and directly face a better future for humanity, using discourse practice as a means to promote the formation of ethical discourse consensus and the convergence of ethical values.

恩格斯指出：“马克思的整个世界观不是教条，而是方法。”马克思主义哲学方法论的最大功用就是指导人们在实践活动中能动地认识世界和改造世界。马克思主义哲学方法论本质上是实践方法论，而社会批判是其实践方法论的灵魂，批判精神贯穿于马克思主义整个理论体系。正如霍克海默对此的评价：“无论批判理论与具体科学之间的相互联系多么广泛，该理论的目的绝非是仅仅增长知识本身。它的目标在于把人从奴役中解放出来。”以马克思主义哲学方法论为指导的中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系建设路向，必定是直面社会生活、直面生存现实、直面交往实践、直面人之更好未来，以话语实践为手段促进伦理话语共识的形成和伦理价值观的共契。

Discourse practice means constructing discourse in life, interpreting reality through discourse, and indicating life through discourse. It “no longer studies discourse as a totality of signs, but studies discourse as a practice that systematically forms the objects of which it speaks.” [7]7 Michel Foucault, *The Archaeology of Knowledge & The Discourse on Language*, trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith (New York: Pantheon Books, 1972), p. 49. Returning to the lifeworld is the basic spirit of modern philosophy and a critique and transcendence of traditional metaphysics. “Constructing discourse in life” means actively advocating the viewpoint of “life and practice,” obtaining ethical discourse materials, enriching ethical discourse forms, and drawing wisdom from ethical discourse expression in practice. “Interpreting reality through discourse” is actually positioning the purpose and function of the discourse system, that is, discourse practice is not about being enamored with formalized system construction, nor indulging in uninteresting logical exercises, nor lingering over flashy word piles. Discourse practice “points to the complex and dynamic social life, seeking explanations of reality through the timeliness of discourse between the diachronic and synchronic, static and dynamic, established and generative aspects of social life.” [8]8 Source not identified in the original text; likely a Chinese scholarly reference. “Indicating life through discourse” aims to highlight the reality of discourse function. Reality is neither an intuitive understanding of sensibility, experience, and reality, nor an abstraction of concepts. “Reality in its unfolding process manifests as necessity.” [9]9 G. W. F. Hegel, *Science of Logic*, trans. A. V. Miller (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1969), p. 580. Marx pointed out: “As long as this active life process is depicted, history ceases to be a collection of dead facts, as it is for those still abstract empiricists, nor the imagined activity of imagined subjects, as it is for idealists.” [10]10 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 37. The reality of ethical discourse aims to indicate value goals, value orientations, and value selection methods for modern social life through discourse construction, discourse exchange, discourse dissemination, and discourse influence. Without discourse practice, the construction of an ethical discourse system can only be theoretical fantasy; without a discourse system, the development and innovation of ethical theory will become empty talk due to the lack of “building materials.” Through discourse practice, the theory of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics can achieve the Sinicization of Marxist ethical theory, realize the creative transformation of traditional Chinese ethical theory, realize dialogue and mutual learning with Western ethical theory, and realize theoretical attention and theoretical innovation for socialist social life with Chinese characteristics in the New Era. Only in this way can the theoretical innovation of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics not be a castle in the air.

话语实践就是在生活中建构话语、以话语阐释现实、以话语指示生活，“不再把话语当作符号的总体来研究，而是把话语作为系统地形成这些话语所言及的对象的实践来研究”。回归生活世界是现代哲学的基本精神，是对传统形而上学的批判和超越。“在生活中建构话语”，就是要积极倡导“生活、实践”的观点，在实践中获取伦理话语素材、丰富伦理话语形式、汲取伦理话语表达智慧。“以话语阐释现实”，其实是为话语体系之目的和功用作出定位，即话语实践不是迷恋形式化的体系建构，也不是醉心于无趣的逻辑演练，更不是踯躅于花哨的语词堆砌，话语实践“指向复杂的动态的社会生活，在社会生活的历时与共时、静态与动态、既成与生成之间以话语的与时俱进寻求对现实的解释”。“以话语指示生活”意在凸显话语功能的现实性。现实性既不是对感性、经验、现实的直观理解，也不是观念的抽象，“现实性在其展开过程中表明为必然性”。马克思指出：“只要描绘出这个能动的生活过程，历史就不再像那些本身还是抽象的经验主义者所认为的那样，是一些僵死的事实的汇集，也不再像唯心主义者所认为的那样，是想象的主体的想象活动。”伦理话语的现实性，旨在通过话语建构、话语交往、话语传播、话语影响，为现代社会生活指示价值目标、价值导向和价值选择方法。没有话语实践，伦理学话语体系建设就只能是理论的臆想；没有话语体系，伦理学理论发展和创新就会因为缺少“建筑材料”而成为空谈。通过话语实践，中国特色社会主义伦理学理论才能实现马克思主义伦理学理论的中国化发展、实现对中国传统伦理理论的创造性转化、实现与西方伦理学理论的对话与互鉴、实现对新时代中国特色社会主义社会生活的理论关注和理论创新，唯有如此，中国特色社会主义伦理学理论创新才不是空中楼阁。

(II) Resolving Practical Problems in Discourse, Calibrating the Direction of Chinese Marxist Ethical Discourse Construction

（二）化解话语现实难题，校准中国马克思主义伦理学话语建设方向

A strong problem consciousness is an important feature of Marxist methodology. “Problems are the open, fearless voice of the times that dominates all individuals.” [11]11 Karl Marx, “Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 237. The construction of an ethical discourse system that departs from “real problems” can only become “a fantasy in the study, a reverie outside the times, a monologue beyond the world, and will inevitably lose its soil for survival.” [12]12 Source not identified in the original text; likely a Chinese scholarly reference. Currently, the value construction of Chinese Marxist ethical discourse practice and discourse power faces two difficulties that cannot be ignored. These are two issues that must be squarely addressed in the innovation of Chinese Marxist ethical narrative methods.

强烈的问题意识是马克思主义方法论的重要特征。“问题就是公开的、无畏的、左右一切个人的时代声音。”离开“现实问题”的伦理学话语体系建设，就只能变成“书斋之中的幻梦，时代之外的遐想，世界之外的独白，就必然会失去生存的土壤”。当前中国马克思主义伦理学话语实践和话语权力的价值建造面临着两个不容忽视的困难，这是中国马克思主义伦理学叙事方法革新必须正视的两个问题。

First, how can ethics with Chinese characteristics achieve the inheritance and innovation of traditional Chinese ethical discourse and respond to the value deconstruction of modern Western ethical discourse? After the founding of New China, Marxist ethics, which had not yet achieved organic integration with traditional Chinese ethical discourse, was not fully prepared in terms of topics, terminology, and modes of expression. How to realize the transformation of the discourse thinking and modes of expression of traditional ethics, and to assume the discursive power of interpreting truth and guiding society, became a developmental challenge for the Sinicization of Marxist ethics. This challenge, as the practice of building socialism with Chinese characteristics expands, still requires sustained attention and resolution. Furthermore, the influx of Western ethical “discourse” has had an impact on the discursive power of ethics with Chinese characteristics that cannot be underestimated. In particular, the 20th-century Western philosophical “linguistic turn” movement shifted the thematic keywords of philosophy from “subject,” “consciousness,” and “thought” to “logical form,” “meaning,” and “language,” ultimately leading to the “language-game theory,” which to a certain extent deconstructed and exiled the discursive power of ethics. For example, some postmodernists revel in purposeless forms and discursive deconstruction, claiming that there is absolutely no truth, resolutely opposing discourse having metalanguage power, and deliberately making their narratives chaotic and obscure. Language is a uniquely human means of describing reality and expressing thought. If ethical discourse does not take “linguistic meaning” as its carrier and “guiding life” as its purpose, it will be confined to a kind of “linguistic idealism,” and the metaphysical values and meanings that are independent of and transcend the paradigm of human experience will be completely abandoned.

一是中国特色社会主义伦理学如何实现对中国传统伦理话语的传承创新和应对西方现代伦理话语的价值解构。新中国成立之后，尚未与中国传统伦理话语实现有机融合的马克思主义伦理学在话题、术语和言说方式还没有做好充分的准备，如何实现传统伦理的话语思维和言说方式的转换，承担起诠释真理和指导社会的话语权力，成为马克思主义伦理学中国化面临的发展难题，这个难题随着中国特色社会主义建设实践的拓展仍然需要持续地关注和解决。此外，西方伦理“话语”的涌入对中国特色社会主义伦理学的话语权力造成的影响不容轻视。尤其是20世纪西方哲学“语言学转向”运动，哲学的主题词由“主体”“意识”“思维”转换成“逻辑形式”“意义”和“语言”，并最终导致“语言游戏说”，伦理学的话语权力在一定程度上被解构和流放了。如一些后现代主义者陶醉于无目的的形式与话语解构之中，他们声称绝无真理可言，坚决反对话语具有元语言权力，叙述上故意杂乱无章，极尽晦涩之能事。语言乃是人类所特有的描述实在、表达思想的手段，如果伦理学话语不以“语言意义”为载体、以“指示生活”为目的，就会被禁锢于一种“语言学唯心主义”，独立和超越于人类经验范式的形而上学的价值和意义就会被完全抛弃。

Second, how can the value-critical power and guiding force of the discourse of ethics with Chinese characteristics be enhanced? An important feature of the value orientation in contemporary society is value relativism. Value relativism holds that values vary with person, time, and place, even to the point of “anything goes.” Value relativism, plagued by the principle of experience, easily leads to value liberalism and can even fall into value nihilism. American scholar L. J. Binkley, reflecting on the crisis of moral life in modern Western society, referred to this as an “age of relativism,” stating that “man’s hope of finding ultimate values to which he can commit himself unequivocally and wholeheartedly has been greatly shattered.” After reform and opening up, especially during the construction of the socialist market economy, the spread of value relativism and value liberalism to a certain extent and scope has led to various challenges to the legitimacy of the social-critical function of ethics with Chinese characteristics. The decline of revolutionary values, the “disenchantment” of absolute values, coupled with the drive of universal utilitarianism, have caused some people to often fall into a state of confusion in value choice. Phenomena such as “avoiding the sublime,” “refusing virtue,” and “longing for depravity” — “de-sacralization” — indicate a certain degree of disorder in the value order. How can ethics with Chinese characteristics enhance the value-guiding force of its discourse theory and discourse practice, correct value relativism and value liberalism, and strengthen the people’s ability to make correct value choices? This is undoubtedly its inescapable mission and task.

二是如何提升中国特色社会主义伦理学话语的价值批判力和引导力。当代社会价值取向的一个重要特征就是价值相对主义。价值相对主义认为价值因人、因时、因地而异，甚至“怎样都行”。经验原则作祟的价值相对主义很容易导向价值自由主义，甚至会堕入价值虚无主义。美国学者宾克莱在反思西方现代社会道德生活危机时，指称这是一个“相对主义的时代”，“使人想要找到他能够为之坚定地毫不含糊地献身的终极价值的希望大大破灭了”。改革开放之后，尤其是在社会主义市场经济建设过程中，一定范围和一定程度泛滥的价值相对主义和价值自由主义，致使中国特色社会主义伦理学的社会批判功能遭到了种种合法性质疑。革命价值的消退、绝对价值的“祛魅”，加之普遍的功利主义驱使，一些人常常陷入价值选择的茫然境地，“躲避崇高”“拒绝美德”“渴望堕落”等“去圣化”现象表明了一定程度上价值秩序的混乱。中国特色社会主义伦理学如何提升话语理论和话语实践的价值引导力、匡正价值相对主义和价值自由主义、增强人民群众正确的价值选择能力，必然是其责无旁贷的使命任务。

Marx and Engels pointed out: “The real content of all epoch-making systems arises from the needs of the period that produced them.” [13]13 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 3 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1960), p. 544. The construction of the discourse system of ethics with Chinese characteristics must follow methodological guidance, be characterized by problem consciousness, focus on practice, come from practice and go to practice, closely meet the needs of the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era, and highlight the historical dimension, the dimension of the times, and the Chinese dimension of ethical practice with Chinese characteristics.

马克思恩格斯指出：“一切划时代的体系的真正的内容都是由于产生这些体系的那个时期的需要而形成起来的。”中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系建设必须遵循方法论指导、以问题意识为特征，关注实践、从实践中来、到实践中去，切近新时代中国特色社会主义发展的需要，凸显中国特色社会主义伦理实践的历史向度、时代向度和中国向度。

Regarding the historical dimension, the expression of ethical discourse with Chinese characteristics must delve deep into the historical depths of traditional Chinese ethical culture, so as to enhance the historical consciousness of constructing the ethical discourse system. That is, it must deeply explore the complex process of the multiple origins, diverse reconstructions, multi-ethnic interactions, and multi-directional development of Chinese ethical discourse within the interweaving and interaction of the history of ethical development, the evolutionary history of ethical discourse, the progressive history of national ethical thought, and the history of the evolution of social ethical culture, thereby grasping the logical evolution, developmental laws, and future trends of the emergence and development of Chinese ethical discourse. The contemporary American virtue ethicist Alasdair MacIntyre’s emphasis on the historical tradition of discourse offers us insight. He points out that the root cause of the confusion in modern morality and its discourse or language is that modern morality transcends the context of history and cultural tradition and is obsessed with so-called universalized ethical norms, even conceptual homogeneity or discursive unison. How to escape the theoretical predicament of modern morality? He believes it is necessary to seek resources in historical tradition: “Modern moral discourse and practice can only be understood as fragments from a shattered ancient past, and until this is well understood, the insoluble problems they pose for modern moral theorists will remain forever insoluble.” [14]14 Alasdair MacIntyre, *After Virtue* (Beijing: China Social Sciences Press, 1995), p. 145. Learning from the stones of other mountains, the construction of the discourse system of ethics with Chinese characteristics must “deeply explore the ideological concepts, humanistic spirit, and moral norms contained in fine traditional Chinese culture, and inherit and innovate them in accordance with the requirements of the times, so that Chinese culture can display its eternal charm and contemporary style.” [15]15 Xi Jinping, “Secure a Decisive Victory in Building a Moderately Prosperous Society in All Respects and Strive for the Great Success of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era,” report to the 19th National Congress of the CPC, October 18, 2017.

就历史向度而言，中国特色社会主义伦理话语表达要深入中国传统伦理文化的历史深处，以提升伦理话语体系建构的历史自觉。也就是要在伦理发展史、伦理话语进化史、民族伦理思想进步史、社会伦理文化演变史的交织与互动中深度探讨中国伦理话语多元发生、多样重构、多族互动、多向发展的复杂历程，从而把握中国伦理话语产生与发展的逻辑演进、发展规律和未来走向。当代美国德性伦理学家麦金太尔对话语历史传统的重视给予我们启示，他指出，造成现代道德及其话语或语言混乱状况的根本原因是现代道德超脱历史和文化传统语境而执迷于所谓的普世化的伦理规范，甚至是观念同质或话语同调。如何摆脱现代道德的理论困境？他认为有必要到历史传统中寻找资源，“现代道德话语和实践只能被理解为来自古老过去的破碎了的残存之物，并且在这一点被很好理解之前，它们给现代道德理论家所造成的不可解决的问题将始终不可解决”。鉴他山之石，中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系建设必须“深入挖掘中华优秀传统文化蕴含的思想观念、人文精神、道德规范，结合时代要求继承创新，让中华文化展现出永久魅力和时代风采”。

Regarding the dimension of the times, the construction of the ethical discourse system must both focus on social hot issues of universal concern to the people and pay attention to the practical problems of China’s reform and opening up and modernization, daring to engage in new practices and new developments. Wittgenstein once said: “Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language,” and “the confusions which occupy us arise when language is like an engine idling, not when it is doing work.” [16]16 Ludwig Wittgenstein, *Philosophical Investigations* (Beijing: Commercial Press, 1996), §§ 109, 132. Ethics, as a branch of philosophy, similarly “not only internally through its content, but also externally through its manifestation, comes into contact and interaction with the real world of its own time.” [17]17 Karl Marx, “The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature,” in *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 1 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1995), p. 220. Therefore, ethics with Chinese characteristics cannot abandon its right to speak on the issues of the times, nor can it be “absent” or “not present,” or “speak of what can be spoken, and remain silent on what cannot be spoken.” [18]18 Ludwig Wittgenstein, *Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus* (Beijing: Commercial Press, 1996), proposition 7. As Kant emphasized in the *Critique of Pure Reason*: “Our age is, in a special degree, the age of criticism.” [19]19 Immanuel Kant, *Critique of Pure Reason* (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2004), Preface to the First Edition, p. 3. Marxist ethics’ reflection on the times means criticizing and responding to the problems of the times, promoting value rationality while restraining instrumental rationality, not only providing value support for “grand narratives” but also offering value guidance for “individual happiness.”

就时代向度而言，伦理话语体系的建构既要聚焦人民群众普遍关注的社会热点问题，又要关注中国改革开放和现代化建设的实际问题，勇于进行新的实践和新的发展。维特根斯坦曾言：“哲学是以语言为武器，同我们理智上的迷惑之间的战斗”，“当语言象一架空转的发动机而不是在做功时，侵扰我们的混乱便出现了”。伦理学作为哲学的分支，同样地，“不仅在内部通过自己的内容，而且在外部通过自己的表现，同自己时代的现实世界接触并相互作用”。因此，中国特色社会主义伦理学不能放弃对时代问题的言说权力，更不能“缺席”或“不在场”，或者“对可以言说者言说，对不可言说者沉默”。正如康德在《纯粹理性批判》中强调：“我们的时代是真正的批判时代”。马克思主义伦理学对时代的观照，就是要对时代的问题给予批判和回应，弘扬价值理性，贬抑工具理性，不仅为“宏大叙事”提供价值支撑，也要为“个体幸福”作出价值引导。

Regarding the Chinese dimension, the discourse system of ethics with Chinese characteristics should consciously explore the development themes of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era and provide ethical value guidance and ethical wisdom support for them. For example, what kind of value thinking and ethical-moral support is needed for “the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity,” “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” “securing a decisive victory in building a moderately prosperous society in all respects,” and “embarking on a new journey of comprehensively building a modern socialist country”? This requires ethics with Chinese characteristics to make positive interpretations and expressions that resonate deeply with the people in the construction of its discourse system.

就中国向度而言，中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系应当自觉地探讨新时代中国特色社会主义的发展主题并为其提供伦理价值指导和伦理智慧支撑，如“国家治理体系和治理能力现代化”“实现中华民族伟大复兴”“决胜全面建成小康社会”“开启全面建设社会主义现代化国家新征程”，需要怎样的价值思维和伦理道德支撑？需要中国特色社会主义伦理学在话语体系建构中作出积极诠释和深入人心的表达。

(III) Shaping Discursive Power, Enhancing the Influence of Ethical Values with Chinese Characteristics

（三）塑造话语权，提升中国特色社会主义伦理价值影响力

Another innovative function of the methodology of the discourse system of ethics with Chinese characteristics is to both base itself on the nation and learn from foreign countries, both inherit tradition and attend to reality, and enhance the influence of Chinese ethical values through the shaping of discursive power. The discourse system of ethics with Chinese characteristics is an organic system of discourse construction, expression, and dissemination with value as its core. Discourse lacking a value core is merely fragments of language. The influence of the discourse system of ethics with Chinese characteristics is not only a manifestation of the function and role of language but, more importantly, the ability of the discursive subject to express thought. In terms of structural form, the value influence of ethical discourse includes discursive dissemination power, discursive identification power, and discursive leading power, each playing a different role and occupying a different position in the structure of influence.

中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系方法论的另一个创新功能就是既立足本国又学习外国，既承续传统又观照现实，以话语权塑造提升中国伦理价值影响力。中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系是一个以价值为内核的话语建构、表达和传播的有机系统，缺乏价值内核的话语只能是一些语言碎片。中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系的影响力，不仅仅是语言的功能与作用的体现，更主要的是话语身份主体表达思想的能力。就结构形式而言，伦理话语价值影响力包括话语传播力、话语认同力和话语引领力，它们在影响力结构体系中的地位和作用各有不同。

The value influence of an ethical discourse system takes the enhancement of communication power as its direct form of expression. Communication power is composed of multiple factors, including the function of the discourse communication subject, discourse communication channels, and the targeting of communication audiences. From the perspective of the discourse subject, it is necessary to strengthen the promotion and dissemination of Chinese ethical values by government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and others; from the perspective of communication channels, it is necessary to build a three-dimensional diplomatic communication channel, broaden educational and cultural exchange channels, and open up media communication channels combining traditional media with new media, forming a communication situation that is multi-dimensional, synergistic, intersecting, and complementary; from the perspective of discourse audiences, government officials, business elites, intellectual groups, and ordinary citizens all bear the responsibility of ethical discourse communication.

伦理话语体系的价值影响力以增强传播力为直接表现形式。传播力由话语传播主体功能、话语传播渠道、传播受众的针对性等多个因素组成。从话语主体而言，要加强政府机构、非政府组织等对中国伦理价值的宣传、推广；从传播渠道而言，打造立体外交传播渠道、拓宽教育文化交往渠道、开辟传统媒介与新媒体相结合的传媒传播渠道，形成多元立体、协同交错、互为补充的传播局面；从话语受众而言，政府官员、商界精英、知识群体、普通民众都负有伦理话语传播的责任。

The value influence of an ethical discourse system takes the enhancement of identity power as its internal driving force, which is a form of agreement and recognition formed on the basis of achieving its adaptability, timeliness, and targeting in the communication of ethical discourse. In international exchanges, the symbols, concepts, values, ideologies, and other elements contained in the Chinese ethical discourse system win understanding, trust, support, and approval from the international community in a “non-coercive” manner. Therefore, creating new concepts, new categories, new expressions, new paradigms, and new methods of ethical discourse to enhance international recognition is precisely an important task facing the construction of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics.

伦理话语体系的价值影响力以提升认同力为内在动力，是在伦理话语传播中实现其适应性、及时性和针对性的基础上所形成的一种同意和认可。在国际交往中，中国伦理话语体系所包含的符号、概念、价值观、意识形态等要素以“非强迫”方式赢得国际社会的理解、信任、支持和赞同。因此，打造伦理话语的新概念、新范畴、新表述、新范式、新方法以提升国际认可，正是中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系建设面临的重要任务。

The value influence of an ethical discourse system takes the realization of leadership power as its ultimate goal. The leadership power of the Chinese ethical discourse system is an attractiveness, centripetal force, inspiration, and leading force with distinct characteristics of the times, formed on the basis of communication power and identity power. From a global perspective, socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics should pay attention to international ethical issues, show value concern for world development, and demonstrate the ethical responsibility of a major country. This requires enhancing the “agenda-setting ability” and “dialogue-dominating ability” of Chinese ethical discourse on the international stage through means such as the “world expression” of Chinese ethical discourse, the “world concern” of the ethical discourse system, and the provision of “legitimacy support” by ethical discourse for new forms of moral life derived from globalization. For example, the proposal and promotion of “building a community with a shared future for mankind” is a successful ethical discourse practice that seeks common interests and common values for humanity. In today’s increasingly complex globalization, the construction of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics must take the responsibility of disseminating Chinese moral wisdom, Chinese ethical sentiments, and the value of the Chinese path to the world, strive to enhance China’s ethical discourse power, quickly extricate itself from the predicament of “a big country with a weak voice,” [20]20 “A big country with a weak voice” (国大声弱) is a Chinese expression contrasting China’s large national size with its perceived insufficient influence in international discourse. and gradually enhance the foresight and strategic nature of the leadership power of ethical values. To this end, we must continue to fully integrate into the world, adhere to the principle of inclusiveness and mutual learning, commit to constructive reform of the international system with goodwill and openness, strive to become an innovator of the global common value system in the 21st century, sing a “grand chorus” rather than a “solo,” and compose Chinese lyrics and sing the Chinese voice in the “chorus.”

伦理话语体系的价值影响力以实现引领力为最终目的。中国伦理话语体系的引领力是基于传播力和认同力而形成的具有鲜明时代特征的吸引力、向心力、感召力和带领力。就世界向度而言，中国特色社会主义伦理学要关注国际伦理问题，对世界发展给予价值关切，展现大国的伦理责任担当，这就需要以中国伦理话语的“世界表达”、伦理话语体系的“世界关切”、伦理话语对全球化衍生的道德生活新样态提供“合法性支撑”等方式，提升中国伦理话语在国际舞台上“议题设置能力”和“对话主导能力”。例如，“构建人类命运共同体”的提出和推广，就是一种寻求人类共同利益和共同价值的成功的伦理话语实践。在全球化日益复杂化的今天，中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系建设更要以向世界传播中国道德智慧、中国伦理情怀、中国道路价值为重任，努力提升中国伦理话语权，尽快摆脱“国大声弱”的困局，逐渐提升伦理价值引领力的前瞻性和战略性。为此，我们要继续全面融入世界，坚持包容互鉴的原则，以善意和开放致力于国际体系的建设性改革，努力成为21世纪全球共同价值观体系的创新者，要唱“大合唱”，不能“独唱”，在“合唱”中谱写中国歌词、唱响中国声音。

Marx pointed out: “Theory, once grasped by the masses, also becomes a material force.” [21]21 This is a quotation from Karl Marx’s “Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Introduction” (1844). With a correct methodology, one possesses a powerful theoretical weapon for critique. Guided by a correct methodology, facing directly the ethical practices, moral issues, and moral needs of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and demonstrating Chinese moral wisdom, expanding Chinese value influence, and shaping Chinese ethical cultural confidence in the construction of the discourse system of socialist ethics with Chinese characteristics, we have a heavy responsibility yet are full of confidence.

马克思指出：“理论一经掌握群众，也会变成物质力量。”有了正确的方法论，就有了强有力的理论批判武器。在正确的方法论指导下，直面中国特色社会主义的伦理实践、道德问题和道德需求，在建设中国特色社会主义伦理学话语体系中彰显中国道德智慧、扩展中国价值影响、塑造中国伦理文化自信，我们任重道远却满怀信心。

(Author’s brief introduction: Xiao Xiang, Professor at the School of Marxism, Zhejiang Normal University, and Researcher at the Zhejiang Normal University Research Base of the Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era Research Center of Zhejiang Province)

（作者简介：肖祥，浙江师范大学马克思主义学院教授、浙江省习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想研究中心浙江师范大学研究基地研究员）

(This article is a phased result of the Zhejiang Provincial University Major Humanities and Social Sciences Research Project funded project “Research on the Core Value Positioning and Shaping of Chinese-Path Modernization” (Project No.: 2023GH060))

（本文系浙江省高校重大人文社会科学攻关计划项目资助“中国式现代化的核心价值定位与塑形研究”（项目号：2023GH060）的阶段性成果）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心