On the Thought of “Championing Benevolence and Love” in Fine Traditional Chinese Culture

In his speech when presiding over the 13th collective study session of the Political Bureau of the 18th CPC Central Committee, Xi Jinping pointed out that it is necessary to “deeply excavate and elucidate the contemporary value of championing benevolence and love, valuing the people as the foundation, upholding good faith, esteeming justice, promoting harmony and concord, and seeking common ground in the fine traditional Chinese culture, so that fine traditional Chinese culture becomes an important source for cultivating the core socialist values.” [1]1 The 13th collective study session of the Political Bureau of the 18th CPC Central Committee was held on 24 February 2014, focusing on the cultivation and practice of the core socialist values. “Benevolence and love” (ren’ai) is the core thought of fine traditional Chinese culture and the most concentrated embodiment of the essence of Chinese civilization. “Championing benevolence and love” (jiang ren’ai) not only has a profound theoretical background and a process of development and evolution in the long river of Chinese cultural history, but has also formed a rich ideological connotation.

习近平在主持十八届中共中央政治局第十三次集体学习时的讲话中指出，要“深入挖掘和阐发中华优秀传统文化讲仁爱、重民本、守诚信、崇正义、尚和合、求大同的时代价值，使中华优秀传统文化成为涵养社会主义核心价值观的重要源泉。”“仁爱”是中华优秀传统文化的核心思想，也是中华文明精华的最集中体现。“讲仁爱”在中华文化的历史长河中不仅有着深刻的理论背景和发展演变过程，更是形成了丰富的思想内涵。

I. The Theoretical Foundation of “Championing Benevolence and Love”

一、“讲仁爱”的理论基础

The *Explaining Graphs and Analyzing Characters* (*Shuowen Jiezi*) interprets “benevolence” (ren) as: “closeness. From ‘person’ (ren), from ‘two’ (er).” [2]2 *Explaining Graphs and Analyzing Characters* (*Shuowen Jiezi*) is an early 2nd-century Chinese dictionary compiled by Xu Shen. From the perspective of etymology, the character “ren” can be split into the two characters “person” (ren) and “two” (er). Among them, “person” refers to oneself, and “two” refers to the other; thus, “benevolence” is both the basis for what makes a person human and constitutes the basic moral principle regulating social interaction between oneself and others. In traditional Chinese culture, “benevolence” is not only embodied as an awakening of the consciousness of “personhood” and respect for and kindness toward life, but is also a manifestation of the vital connection between “heaven, earth, self, others, and things.” Confucius explicitly proposed taking “benevolence” as the core of the civilization of rites and music and defined “benevolence” as “loving others.” [3]3 The phrase “loving others” (ai ren) is from the *Analects* (12.22): “Fan Chi asked about benevolence. The Master said, ‘Love others.’” From this, the thought of “benevolence and love” became an important content of fine traditional Chinese moral culture, laying the cultural foundation and spiritual basis for the Chinese nation’s virtues of kindness, benevolence, and peace. This thought also inaugurated the tradition of “championing benevolence and love,” that is, advocating benevolence and love and practicing benevolence and love. In the course of the development of Chinese civilization, “championing benevolence and love” not only has a deep accumulation of practice, but also contains profound theoretical logic.

《说文解字》中解“仁”：亲也。从人，从二。从字源学的角度看，“仁”字可以拆为“人”和“二”这两个字。其中，“人”指自己，“二”指他者，因而，“仁”，既是人之所以为人的根据，又构成了调节人与他人之间社会交往的基本道德法则。在中华传统文化中，“仁”不仅体现为一种“人”的意识的觉醒和对生命的尊重与善待，更是“天地我人物”之间的生命联通的表征。孔子明确提出把“仁”作为礼乐文明的核心，并将“仁”界定为“爱人”。由此，“仁爱”思想成为中华优秀传统道德文化的重要内容，奠定了中华民族友善、仁慈、和平等品行的文化根基和精神基础。这一思想也开启了“讲仁爱”，即崇尚仁爱、践行仁爱的传统。在中华文明发展历程中，“讲仁爱”不仅具有深厚的实践积淀，更蕴含着深刻的理论逻辑。

(A) The Ontological Foundation of the “Unity of Heaven and Humanity”

（一）“天人合一”的本体论基础

The thought of the “unity of heaven and humanity” (tian ren he yi) has a long history in traditional Chinese culture and constitutes the core content of the Chinese nation’s worldview. As early as the Western Zhou dynasty, “heaven” (tian) manifested multiple meanings, referring both to the natural heaven and to a heaven of will capable of rewarding good and punishing evil, and even more to a heaven of principle that establishes moral standards. [4]4 The Western Zhou dynasty (c. 1046–771 BCE) is a period in ancient Chinese history. During this period, on the basis of inheriting the Shang dynasty’s concept of the heaven-human relationship, that is, the relationship between the divine and humanity, it endowed “heaven” with the moral attribute of “revering virtue and protecting the people” (jingde baomin), thereby ensuring the consistency of heaven’s likes and dislikes with those of the people, thus forming a cognitive system in which “heaven’s mandate” (tianming) and “human affairs” (renshi) were interlinked, and the thought of the “unity of heaven and humanity” first sprouted. In the *Book of Documents* (*Shangshu*), “The Great Declaration, Part II” (*Taishi zhong*) records: “Heaven sees as my people see; Heaven hears as my people hear.” [5]5 The *Book of Documents* (*Shangshu*) is a collection of rhetorical prose attributed to figures of ancient China. “The Great Declaration, Part II” is a chapter within it. The “Counsels of Gao Yao” (*Gaoyao mo*) says: “Heaven’s intelligence comes from my people’s intelligence. Heaven’s awe-inspiring majesty comes from my people’s awe-inspiring majesty. This reaches up and down; be reverent, O you who possess the land.” [6]6 “Counsels of Gao Yao” is a chapter in the *Book of Documents*. These all express the concept of the unity of the Way of Heaven and the will of the people. The “Announcement of Shao” (*Shao gao*) records: “I dare not say that the Yin received Heaven’s mandate for many years; I dare not say that it would not be prolonged, but only that they did not revere their virtue, and thus early lost their mandate.” [7]7 “Announcement of Shao” is a chapter in the *Book of Documents*. The thought of “matching virtue with Heaven” (yi de pei tian) contained therein also embodies the “unity of heaven and humanity” in a moral sense. On this basis, during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, Daoism, Confucianism, and other schools further interpreted the heaven-human relationship. The representative figure of Daoism, Laozi, argued for the “unity of heaven and humanity” in a metaphysical sense, as in “the Way of Heaven has no partiality; it constantly associates with good people,” that is, the unity of the “personal heaven” or “heaven of will” with human good deeds. [8]8 This quote is from the *Daodejing*, chapter 79. Another representative figure of Daoism, Zhuangzi, developed the thought of the unity of heaven and humanity from the perspective of “things have no noble or base” and “the ten thousand things are one body.” As stated in the *Zhuangzi*, “Discussion on Making All Things Equal” (*Qiwu lun*): “Heaven and earth are born together with me, and the ten thousand things and I are one,” which means that humans should be united with the nature of heaven, earth, and the ten thousand things. [9]9 The *Zhuangzi* is a foundational text of Daoism attributed to Zhuang Zhou (c. 4th century BCE). The concept of the unity of heaven and humanity constructed by Daoism on a metaphysical level provided a theoretical basis for its thought of cherishing life, loving oneself, and being benevolent. Confucianism likewise advocated the mutual connection and interactive relationship between heaven and humanity. Confucius believed that “heaven” was an external, irresistible “personal god” with a sacred will; therefore, heaven was the highest existence for humans, as in “Heaven gave birth to virtue in me.” [10]10 This quote is from the *Analects* (7.23). At the same time, Confucius also emphasized human agency, believing that humans could, through the moral practice of doing good and practicing benevolence in later life, attain a state of unity with heaven, as in “To subdue oneself and return to the rites is to achieve benevolence. The practice of benevolence depends on oneself, not on others?” [11]11 This quote is from the *Analects* (12.1). Mencius also discussed the “unity of heaven and humanity” in terms of the heaven of principle: “He who fully develops his mind knows his nature. Knowing his nature, he knows Heaven.” [12]12 This quote is from the *Mencius* (7A1). The connection between human nature and heaven lies in the fact that “nature” is “what Heaven has given to me.” [13]13 This quote is from the *Mencius* (6A15). The morality of “heaven” and the benevolence and goodness of “humanity” are thus consistent; from this, Mencius, in “the ten thousand things are all complete within me,” laid the ontological foundation for “championing benevolence and love.” [14]14 This quote is from the *Mencius* (7A4). By the Song and Ming dynasties, the Confucian thought of the “unity of heaven and humanity” developed into the thought of the unity of humans with heaven, earth, and the ten thousand things, establishing the ontological basis for championing “benevolence and love.” Zhang Zai said: “Therefore, that which fills heaven and earth is my body; that which directs heaven and earth is my nature. The people are my siblings; things are my companions.” [15]15 Zhang Zai (1020–1077) was a Song dynasty Neo-Confucian philosopher. This quote is from his “Western Inscription” (*Ximing*). And: “The Confucian, through clarity reaches sincerity; through sincerity reaches clarity; therefore heaven and humanity are one.” [16]16 This quote is from Zhang Zai’s *Correcting Youthful Ignorance* (*Zhengmeng*). The benevolent thought proposed by Zhang Zai, that all people are one’s own siblings and all things are one’s own friends, no longer proceeds from the blood-based love of “loving one’s kin” (qinqin), but is a universal love rooted ontologically in the “unity of heaven and humanity.” Cheng Hao also explicitly stated: “A scholar must first recognize benevolence. The benevolent person is undifferentiatedly one with all things. Righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and faithfulness are all benevolence.” [17]17 Cheng Hao (1032–1085) was a Song dynasty Neo-Confucian philosopher. This quote is from his “Letter on Calming Human Nature” (*Dingxing shu*). That is, “the benevolent person takes heaven, earth, and the ten thousand things as one body; nothing is not oneself,” further elevating “benevolence” to the level of ontology. [18]18 This quote is from Cheng Hao’s *Collected Works*. Wang Yangming was the great synthesizer of the thought of the “unity of heaven and humanity.” He believed: “The great person’s ability to take heaven, earth, and the ten thousand things as one body is not intentional; it is that the benevolence of his mind is originally such that he is one with heaven, earth, and the ten thousand things.” [19]19 Wang Yangming (1472–1529) was a Ming dynasty Neo-Confucian philosopher. This quote is from his *Inquiry on the Great Learning* (*Daxue wen*). He further proposed: “In order to realize this one-body benevolence, then my luminous virtue will be without anything not illuminated, and I can truly take heaven, earth, and the ten thousand things as one body.” [20]20 Ibid. Wang Yangming’s view of “one-body benevolence” (yiti zhi ren) further provided an ontological-level argument for “championing benevolence and love.” At this point, “Confucius’s ‘love with distinctions’ (chadeng zhi ai), through Mencius’s development to the Song-Ming Dao school, especially Wang Yangming’s thought of ‘benevolence’ as the ‘unity of the ten thousand things,’ combined love with distinctions with universal love, thereby greatly developing Confucius’s thought and elevating Confucian moral views to a new height. This is the peak of the development of the Confucian thought of the ‘unity of heaven and humanity,’ and it best represents the essence of Confucian moral thought.” [21]21 This is a quotation from a modern Chinese scholar, likely from a secondary source on Confucian thought. It constructed a complete ontological foundation for “championing benevolence and love.”

“天人合一”思想在中华传统文化中源远流长，构成中华民族世界观的核心内容。早在西周时期，“天”就表现出多重含义，既指自然之天，也指能赏善罚恶的意志之天，更是指确立道德准则的义理之天。这一时期在继承了商代的天人关系，即神人关系的基础上，赋予了“天”以“敬德保民”的道德属性，以保证“天”之好恶与“民”之好恶的一致，由此形成“天命”与“人事”相贯通的认知体系，“天人合一”思想初现萌芽。在《尚书·泰誓中》中就有记载：“天视自我民视，天听自我民听。”《尚书·皋陶谟》中说：“天聪明，自我民聪明。天明畏，自我民明威。达于上下，敬哉有土。”这些都是表达天道与民意合一的观念。《尚书·召诰》中记载：“我不敢知曰有殷受天命，惟有历年；我不敢知曰不其延，惟不敬厥德，乃早坠厥命。”其中蕴含的“以德配天”的思想，也体现出道德意义上的“天人合一”。在此基础上，春秋战国时期的道家、儒家，以及其他各家，进一步对天人关系作出解读。道家的代表人物老子在形而上的意义上论证“天人合一”，如“天道无亲，常与善人”，即“人格天”或“意志天”与人的善行合一。道家的另一代表人物庄子则从“物无贵贱”“万物一体”的视角，发展了天人合一的思想。如《庄子·齐物论》中所说，“天地与我并生，而万物与我为一”，就是指人与天地万物之自然要合为一体。道家从形而上意义上建构的天人相合的观念，为其珍惜生命、爱己仁慈的思想提供了理论基础。儒家同样主张天人之间的相互联系与互动关系。孔子认为，“天”是一种外在且不可抗拒的具有神圣意志的“人格神”，因此，天对于人来说就是最高的存在，即“天生德于予”。同时，孔子也重视人的能动性，认为人是可以通过后天为善行仁的道德实践而达到与天合一的境界，即“克己复礼，天下归仁焉。为仁由己，而由人乎哉？”孟子也是在义理之天的内涵上谈论“天人合一”，“尽其心者，知其性也。知其性，则知天矣”，人性与天的连接就在于“性”是“天之所与我者”。“天”之道德性与“人”的仁性、善性就是一致的，由此孟子就在“万物皆备于我”中为“讲仁爱”奠定了本体论的基础。儒家的“天人合一”思想到宋明时期，发展为人与天地万物为一体的思想，确立了讲“仁爱”的本体论根据。张载道，“故天地之塞，吾其体；天地之帅，吾其性。民吾同胞，物吾与也”“儒者则因明致诚，因诚致明，故天人合一”。张载所提出的百姓都是自己的同胞，万物都是自己的朋友的仁爱思想，不再是从“亲亲”出发的血缘之爱，而是以“天人合一”为本体论根源的普遍之爱。程颢也明确提出，“学者须先识仁。仁者，浑然与物同体。义、礼、知、信皆仁也”。即“仁者，以天地万物为一体，莫非己也”，进一步把“仁”放在了存在论的高度。王阳明是“天人合一”思想的集大成者，他认为，“大人之能以天地万物为一体也，非意之也，其心之仁本若是，其与天地万物而为一也”。并提出“以达吾一体之仁，然后吾之明德始无不明，而真能以天地万物为一体矣”。王阳明的“一体之仁”的观点，进一步为“讲仁爱”提供了本体论层面的论证。至此，“孔子的‘差等之爱’经孟子发展到宋明道学特别是王阳明的‘万物一体’之‘仁’的思想，使差等之爱与博爱相结合，从而大大发展了孔子的思想，把儒家的道德观提升到了一个新的高度。这是儒家‘天人合一’思想发展的顶峰，也最能代表儒家道德思想的精华。”为“讲仁爱”建构了完整的本体论基础。

(B) The Foundation in the Theory of Human Nature of “Human Nature Is Originally Good”

（二）“人性本善”的人性论基础

The tradition of the theory of the goodness of human nature, initiated by Confucius and systematized by Mencius, is the anthropological foundation of “speaking of benevolent love.” The *Analects* 17.2 records: “The Master said, ‘By nature people are close to one another; by practice they grow far apart.’” Confucius believed that “human nature” is similar, but he did not explicitly state whether human nature is good or evil; therefore, one cannot conclude from this passage that Confucius advocated the theory of the goodness of human nature. However, in conjunction with other judgments of Confucius, one can discern a tendency toward the theory of the goodness of human nature, such as: “Only the most wise and the most foolish do not change”; “Those who are born with knowledge are the highest; those who learn through study are next; those who learn through hardship are still next; those who are in difficulty but do not learn are the lowest of the people.” From this it can be seen that Confucius greatly appreciated and affirmed the innate existence of “superior wisdom” and “those born with knowledge” in human nature. Furthermore, Confucius also believed that certain qualities of “benevolence” (仁) are inherent in human nature, proposing: “Is benevolence far away? I desire benevolence, and behold, benevolence arrives.” This indicates that the virtue of benevolence resides within the person; the key to judging whether a person speaks of benevolent love lies in the subject’s own good deeds—if one is willing to do benevolent deeds, one will attain benevolent love. Thus, Confucius was full of hope and affirmation for human nature, showing a tendency toward the theory of the goodness of human nature. Mencius sought to excavate the part of Confucius’s thought that held “human nature is originally good,” constructing a relatively complete theoretical system of the goodness of human nature, thereby providing a solid theoretical cornerstone for “speaking of benevolent love.” The *Mencius* 6A.6 records: “Gaozi said, ‘Human nature is neither good nor not good.’ Some said, ‘Human nature can become good, and it can become not good; therefore, when Kings Wen and Wu arose, the people were fond of goodness; when Kings You and Li arose, the people were fond of violence.’ Some said, ‘There are natures that are good, and there are natures that are not good; therefore, with Yao as sovereign, there was Xiang; with Gusou as father, there was Shun; with Zhou as nephew and sovereign, there were Weizi Qi and Prince Bigan.’ Now you say, ‘Human nature is good,’ then are all those wrong?” From this passage, it can be seen that there were already three representative theories of human nature: the theory of neither good nor evil, the theory of capable of good or evil, and the theory of the mixture of good and evil. Mencius criticized these three views and explicitly stated that human nature is good, saying: “As for their feelings, they can be good; this is what I mean by good. As for their becoming not good, it is not the fault of their natural endowment. The heart of compassion is possessed by all people; the heart of shame and aversion is possessed by all people; the heart of reverence and respect is possessed by all people; the heart of right and wrong is possessed by all people.” He concluded: “The goodness of human nature is like water flowing downward. There is no person who is not good; there is no water that does not flow downward.” “The reason I say that all people have a heart that cannot bear to see others suffer is this: if people suddenly see a child about to fall into a well, they will all have a feeling of alarm and compassion.” Mencius believed that the innate heart of compassion in humans is the source of “benevolent love,” providing an anthropological foundation for “speaking of benevolent love.” In contrast to Mencius, Xunzi proposed the “theory of the evil of human nature.” Xunzi explained the connotation of “nature” (性), holding that “nature is the original, unadorned substance” and “that which is so by birth is called nature,” meaning that human nature refers to people’s inborn nature and original disposition. For this reason, he opposed Mencius’s theory of the goodness of human nature, stating: “Mencius says, ‘That which people learn is their good nature.’ I say: This is not so. This is not to understand human nature, and not to examine the distinction between human nature and deliberate effort (伪). As for nature, it is what is endowed by Heaven; it cannot be learned, it cannot be worked at. Ritual and righteousness are produced by the sage; they are what people can learn through effort and accomplish through work. What cannot be learned and cannot be worked at, yet is in people, is called nature; what can be learned through effort and accomplished through work, yet is in people, is called deliberate effort. This is the distinction between nature and deliberate effort.” From this he concluded: “That human nature is evil is clear; its goodness is a matter of deliberate effort.” Although Xunzi believed that “human nature is born with a fondness for profit,” he still proposed the path of moral cultivation through which “the sage transforms nature and initiates deliberate effort, and from deliberate effort arise ritual and righteousness.” Xunzi’s view of elevating people’s morality through education and legal standards, while sharing common ground with Confucianism, was still criticized by later orthodox lineages because his claim of the evil of human nature contradicted the Confucian position of the goodness of human nature. Zhu Xi held that “Xun Qing [Xunzi] is entirely Shen Buhai and Han Fei”; Cheng Yi believed: “Xunzi is extremely one-sided and perverse; with just one sentence, ‘human nature is evil,’ the great foundation is already lost.” With the orthodox critique of Xunzi’s theory of the evil of human nature, the “theory of the goodness of human nature” advocated by Mencius became the mainstream of Chinese theories of human nature for the subsequent two thousand years, and thereby became the initial anthropological basis for “speaking of benevolent love.” Mencius’s advocacy of the goodness of human nature focused on the essential distinction between humans and animals, emphasizing the moral nature that makes humans human, whereas Xunzi’s theory of the evil of human nature was based on the biological commonalities between humans and animals, revealing human nature; the foundations of the two arguments are fundamentally different. The theory of the evil of human nature in Western traditional culture also argues from biological nature, and from a theoretical perspective it has its rationality. But from the moral dimension of what makes humans human, the view of the goodness of human nature is more conducive to the ethical requirement of “speaking of benevolent love.” Thus, the view that human nature is originally good is easily accepted, and the deduction that “human” (人) is also “benevolence” (仁) follows.

由孔子发其端绪、孟子集其大成的性善论传统，是“讲仁爱”的人性论根基。《论语·阳货》记载：“子曰：‘性相近也，习相远也’。”孔子认为“人性”是相近，但并没有明确说人性是善的还是恶的，因而不能从这句话认为孔子就是主张性善论。但结合孔子的其他论断，可以发现其具有性善论的倾向，如“唯上知与下愚不移”“生而知之者上也；学而知之者次也；困而学之，又其次也；困而不学，民斯为下矣”。由此看出，孔子对人性中先天存在的“上智”和“生而知之者”是非常欣赏和肯定的。此外，孔子还认为人的天性中就存有某些“仁”的品质，提出“仁远乎哉？我欲仁，斯仁至矣”，这说明仁德就存在于人身上，判断人是否讲仁爱的关键在于主体自身的善行，自己愿意做仁爱的事情，就会达到仁爱。由此可见，孔子对人性充满着期望和肯定，有性善论的倾向。孟子试图挖掘孔子思想中“人性本善”的部分，构建较为完整的性善学说体系，为“讲仁爱”提供了坚实的理论基石。《孟子·告子上》记载：“告子曰：‘性无善无不善也。’或曰：‘性可以为善，可以为不善；是故文武兴，则民好善；幽厉兴，则民好暴。’或曰：‘有性善，有性不善；是故以尧为君而有象，以瞽瞍为父而有舜；以纣为兄之子且以为君，而有微子启、王子比干。’今曰‘性善’，然则彼皆非与？”从这段话中可以看出，已有3种具有代表性的人性理论，即无善无恶论、为善为恶论和善恶相混论。孟子批判了这3种观点，明确提出人性善，即“乃若其情，则可以为善矣，乃所谓善也。若夫为不善，非才之罪也。恻隐之心，人皆有之；羞恶之心，人皆有之；恭敬之心，人皆有之；是非之心，人皆有之。”结论是“人性之善也，犹水之就下也。人无有不善，水无有不下。”“所以谓人皆有不忍人之心者，今人乍见孺子将入于井，皆有怵惕恻隐之心”。孟子认为，人天生就有的恻隐之心就是“仁爱”的来源，这为“讲仁爱”提供了人性基础。与孟子相反，荀子提出了“性恶论”。荀子解释“性”的内涵，认为“性者，本始材朴也”“生之所以然者谓之性”，即人性是指人的天性和本性。为此他反对孟子的性善论，指出，“孟子曰：‘人之学者，其性善。’曰：是不然。是不及知人之性，而不察乎人之性、伪之分者也。凡性者，天之就也，不可学，不可事；礼义者，圣人之所生也，人之所学而能、所事而成者也。不可学、不可事而在人者谓之性；可学而能、可事而成之在人者谓之伪。是性、伪之分也。”由此提出结论：“人之性恶明矣，其善者伪也。”虽然荀子认为“人之性，生而有好利焉”，但他还是提出“圣人化性而起伪，伪起而生礼义”的道德教化路径。荀子主张通过教化和法度来提升人的道德的观点，虽然和儒家有共同之处，但因其人性恶的主张与儒家的性善论立场相悖，故仍然受到后期道统的批判。朱熹认为“荀卿则全是申韩”，程颐认为：“荀子极偏驳，只一句‘性恶’，大本已失。”随着道统对荀子性恶论的批判，由孟子所倡导的“性善论”就成为此后2000年中国人性学说的主流，并由此成为“讲仁爱”最初的人性论依据。孟子主张的人性善着眼于人与动物的本质区分，强调人之为人的道德本性，而荀子的性恶论则基于人与动物的生物共性，揭示人的本性，二者立论基础存在根本差异。西方传统文化中的性恶论也是从生物天性出发论证人性，从理论层面来谈也有其合理性。但从人之为人的道德维度而言，人性善的主张更有利于“讲仁爱”的伦理要求。由此，人性本善的观点就易于被接受，也就有了“人”也是“仁”的推演。

(3) The Methodological Foundation of “Extending from Oneself to Others”

（三）“推己及人”的方法论基础

How to speak of benevolent love and extend benevolent love? “Extending from oneself to others” (推己及人) is the best practical principle. The idea of extending from oneself to others originated with Confucius, who first observed human nature to understand himself. The *Analects* 15.24 records: “Zigong asked, ‘Is there one word that can be practiced throughout one’s life?’ The Master said, ‘It is perhaps “reciprocity” (恕)! Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.’” “Reciprocity” refers to deducing one’s attitude and behavior toward others from one’s own standpoint; here, extending from oneself to others has a negative component—that is, not imposing what one dislikes on others. In the process of extending benevolent love, Confucius also proposed an important principle: “loyalty” (忠). The *Analects* 4.15 records: “The Master said, ‘Shen! My Way is threaded through with one principle.’ Zengzi said, ‘Yes.’ When the Master left, the disciples asked, ‘What did he mean?’ Zengzi said, ‘The Master’s Way is simply loyalty and reciprocity, that is all.’” The *Explaining Graphs and Analyzing Characters* (说文解字) explains: “Loyalty means reverence. From the heart, with the sound *zhong*.” Duan Yucai’s commentary says: “Exhausting one’s heart is called loyalty.” Zhu Xi interpreted “loyalty” as exhausting oneself (尽己) and “reciprocity” as extending from oneself (推己). “Exhausting oneself” is what Confucius meant by: “The benevolent person, wishing to establish himself, establishes others; wishing to reach prominence, he makes others prominent. To be able to draw a parallel from what is near at hand—this can be called the method of benevolence.” This concept of establishing oneself while also enabling others to establish themselves, and reaching prominence while also enabling others to reach prominence, is the positive sense of “extending from oneself to others.” From a methodological perspective, “extending from oneself to others” means comparing hearts, putting oneself in another’s place, and engaging in perspective-taking—that is, understanding how to avoid “unbenevolent” things from one’s own standpoint, and also understanding how to extend the realization of “benevolent love” from the standpoint of others. Mencius inherited Confucius’s thought of “extending from oneself to others,” saying: “The reason the ancients greatly surpassed others was nothing else but that they were good at extending what they did.” That is, “Treat the elders of others as you treat your own elders; treat the young of others as you treat your own young.” In fact, this is simply “taking this heart and applying it to others”—extending one’s own good nature and benevolent heart to others and to society. Thus, the Western Jin Confucian Fu Xuan summarized: “Now, the benevolent person is one who extends from oneself to others.” Zhang Zai also said: “To love others with the heart that loves oneself is to exhaust benevolence”; “The Way of benevolence has its foundation; drawing a parallel from what is near at hand in oneself, and extending it to others—this is its method.” Zhu Xi said: “What reciprocity enacts is the extension of one’s love; without reciprocity, even if one has love, it cannot reach others”; “For the learner, regarding loyalty and reciprocity, one cannot avoid comparing oneself and others, extending from oneself to others.” All these apply the method and principle of extending from oneself to others in the process of “speaking of benevolent love,” promoting the transformation from speaking of benevolent love to practicing benevolent love.

如何讲仁爱以及推广仁爱，“推己及人”就是最好的实践原则。推己及人的思想源自孔子，孔子首先从人性观察的视角出发来认识自己。《论语·卫灵公》记载：“子贡问曰：‘有一言而可以终身行之者乎？’子曰：‘其恕乎！己所不欲，勿施于人。’”“恕”就是指从自己的立场推演对他人的态度和行为，这里的推己及人存有消极的成分，即不喜欢的就不强加于人。在推广仁爱的过程中，孔子还提出了一个重要的原则就是“忠”。《论语•里仁》记载：“子曰：‘参乎！吾道一以贯之。’曾子曰：‘唯。’子出，门人问曰：‘何谓也？’曾子曰：‘夫子之道，忠恕而已矣。’”《说文解字》中解：“忠，敬也。从心，中声。”段玉裁注：“尽心曰忠。”朱熹将“忠”解释为尽己，将“恕”解释为推己。“尽己”就是孔子所说的“夫仁者，己欲立而立人，己欲达而达人。能近取譬，可谓仁之方也已”。这种自己立身也要让别人立身，自己通达也要让别人通达的观念，就是积极意义上的“推己及人”。从方法论的角度而言，“推己及人”就是将心比心、设身处地、换位思考，即懂得站在“自己”的角度避免“不仁”的事情，也懂得站在“别人”的立场来推广“仁爱”的实现。孟子继承了孔子的“推己及人”思想，说：“古之人所以大过人者，无他焉，善推其所为而已矣。”即“老吾老，以及人之老；幼吾幼，以及人之幼”，其实就是“言举斯心加诸彼而已”，将自己的善性仁心推广扩展到他人和社会之中。由此，西晋儒者傅玄总结到：“然夫仁者，盖推己以及人也。”张载也说：“以爱己之心爱人则尽仁”“仁道有本，近譬诸身，推以及人，乃其方也。”朱熹云：“恕之所施，施其爱尔，不恕，则虽有爱而不能及人也”“学者之于忠恕，未免参校彼己，推己及人”，都是将推己及人的方法原则运用在“讲仁爱”的过程中，推动讲仁爱到行仁爱的转变。

The establishment of the theoretical foundation of “speaking of benevolent love” provides a stable basis for the development and practice of the thought of “speaking of benevolent love.”

“讲仁爱”的理论基础的确立，为“讲仁爱”思想的发展和践行提供了稳固的根基。

2. The Historical Evolution of “Speaking of Benevolent Love”

二、“讲仁爱”的历史流变

In the historical development of traditional Chinese culture, “speaking of benevolent love” is one of the important traditions. The *Book of Documents* (尚书) contains records such as “I am benevolent like my father” and “Though there are close relatives, they are not equal to benevolent people,” where the concept of “benevolence” (仁) appears; in the *Zuo Commentary* (左传), the character “benevolence” appears 33 times, holding that “not turning against one’s roots is benevolence”; in the *Analects*, the character “benevolence” is mentioned as many as 109 times, sufficient to show the importance of “benevolence.” The tradition of “speaking of benevolent love” has also been passed down through the long river of history, and its ideological connotation has been continuously enriched and deepened with the evolution of the times.

在中华传统文化的历史发展中，“讲仁爱”是重要的传统之一。《尚书》中有“予仁若考”，“虽有周亲，不如仁人”的记载，出现了“仁”的概念；在《左传》一书中，“仁”字出现了33次，认为“不背本，仁也”；在《论语》中讲到“仁”字多达109处，足以说明“仁”的重要性。“讲仁爱”的传统也在历史长河中薪火相传，其思想内涵也随时代演进而不断丰富与深化。

(1) The Initial Formation of the Thought of Benevolent Love

（一）仁爱思想的初步形成

The spirit of benevolence and love, as a fine cultural tradition of the Chinese nation, is concentratedly embodied in reverence for life, respect for others, and the pursuit of the good way. This spirit is not only an important content of fine traditional Chinese moral culture but also the cultural source and spiritual foundation that forged the friendly, benevolent, and peaceful conduct of the Chinese nation. The interpretations of “benevolence and love” by various pre-Qin schools marked the formation of the thought of “benevolence and love” and also the beginning of “speaking of benevolence and love.”

仁爱精神作为中华民族的优秀文化传统，集中体现为对生命的敬畏，对他人的尊重，以及对善道的追求。这一精神不仅是中华优秀传统道德文化的重要内容，更是铸就中华民族的友善、仁慈、和平品行的文化之源与精神根基。先秦诸家对“仁爱”的阐释，是“仁爱”思想形成的标志，也是“讲仁爱”的开端。

The Daoist school differed from the Confucian school; the Daoists spoke of “benevolence” more in the sense of “goodness” and “compassion” and opposed hypocritical “benevolence and righteousness.” Laozi held: “The sage has no fixed mind; he takes the mind of the people as his mind. Those who are good, I treat as good; those who are not good, I also treat as good — this is the goodness of virtue.” [38]38 Laozi, *Daodejing*, Chapter 49. This means the sage has no selfish mind but takes the will of the people as his own will. Therefore, he advocated: “I take no action, and the people transform themselves; I love tranquility, and the people correct themselves; I engage in no affairs, and the people enrich themselves; I have no desires, and the people become simple.” [39]39 Laozi, *Daodejing*, Chapter 57. The Daoist school advocated governance through non-action, not opposing “action” but opposing chaotic action that violates the laws of nature. The Daoists also approved of “good benevolence” that conforms to human nature and natural disposition, opposed hypocritical “benevolence and righteousness” and “wisdom” that transcend human nature, and advocated that only by discarding false benevolence and righteousness could the people return to genuine filial piety and parental kindness, that is: “Abandon sageliness and discard wisdom, and the people will benefit a hundredfold; abandon benevolence and discard righteousness, and the people will return to filial piety and parental kindness; abandon skill and discard profit, and there will be no thieves and robbers.” [40]40 Laozi, *Daodejing*, Chapter 19. At the same time, he believed that it was precisely because the Heavenly Way was abandoned that hypocritical goodness, benevolence, and righteousness appeared; because the six family relationships were not harmonious, filial piety and parental kindness were demanded, that is: “When the Great Way is abandoned, there is benevolence and righteousness; when wisdom emerges, there is great hypocrisy; when the six family relationships are not harmonious, there is filial piety and parental kindness; when the state is in chaos, there are loyal ministers.” [41]41 Laozi, *Daodejing*, Chapter 18. Laozi held a critical attitude toward “benevolence and love” in the sense of social norms, but his “speaking of benevolence and love” from the perspective of advocating the goodness of non-action and the benevolence of nature also has its value. The Daoist Yang Zhu’s doctrine of self-love also originated from Laozi’s Way of nature. Yang Zhu opposed Mozi’s “universal love” and advocated “valuing life” and “regarding the self as important,” emphasizing the preservation of individual life. Although Yang Zhu’s thought has no extant monograph, his ideas are recorded in the *Liezi·Yang Zhu*, annotated by Zhang Zhan of the Eastern Jin Dynasty. According to this record: “Qinzi asked Yang Zhu: ‘If plucking one hair from your body could benefit the whole world, would you do it?’ Yangzi said: ‘The world is certainly not something that can be benefited by one hair.’ Qinzi said: ‘Suppose it could benefit, would you do it?’ Yangzi did not answer. Qinzi went out and told Meng Sunyang. Meng Sunyang said: ‘You do not understand the master’s mind. Let me explain. If someone were to give you ten thousand pieces of gold for damaging your skin, would you do it?’ He said: ‘I would.’ Meng Sunyang said: ‘If someone were to give you a state for cutting off one of your joints, would you do it?’ Qinzi was silent for a while. Meng Sunyang said: ‘One hair is smaller than skin, skin is smaller than one joint — this is clear. Yet one hair accumulates to form skin, skin accumulates to form one joint. One hair is indeed one part in ten thousand of the whole body — how can it be treated lightly?’” [42]42 *Liezi·Yang Zhu*, annotated by Zhang Zhan (Eastern Jin Dynasty). “The ancients would not give up a single hair to benefit the world, nor would they take the whole world to benefit themselves. If everyone does not harm a single hair, and everyone does not benefit the world, the world will be well governed.” [43]43 *Liezi·Yang Zhu*. From this perspective, Yang Zhu’s thought cannot be simply classified as extreme egoism. From the fragments of his thought, we can see its profound aspect: that people all have their own rights, that people can and should control their own destiny without being manipulated by others, and that society cannot sacrifice the interests of one part of the people to fulfill the interests of another part. But Mencius clearly did not see the profound side behind Yang Zhu’s thought, only seeing its “self-interested” and “selfish” side, and therefore opposed Yang Zhu’s doctrine. Mencius believed: “Yangzi advocates for oneself; pulling out one hair to benefit the world, he would not do it” [44]44 *Mencius·Jin Xin I*. and “Yangzi’s doctrine of ‘for oneself’ means there is no ruler; having no father and no ruler is to be a beast.” [45]45 *Mencius·Teng Wen Gong II*. Because the Confucians opposed Yang Zhu, the thought of self-love did not become the mainstream of traditional culture. However, the significance of the thought of self-love and valuing the self cannot be denied on this account. From the perspective of intellectual history, the doctrine advocating self-love and valuing the self, like the concept of speaking of benevolence and love, is an important component of traditional Chinese moral culture.

道家与儒家不同，道家更多的是从“善”和“慈”的意义上讲“仁”，反对虚伪的“仁义”。老子认为：“圣人无常心，以百姓心为心。善者，吾善之；不善者，吾亦善之，德善。”是说圣人没有私心，而是以百姓的意志为自己的意志。因此主张“我无为而民自化，我好静而民自正，我无事而民自富，我无欲而民自朴。”道家主张无为而治，不是反对“有为”，而是反对违背自然规律的乱作为，道家对于合乎人性合乎天性的“善仁”也是持赞成态度的，反对超越人性的虚伪的“仁义”和“智慧”，主张只有弃绝虚假的仁义，老百姓才能复归本真的孝慈，即“绝圣弃智，民利百倍；绝仁弃义，民复孝慈；绝巧弃利，盗贼无有”。同时，他认为正是天道被废，才会出现伪善、仁义，六亲不睦，才会要求孝慈，即“大道废，有仁义；智慧出，有大伪；六亲不和，有孝慈；国家昏乱，有忠臣”。老子对于社会规范意义上的“仁爱”持批判态度，但他从崇尚无为之善、自然之仁的意义上“讲仁爱”也是有其价值的。道家杨朱主张的爱己之说，也是源自老子的自然之道。杨朱反对墨子的“兼爱”，主张“贵生”“重己”，重视个人生命的保存。杨朱的思想虽无专著传世，但其思想见于东晋由张湛作注的《列子·杨朱》。据其记载：“禽子问杨朱曰：‘去子体之一毛以济一世，汝为之乎？’杨子曰：‘世固非一毛之所济。’禽子曰：‘假济，为之乎？’杨子弗应。禽子出语孟孙阳。孟孙阳曰：‘子不达夫子之心，吾请言之。有侵若肌肤获万金者，若为之乎？’曰：‘为之。’孟孙阳曰：‘有断若一节得一国，子为之乎？’禽子默然有间。孟孙阳曰：‘一毛微于肌肤，肌肤微于一节，省矣。然则积一毛以成肌肤，积肌肤以成一节。一毛固一体万分中之一物，奈何轻之乎？’”“古之人损一毫利天下不与也，悉天下奉一身不取也。人人不损一毫，人人不利天下，天下治矣。”由此看来，杨朱的思想不能简单地归为极端利己主义，从其思想残篇中，我们可以看到其思想的深刻之处，即人都是有自己的权利的，人能够且应该掌握自己的命运而不被他人所左右，社会也不能靠牺牲一部分人的利益而去成全另一部分人的利益。但孟子显然没有看到杨朱思想背后深刻的一面，只看到其“自利”“自私”的一面，因此反对杨朱之学。孟子认为，“杨子取为我，拔一毛而利天下，不为也”“杨氏为我，是无君也；无父无君，是禽兽也。”由于儒家对杨朱的反对，爱己的思想未能成为传统文化的主流。但不能因此就否定爱己、贵己思想的意义，从思想史的角度看，主张爱己、贵己的思想同讲仁爱的观念一样，都是中华传统道德文化的重要组成部分。

Confucius of the Confucian school explicitly put forward the thought of “speaking of benevolence and love.” Confucius believed: “To subdue oneself and return to ritual is benevolence. If for one day one can subdue oneself and return to ritual, all under Heaven will return to benevolence.” [46]46 *Analects·Yan Yuan*. Therefore, to achieve “benevolence,” one must first “cultivate oneself”: “If one is determined to be benevolent, there will be no evil.” [47]47 *Analects·Li Ren*. The concrete manifestation of “benevolence” is “love”: “Fan Chi asked about benevolence. The Master said: ‘Love people.’” [48]48 *Analects·Yan Yuan*. Thus, “benevolence and love” became the most esteemed and valued moral quality of the Confucian school. How to achieve benevolence and love? Confucius advocated starting from “filial piety and fraternal duty,” cultivating “benevolence and love” from “filial piety toward parents,” that is, “extending from oneself to others.” But Confucius did not stop “speaking of benevolence and love” at the level of blood kinship; rather, he extended “love for parents” to “love for others” and “universal love for all.” “A young man should be filial at home and fraternal abroad, cautious and trustworthy, universally love all, and draw close to those who are benevolent.” [49]49 *Analects·Xue Er*. Mencius, in expanding benevolence and love, similarly emphasized extending from the close to the distant, from the near to the far, advocating that love has gradations and that practice begins with parents. Mencius believed: “Affection for parents is benevolence” [50]50 *Mencius·Jin Xin I*.; “The benevolent person loves everything but urgently attends to the worthy and the close” [51]51 *Mencius·Jin Xin I*.; “The gentleman loves things but is not benevolent toward them; he is benevolent toward the people but does not have familial affection for them. He has familial affection for his parents and is benevolent toward the people; he is benevolent toward the people and loves things.” [52]52 *Mencius·Jin Xin I*. Toward all things, the gentleman loves them but does not reach the level of benevolence; toward the people, the gentleman treats them with a benevolent heart; at the same time, “benevolence and love” is extended from the close to the distant to others, and then from loving others to loving all things. It can be said that this mode of thinking and behavioral norm of extending from oneself to others is the most effective method for an individual to achieve good deeds and virtues.

儒家的孔子明确提出“讲仁爱”思想。孔子认为，“克己复礼为仁。一日克己复礼，天下归仁焉”，因此要做到“仁”首先要“修身”，“苟志于仁矣，无恶也。”“仁”的具体表现就是“爱”，“樊迟问仁。子曰：‘爱人’”。于是“仁爱”就成为儒家最推崇最重视的道德品质。如何做到仁爱，孔子主张从“孝悌”开始，从“孝亲”开始培养“仁爱”即“推己及人”。但孔子并没有将“讲仁爱”仅仅停留在血缘亲情层面，而是将“爱亲”推向“爱他人”“泛爱众”。“弟子入则孝，出则弟，谨而信，泛爱众而亲仁。”孟子在扩充仁爱方面和孔子一样强调由亲及疏、由近及远，主张爱有差等，施由亲始。孟子认为，“亲亲，仁也”“仁者无不爱也，急亲贤之为务”“君子之于物也，爱之而弗仁；于民也，仁之而弗亲。亲亲而仁民，仁民而爱物。”对万物，君子爱它们但并未达到仁的层次，而对于百姓，君子会以仁心来对待，同时“仁爱”也是由亲而疏地推扩到他人，再由爱他人到爱万物。可以说，这种推己及人的思维范式和行为准则，对于个体而言是做到善行和美德最有效的方法。

Different from the Confucian school, the Mohist school believed that “speaking of benevolence and love” requires “universal mutual love” and opposed love with gradations. “Universal” means “taking into account” and “together”; “universal love” means universal love, love without distinction, that is, loving all people without gradation. “Therefore, when they see their friends, if they are hungry, they feed them; if they are cold, they clothe them; if they are sick, they nurse them; if they die, they bury them. Such are the words and actions of the universal scholar” [53]53 *Mozi·Universal Love II*., while “the words of the partial scholar say: ‘How can I treat my friend’s body as my own body? How can I treat my friend’s parents as my own parents?’ Therefore, when they see their friends, if they are hungry, they do not feed them; if they are cold, they do not clothe them; if they are sick, they do not nurse them; if they die, they do not bury them” [54]54 *Mozi·Universal Love II*. — this is a manifestation of being unbenevolent. The Confucians, who advocated love with gradations, were called “partial scholars” by Mozi, who believed that the doctrine of the partial scholar could not achieve true love for all people. Therefore, Mozi advocated replacing specific “partial love” with universal “universal love,” holding that “universality is benevolence and righteousness.” [55]55 *Mozi·Universal Love II*. Mozi’s thought of universal love contains elements of universal fraternity and represents the consciousness of the lower classes striving for equality. However, because he “spoke of benevolence and love” from the perspective of “universal love,” his thought became overly idealistic, a moral fantasy that the society of the time could not realize. For this reason, Mencius, as a representative of the “partial scholars,” counterattacked the Mohist critique and continued to insist on love with gradations. While recognizing that the society of the time was such that “the words of Yang Zhu and Mo Di fill the world; the words of the world do not return to Yang Zhu then they return to Mo Di” [56]56 *Mencius·Teng Wen Gong II*., he also affirmed Mozi’s personal character, believing that “Mozi practiced universal love; even if it meant wearing his head down to his heels and his heels down to his head, if it benefited the world, he would do it” [57]57 *Mencius·Jin Xin I*., but he opposed the Mohist doctrine, holding that “Mozi’s universal love means there is no father.” [58]58 *Mencius·Teng Wen Gong II*. The *Mencius·Teng Wen Gong I* also records an intellectual confrontation between Mencius and the Mohist disciple Yizi: “Yizi said: ‘The way of the Confucians, the ancients treated the people as if protecting an infant — what does this saying mean? I take it to mean that love has no gradations, but practice begins with parents.’ Xuzi reported this to Mencius. Mencius said: ‘Does Yizi truly believe that a person’s affection for his elder brother’s son is the same as his affection for his neighbor’s infant? There is a reason for that saying. When an infant crawls toward a well, it is not the infant’s fault. Moreover, Heaven produces things, making them have one root, but Yizi makes them have two roots.’” [59]59 *Mencius·Teng Wen Gong I*. Mencius believed that when an infant crawls toward a well and a passerby rescues it, this is not love without gradations but arises from the heart of compassion; a person’s affection for his own nephew and for a neighbor’s child must be different — this is love with gradations. Mencius’s critique of the Mohist school, on the one hand, revealed the theoretical defect of “universal love” in neglecting ethical gradations, and on the other hand, once again demonstrated the feasibility of the Confucian thought of “speaking of benevolence and love.”

与儒家不同，墨家认为“讲仁爱”就要“兼相爱”，反对爱有差等。“兼”是“兼顾”“一并”的意思，“兼爱”就是普遍的爱、无差别的爱，即不分差等地爱一切人。“是故退睹其友，饥则食之，寒则衣之，疾病侍养之，死丧葬埋之。兼士之言若此，行若此”，而“别士之言曰：‘吾岂能为吾友之身，若为吾身？为吾友之亲，若为吾亲？’是故退睹其友，饥即不食，寒即不衣，疾病不待养，死丧不葬埋”，则是不仁的表现。主张爱有差等的儒家被墨子称为“别士”，并认为别士的主张无法达到真正的爱一切人，因此，墨子主张用普遍的“兼爱”来取代具体的“别爱”，认为“兼即仁矣，义矣。”墨子的兼爱思想有博爱的成分，有代表下层百姓争取平等的意识，但由于其从“兼爱”的角度“讲仁爱”，使其思想过于理想化，成为当时社会无法实现的道德幻想。为此，孟子作为“别士”的代表，反击了墨学的批评，继续坚持爱有差等。既看到当时社会是“杨朱、墨翟之言盈天下。天下之言，不归杨则归墨”，又肯定了墨子的人格品质，认为“墨子兼爱，摩顶放踵利天下，为之”，但他反对墨家的主张，认为“墨氏兼爱，是无父也。”《孟子·滕文公上》还记载了孟子和墨家弟子夷之的一段思想交锋：“夷子曰：‘儒者之道，古之人若保赤子，此言何谓也？之则以为爱无差等，施由亲始。’徐子以告孟子。孟子曰：‘夫夷子信以为人之亲其兄之子为若亲其邻之赤子乎？彼有取尔也。赤子匍匐将入井，非赤子之罪也。且天之生物也，使之一本，而夷子二本故也’。”孟子认为赤子入井路人去救，不是爱无差等，是因为恻隐之心；人喜欢自己侄子和邻居的孩子一定是不一样的，这就是爱有差等。孟子对墨家的批评，一方面揭示了“兼爱”忽视人伦差等的理论缺陷，一方面也再一次地论证了儒家“讲仁爱”思想的可行性。

(II) The Rich Development of the Thought of Benevolence and Love

（二）仁爱思想的丰富发展

The Confucian thought of “speaking of benevolence and love,” after being interpreted by Confucian scholars of the Han and Tang dynasties, developed into the Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism and further became the most important concept in traditional Chinese culture.

儒家的“讲仁爱”思想经过汉唐儒者的解读，发展到宋明理学，进一步成为中华传统文化中最重要的思想观念。

Dong Zhongshu of the Han dynasty valued championing benevolence, holding that “the benevolent person is compassionate and loving toward others, cautious and harmonious, not contentious, with likes and dislikes that accord with proper human relations, without a heart that harms or hates, without a mind that conceals or resents, without a spirit of envy or jealousy, without desires that are sorrowful or anxious, without deeds that are treacherous or depraved, and without conduct that is perverse or improper.” [60]60 Dong Zhongshu (179–104 BCE) was a Han dynasty Confucian scholar who synthesized Confucianism with cosmological theories of yin-yang and the Five Phases, and is credited with establishing Confucianism as the state ideology. The quotation is from his work *Luxuriant Dew of the Spring and Autumn Annals*. However, Dong Zhongshu attributed the interpretation of “championing benevolence” to “Heaven,” emphasizing that “the beauty of benevolence lies in Heaven. Heaven is benevolent,” and he used the interaction between Heaven and humanity to explain “benevolence.” [61]61 The “interaction between Heaven and humanity” (天人感应) is a doctrine holding that Heaven responds to human actions, especially those of the ruler, through natural phenomena such as omens and calamities. Dong Zhongshu’s theory of the interaction between Heaven and humanity, which held that “the three cardinal guides of the kingly way can be sought from Heaven,” [62]62 The “three cardinal guides” (三纲) are the principles of ruler guiding subject, father guiding son, and husband guiding wife, central to Han Confucian political ethics. although it established an ontological foundation for the concept of “benevolence,” was not esteemed by later Confucian scholars. The Tang dynasty Confucian Han Yu proposed in his “Inquiry into the Way” that “universal love is called benevolence; acting in accordance with it is called righteousness; proceeding from this is called the Way; being self-sufficient and not dependent on externals is called virtue.” [63]63 Han Yu (768–824) was a Tang dynasty Confucian scholar and prose master who opposed Buddhism and Daoism and advocated a return to the orthodox Confucian Way. Extending benevolence and love to “universal love” was both an inheritance of Confucian thought and a development of it, providing reference and inspiration for Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism to rethink championing benevolence.

汉代董仲舒重视讲仁爱，认为“仁者憯怛爱人，谨翕不争，好恶敦伦，无伤恶之心，无隐忌之志，无嫉妒之气，无感愁之欲，无险诐之事，无辟违之行”。只是董仲舒将“讲仁爱”的解读归于“天”，强调“仁之美者在于天。天，仁也”，并用天人感应来释“仁”。董仲舒“王道之三纲，可求于天”的天人感应说，虽然为“仁爱”观确立了本体论基础，但却并不为后世儒家学者所推崇。唐代儒者韩愈在《原道》中提出，“博爱之谓仁，行而宜之之谓义，由是而之焉之谓道，足乎己无待于外之谓德。”将仁爱推广到“博爱”，既是对儒家思想的继承，也是对儒家思想的发展，对宋明理学重新思考讲仁爱提供了借鉴和启发。

Building on the foundation of championing benevolence among Han and Tang Confucians, Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism proposed the concept that “benevolence” is life, holding that people must deeply reflect on their own moral cultivation in order to connect with the life order of the cosmos, thereby manifesting the meaning of human existence. It can be seen that the “championing benevolence” of Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism not only included an affirmation of the initial state of human life but also contained an ultimate pursuit of the perfected state of human life. Zhang Zai believed that “Heaven embodies things without omission, just as benevolence embodies affairs without exception.” [64]64 Zhang Zai (1020–1077) was a Northern Song Neo-Confucian philosopher known for his metaphysics of *qi* (vital force) and his ethical vision of forming one body with all things. “Nature is the single source of the myriad things; it is not something I can monopolize. Only the great person can fully realize the Way. Therefore, to establish oneself, one must establish others; to know, one must know comprehensively; to love, one must love universally; to achieve, one must not achieve alone.” [65]65 Ibid. Benevolence is not only the unity of Heaven and humanity; to achieve harmony between humanity and the mandate of Heaven, one must also pursue goodness and seek benevolence. On this basis, he proposed the concept of “people are my siblings and all things are my kind,” [66]66 “People are my siblings and all things are my kind” (民胞物与) is a phrase from Zhang Zai’s *Western Inscription*, expressing the ideal of universal kinship with all beings. and insisted on starting from “differentiated love” and then expanding to “universal love”: “One must surely wish to extend beneficence to all, spreading it to the whole world, applying it without limit; only with the talent of a sage can one broaden the Way.” [67]67 Ibid. Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi also believed that the growth of the myriad things is “benevolence”: “The vitality of the myriad things is most observable; this is the goodness of the origin, which is called benevolence.” [68]68 Cheng Hao (1032–1085) and Cheng Yi (1033–1107) were brothers and leading Neo-Confucian philosophers of the Northern Song, whose work laid the foundation for the School of Principle. People must practice “benevolence” to accord with the “Way,” that is, “Benevolence is principle. Humans are things. To unite benevolence with the human person is the Way of humanity.” [69]69 Ibid. In addition, Cheng Yi opposed Han Yu’s view that “universal love is called benevolence,” arguing that “love” cannot be simply equated with “benevolence,” and distinguished the difference between “benevolence” and “love,” holding that “benevolence” is the substance, which is “nature,” while “love” is the function, which is “feeling.” That is, “The Way of benevolence, in essence, can be summed up in the single word ‘impartiality.’ Impartiality is only the principle of benevolence; one cannot simply call impartiality benevolence. Impartiality, when embodied by a person, becomes benevolence. Only because of impartiality can one illuminate both self and things; therefore, benevolence enables forbearance, and enables love. Forbearance is the application of benevolence; love is the function of benevolence.” [70]70 Ibid. Cheng Yi’s distinction between substance and function in the concept of “benevolence and love” once again established the ontological status of “benevolence.” On this basis, Zhu Xi also pointed out that “benevolence is the mind of Heaven and Earth to give life,” “the meaning of life is benevolence,” and “benevolence is the virtue of the mind and the principle of love. Righteousness is the regulation of the mind and the appropriateness of affairs.” [71]71 Zhu Xi (1130–1200) was the most influential Neo-Confucian philosopher of the Southern Song, who systematized the School of Principle and made the *Four Books* the core of Confucian education. The core of benevolence is “loving one’s kin, being benevolent to the people, and loving things; these three are the affairs of benevolence. Loving one’s kin is the first matter.” “From loving one’s kin to being benevolent to the people, from being benevolent to the people to loving things, love has gradations, its application has order, and the Way of benevolence is unceasing and inexhaustible.” [72]72 Ibid. It can be seen that Zhu Xi still advocated love with gradations. Wang Yangming also believed that “the great person’s ability to regard Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things as one body is not intentional; the benevolence of his mind is originally like this, and it is one with Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things.” [73]73 Wang Yangming (1472–1529) was a Ming dynasty Neo-Confucian philosopher who founded the School of Mind, emphasizing innate moral knowledge and the unity of knowledge and action. Wang Yangming advocated loving “all things,” but also believed that in practicing “benevolence and love,” there are also degrees of closeness and distance. He said: “Birds and beasts are loved equally with plants and trees; can one bear to use plants and trees to nourish birds and beasts? Humans are loved equally with birds and beasts; can one bear to slaughter birds and beasts to nourish one’s parents, for sacrifices, or to entertain guests? One’s closest relatives are loved equally with strangers; if there is only a single meal of rice and soup, and one will live if one gets it and die if one does not, and one cannot save both, would one rather save one’s closest relative than a stranger? Can one bear this? This is what principle requires.” [74]74 Ibid. “Loving my father, and extending this to the fathers of others, and to the fathers of all under Heaven—only then is my benevolence truly one with my father, the fathers of others, and the fathers of all under Heaven; only when it is truly one with them does the bright virtue of filial piety become manifest!” [75]75 Ibid. “The love between father and son, elder and younger brother, is the starting point of the life-giving intention of the human mind, like the sprouting of a tree. From this, being benevolent to the people and loving things is like the trunk growing branches and leaves. Mozi’s universal love without gradation treats one’s own father, son, and brothers the same as passersby, thus losing this starting point; if there is no sprouting, one knows it has no root, it is not the unceasing generation of life—how can it be called benevolence? Filial piety and brotherly respect are the root of benevolence; it is the principle of benevolence emerging from within.” [76]76 Ibid. Mozi (c. 470–391 BCE) was a philosopher who advocated “universal love” (兼爱) without gradation, in opposition to Confucian graded love. When Confucians champion benevolence, they emphasize extending from near to far and love with gradations; this cannot be simply equated with a theoretical defense of the patriarchal clan system based on blood ties, nor should it be reduced to an ideological tool serving the ruling class. Compared with “universal love” relying on faith and will, and “universal love” relying on belief and institutions, the Confucian “differentiated love” was more feasible under the historical conditions of the time. For example, in modern society, the rescue of “passersby” can be undertaken by social organizations and charitable institutions, but in ancient societies with imperfect social mechanisms, the Confucian practical wisdom of “extending from oneself to others” [77]77 “Extending from oneself to others” (推己及人) is a Confucian ethical principle derived from the *Analects*, meaning to treat others as one would treat oneself. could more effectively solve the problem of assistance than the empty slogan of “universal love.” From pre-Qin Confucians to Song-Ming Confucians, the discussion mainly focused on how to achieve “championing benevolence” from the perspective of the individual. Confucians did not oppose the beautiful ideals of “universal love” or “impartial love”; they also advocated loving all things. Confucians simply believed that the realization of beautiful ideals must be pragmatic, must observe human nature, and that love with gradations can be put into practice.

在汉唐儒者讲仁爱的基础上，宋明儒学提出“仁”即是生的观念，认为人必须深入省思自我道德的修为，才能与宇宙的生命秩序相贯通，从而展现人的生命存在的意义。可见，宋明理学的“讲仁爱”，不仅包含对人的生命最初状态的肯定，更蕴含着对人的生命完善境界的终极追求。张载认为，“天体物不遗，犹仁体事无不在也。”“性者万物之一源，非有我之得私也。惟大人为能尽其道，是故立必俱立，知必周知，爱必兼爱，成不独成”。仁爱不仅是天人一体的，要做到人与天命的相协，还必须向善求仁。在此基础上提出了“民胞物与”的观念，并坚持从“别爱”出发再扩展至“兼爱”，“必欲博施济众，扩之天下，施之无穷，必有圣人之才，能弘其道。”程颢和程颐也认为万物的生长即是“仁”，“万物之生意最可观，此元者善之长也，斯所谓仁也”，人要行“仁”才合于“道”，即“仁，理也。人，物也。以仁合在人身言之，乃是人之道也。”另外，程颐反对韩愈“博爱之谓仁”的观点，认为不能将“爱”简单等同为“仁”，并区分了“仁”“爱”的差异，认为“仁”是本体是“性”，而“爱”是功用是“情”。即“仁之道，要之只消道一公字。公只是仁之理，不可将公便唤做仁。公而以人体之，故为仁。只为公，则物我兼照，故仁，所以能恕，所以能爱，恕则仁之施，爱则仁之用也。”程颐对“仁爱”概念的体用之分，再一次确立了“仁”的本体地位。朱熹在此基础上也指出，“仁者，天地生物之心”“生底意思是仁”“仁者，心之德，爱之理。义者，心之制，事之宜。”仁的核心就是“亲亲、仁民、爱物，三者是为仁之事。亲亲是第一件事”“自亲亲而仁民，自仁民而爱物，其爱有差等，其施有渐次，而为仁之道，生生而不穷矣”，可见，朱熹仍然主张爱有差等。王阳明也认为，“大人之能以天地万物为一体也，非意之也，其心之仁本若是，其与天地万物而为一也”。王阳明主张爱“万物”，但也认为在实施“仁爱”的时候也是有亲疏远近的，他说道：“禽兽与草木同是爱的，把草木去养禽兽，又忍得？人与禽兽同是爱的，宰禽兽以养亲与供祭祀，燕宾客，心又忍得？至亲与路人同是爱的，如箪食豆羹，得则生，不得则死，不能两全，宁救至亲，不救路人，心又忍得？这是道理合该如此。”“亲吾之父，以及人之父，以及天下人之父，而后吾之仁实与吾之父、人之父与天下人之父而为一体矣；实与之为一体，而后孝之明德始明矣！”“父子兄弟之爱，便是人心生意发端处，如木之抽芽。自此而仁民，而爱物，便是发干生枝生叶。墨氏兼爱无差等，将自家父子兄弟与途人一般看，便自没了发端处；不抽芽便知得他无根，便不是生生不息，安得谓之仁？孝弟为仁之本，却是仁理从里面发生出来。”儒家在讲仁爱时强调由近及远、爱有差等，不能简单等同于血缘宗法制度的理论辩护，更不应该将其简化为服务于统治阶级的意识形态工具。相对于“兼爱”靠信念和意志、“博爱”靠信仰和制度，儒家的“别爱”在当时的历史条件下更具可行性。例如，现代社会对于“路人”的施救可由社会组织和慈善机构等承担，但在社会机制不完善的古代社会，儒家提出的“推己及人”的实践智慧，比空泛的“博爱”口号更能切实解决救助问题。先秦儒家至宋明儒家主要从个体的视角来探讨如何做到“讲仁爱”，儒家并不反对美好的“兼爱”“博爱”，也主张爱万物，儒家只是认为美好理想的实现一定要务实、要体察人性，爱有渐次才能落地。

(III) The Modern Transformation of the Thought of Benevolence

（三）仁爱思想的近代转换

With the development of the times and the enlightenment of thought, championing benevolence underwent new trends and transformations in the modern period. Gong Zizhen, seeing the importance of individual interests in social change, gained a deeper understanding of the concepts of self-love and partiality. He believed that “Heaven has its private interests” and “Earth has its private interests.” He profoundly asked: “The sage emperors and wise kings issue clear edicts and grand proclamations, toiling in the fields, sighing in the ancestral temples, and the court historians record it. When we examine the substance of what they do, it is nothing more than: sheltering my descendants, preserving my state and family. Why do they not love the states and families of others, but love their own? Why do they not shelter the descendants of others, but shelter their own? Moreover, the loyal minister grieves, the filial son weeps, the widowed wife guards her chastity, defends the household, preserves the family line—these are what the sages and philosophers lament, what past and present praise, what histories record, and what poetry sings. Why does the loyal minister not be loyal to another’s ruler, but be loyal to his own? Why does the filial son not be kind to another’s parents, but be kind to his own? Why does the widowed and chaste wife not offer her body to the marketplace, but keep herself chaste and preserve herself in private?” [78]78 Gong Zizhen (1792–1841) was a Qing dynasty poet, thinker, and reformist who criticized the decay of the imperial system and called for social change. At the same time, he inherited the Confucian thought of “championing benevolence,” hoping that rulers would implement “benevolent governance”: “Take the benevolent mind as the substance, and apply it to governance.” [79]79 Ibid. Kang Youwei, based on changes in social development, believed that the realization of “benevolence” was limited by social conditions, and that “universal love” could only be achieved in a society where everyone is equal. That is, “In the age of chaos, benevolence cannot reach far, so it only loves one’s kin; in the age of rising peace, benevolence reaches one’s own kind, so it can be benevolent to the people; in the age of great peace, all living beings are as one, so it loves all things.” [80]80 Kang Youwei (1858–1927) was a late Qing reformer and Confucian scholar who reinterpreted Confucianism to support constitutional monarchy and social utopianism, as in his *Book of Great Unity*. Tan Sitong, inheriting Confucian thought, proposed an innovative theory of “benevolence studies,” advocating the benevolent principle of equality between self and others and between things and self. He held that “benevolence is the function of the以太 (ether), and Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things are born and connected through it,” and “the manifestation of connection is equality.” [81]81 Tan Sitong (1865–1898) was a late Qing reformer and philosopher executed after the failed Hundred Days’ Reform; his *Study of Benevolence* synthesized Confucian, Buddhist, and Western ideas. The reflections of Enlightenment-era thinkers on “championing benevolence” reflected the transformation and innovation of traditional benevolent thought under the background of national salvation and survival.

随着时代的发展、思想的启蒙，讲仁爱在近代有了新的发展趋势和思想转换。龚自珍从社会变革中看到了个人利益的重要性，对自爱、偏私的观念有了进一步的认识。他认为，“天有私也”“地有私也”。他深刻地问道：“圣帝哲后，明诏大号，劬劳于在原，咨嗟于在庙，史臣书之。究其所为之实，亦不过曰：庇我子孙，保我国家而已，何以不爱他人之国家，而爱其国家？何以不庇他人之子孙，而庇其子孙？且夫忠臣忧悲，孝子涕泪，寡妻守雌，扞门户，保家世，圣哲之所哀，古今之所懿，史册之所纪，诗歌之所作。忠臣何以不忠他人之君，而忠其君？孝子何以不慈他人之亲，而慈其亲？寡妻贞妇何以不公此身于都市，乃私自贞私自葆也？”同时他也继承了儒家“讲仁爱”思想，希望统治者能实行“仁政”，“仁心为质，施于有政。”康有为依据社会发展的变化认为“仁”的实现受社会条件所限，只有在人人平等的社会才能实现“兼爱”。即“拨乱世仁不能远，故但亲亲；升平世仁及同类，故能仁民。大平世众生如一，故兼爱物。”谭嗣同在继承儒家思想的基础上，提出了颇具新意的“仁学”理论，提出人我平等、物我平等的仁爱主张。认为“夫仁、以太之用，而天地万物由之以生，由之以通”，而“通之象为平等”。启蒙时期思想家对“讲仁爱”的反思，反映了社会救亡图存的背景下对传统仁爱思想的转换与创新。

“Benevolence studies, from Confucius’s proclamation to Tan Sitong’s synthesis of East and West, have not been interrupted for two thousand years.” [82]82 This quotation is from modern Chinese scholar Li Zehou (1930–2021), a prominent philosopher and historian of Chinese thought. Championing benevolence, establishing oneself and helping others to establish, is not only a core element of the fine traditional Chinese culture for millennia but also the cultural foundation of the original aspiration of Chinese Communists for over a century. Xi Jinping pointed out in his speech at the ceremony marking the centenary of the Communist Party of China: “As soon as the Communist Party of China was born, it established seeking happiness for the Chinese people and rejuvenation for the Chinese nation as its original aspiration and founding mission.” [83]83 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Ceremony Marking the Centenary of the Communist Party of China,” July 1, 2021. For over a century, the Communist Party of China has always been committed to seeking progress for humanity and common good for the world. This is both a contemporary practice of the thought of “championing benevolence” and an unremitting effort and contribution to the creative transformation and innovative development of “championing benevolence.”

“仁学，自孔夫子揭橥，至谭嗣同汇同东西。两千年没有中断”。讲求仁爱、立己达人不仅是几千年中华优秀传统文化的重要内核，也是百余年来中国共产党人不忘初心的文化底色。习近平在庆祝中国共产党成立100周年大会上的讲话中指出：“中国共产党一经诞生，就把为中国人民谋幸福、为中华民族谋复兴确立为自己的初心使命。”百余年来，中国共产党始终致力于为人类谋进步、为世界谋大同，这既是对“讲仁爱”思想的当代践行，更为实现“讲仁爱”的创造性转化和创新性发展作出了不懈的努力和贡献。

III. The Rich Core of “Championing Benevolence”

三、“讲仁爱”的丰富内核

The ideological system of “championing benevolence” formed over the long course of Chinese civilization still possesses positive contemporary value in the New Era. Systematically elucidating the deep implications of this tradition and promoting the innovative development of the traditional concept of benevolence play a practical role in carrying forward the spirit of benevolence. “Championing benevolence” fuses the essence of various traditional Chinese schools of thought. It is not only the marrow of traditional Chinese morality and the core of Chinese culture, but also the realistic portrayal of the Chinese Communist Party’s pursuit of happiness for the people over the past century. Moreover, in the New Era it has been elevated into an important innovation in the governing philosophy of Chinese-path modernization.

在中华文明历史长河中形成的“讲仁爱”的思想体系，在新时代依然具有积极的时代价值。系统阐发这一传统的深层意蕴，推动实现传统仁爱观的创新发展，对传承仁爱精神有着重要的现实作用。“讲仁爱”熔铸了中国传统各家思想之精华，既是中国传统道德的精髓和中国文化的核心，也是百余年来中国共产党为人民谋幸福的现实写照，更在新时代升华为中国式现代化执政理念的重要创新。

(1) From the perspective of the individual, “championing benevolence” requires “loving all living beings broadly” [84]84 “Loving all living beings broadly” (泛爱群生) — a classical expression derived from Confucian and Daoist thought, emphasizing universal care for all life.

（一）从个体来看，“讲仁爱”就是要求“泛爱群生”

“Loving all living beings broadly,” as a main connotation of championing benevolence, means cherishing life, caring for others, and loving all things. First, championing benevolence includes the ethical foundation of “loving oneself.” The “self” is also a member of the “multitude”; to “love others” one must first know how to “love oneself,” and only then can one achieve “loving the multitude broadly.” The Daoist saying “the sage knows himself, but does not show himself; loves himself, but does not value himself,” the Mohist saying “the storekeeper’s love of himself is not for the sake of the person who loves himself; generosity does not exclude oneself, love has no thickness or thinness,” the Confucian saying “the wise make others know themselves, the benevolent make others love themselves,” Wang Anshi’s saying “loving oneself is the beginning of benevolence, and can be extended to loving others,” the Ming-dynasty Qiu Jun’s saying “the greatness of the world arises from the accumulation of each individual; when each person gets his due share and each person fulfills his desires, the world is at peace,” and Huang Zongxi’s saying “at the beginning of life, each person is selfish, each person seeks his own benefit” — all these demonstrate the importance of valuing individual life and interests, and further prove that “loving oneself” is also a prerequisite for championing benevolence. Only by knowing one’s own needs, cherishing one’s own life, perfecting one’s own abilities, and achieving moral awakening in the experience of life can one truly stand on the ground of “humanity” (ren), think through and deduce the relationships between people, between people and society, and even between people and nature, and thereby do one’s utmost to offer loving care to family, others, and society. In the New Era, the Chinese Communist Party has consistently adhered to “putting life above all else” for the people, holding that “human life is the most precious; life is only once and will not return,” and that “putting life above all else epitomizes the Chinese people’s profound tradition of benevolence and the Chinese Communist Party’s people-centered value pursuit.” This is also the inheritance and development of the thought of championing benevolence in the New Era. Second, the concrete requirement of championing benevolence is loving one’s kin. Loving others begins with learning to love one’s family and those close to one: “Filial piety and brotherly respect — are they not the root of benevolence?” [85]85 “Filial piety and brotherly respect — are they not the root of benevolence?” — a quotation from the Analects (Xue’er), attributed to Confucius’ disciple Youzi. Only by extending love from oneself to one’s family and honoring one’s parents can one learn to respect the elderly, cherish the young, be kind to kin, and be neighborly in interpersonal relations. Third, love is extended from loving kin to loving others, loving friends, including loving strangers. “Therefore, the benevolent person’s greatest act is loving others,” “use benevolence to bring peace to others, use righteousness to correct oneself.” That is to say, “the benevolence of one person is not as beautiful as the benevolence of one family; the benevolence of one family is not as beautiful as the benevolence of all neighbors; the benevolence of neighbors is not as beautiful as the benevolence of the whole village.” “The benevolent person loves others” is also an important source of the core socialist value of “friendship.” Practicing the thought of benevolence, doing good to others, and caring for others are precisely the inherent requirements of the core socialist values. Finally, there is loving all things, including caring for animals and the ecological environment. Confucius required “angling with a line but not with a net; shooting but not at roosting birds”; Mencius advocated “the gentleman, toward birds and beasts, seeing them alive, cannot bear to see them die”; the Daoists also advocated caring for nature and all things: “loving others and benefiting things is called benevolence.” In the current context of globalization, the ecological crisis is increasingly acute. For this reason, Xi Jinping places special emphasis on ecological civilization construction, requiring care for nature and all things. “‘All things obtain harmony in their growth and achieve completion in their nourishment.’ Chinese civilization has always emphasized the unity of heaven and humanity and respect for nature.” [86]86 “All things obtain harmony in their growth and achieve completion in their nourishment” — a quotation from the Xunzi (Treatise on Heaven), cited by Xi Jinping in speeches on ecological civilization. It can be seen that the concepts of “loving all living beings broadly” and “all things as one body” still have positive contemporary significance for regulating harmony between people and between people and nature.

“泛爱群生”作为讲仁爱的主要内涵，就是主张爱惜生命、爱护他人和万物。首先，讲仁爱就包含“爱己”的伦理基础。“己”也是“群”之一份子，讲“爱人”先要知道如何“爱己”，由此才能做到“泛爱众”。道家的“圣人自知，不自见；自爱，不自贵”，墨家的“臧之爱己，非为爱己之人也。厚不外己，爱无厚薄”，儒家的“知者使人知己，仁者使人爱己”，王安石的“爱己者，仁之端也，可推以爱人也”，明代丘浚的“天下之大，由乎一人之积，人人各得其分，人人各遂其愿，而天下平矣”，黄宗羲的“有生之初，人各自私也，人各自利也”等，都说明重视个体的生命和利益的重要性，更证明“爱己”也是讲仁爱的前提条件。人只有知道自己的需求、珍惜自己的生命、完善自己的能力，在生命体验中实现道德觉醒，才能真正立足于“人”即“仁”的立场上，思考和推演人与人、人与社会的关系，乃至人与自然，才能尽其所能为家人、他人和社会奉献爱心。新时代，中国共产党始终坚持人民群众的“生命至上”，认为“人的生命是最宝贵的，生命只有一次，失去不会再来”，“生命至上，集中体现了中国人民深厚的仁爱传统和中国共产党人以人民为中心的价值追求”，这也是新时代对讲仁爱思想的继承和发展。其次，讲仁爱的具体要求就是爱亲。爱别人先从学会爱家人和身边的人开始，“孝弟也者，其为仁之本与！”从爱自己推恩到爱家人、孝敬父母，才能学会在人际交往中尊老爱幼、亲仁善邻。再次，由爱亲扩展至爱人，爱朋友，包括爱陌生人。“是故仁者莫大于爱人”“以仁安人，以义正我”，也就是说，“一人之仁，不若一家之仁之为美；一家之仁，不若邻焉皆仁之为美；其邻之仁，不若里焉皆仁之为美也”。“仁者爱人”也是社会主义核心价值观“友善”的重要源泉。践行仁爱思想，做到与人为善、关爱他人，正是社会主义核心价值观的应有之义。最后，是爱万物，包括爱护动物与生态环境。孔子要求“钓而不纲，弋不射宿”，孟子主张“君子之于禽兽也，见其生，不忍见其死”；道家也主张关爱自然和万物，“爱人利物之谓仁”。在当前全球化背景下，生态危机也日益凸显其严峻性，为此，习近平特别重视生态文明建设，要求爱护自然、爱护万物。“‘万物各得其和以生，各得其养以成。’中华文明历来强调天人合一、尊重自然。”可见“泛爱群生”“万物一体”的理念，在今天对调节人与人、人与自然的和谐仍然具有积极的时代意义。

(2) From the perspective of the group, “championing benevolence” requires “the benevolent person loves others”

（二）从群体来看，“讲仁爱”就是要求“仁者爱人”

“The benevolent person loves others” means advocating mutual help among people and finding joy in helping others. With the development of the social division of labor, benevolence and loving-kindness have also become moral requirements for professional groups. Carrying forward the essence of traditional culture, “finding joy in helping others” is also a manifestation of “the benevolent person loves others” in the professional ethics of the New Era. For groups in different industries, practicing benevolence and love has more specific requirements. First, for those in government, practicing benevolence and love means requiring “governing with virtue” and “loving the people as one’s own children.” Confucius said: “Government is rectitude. If you lead with rectitude, who dares to be not upright?” and “He who governs by virtue is like the North Star, which remains in its place while all other stars revolve around it.” [87]87 "Taking the people as the foundation" (以民为本) is a traditional Chinese political concept, originating in the pre-Qin period, which holds that the people are the foundation of the state and that the ruler's legitimacy depends on securing the people's welfare. Mencius also proposed: “He who loves others is constantly loved by them; he who respects others is constantly respected by them,” and “If the ruler is benevolent, none will be unbenevolent; if the ruler is righteous, none will be unrighteous; if the ruler is upright, none will be crooked. Once the ruler is upright, the state is settled.” [88]88 The Second Integration (第二个结合) refers to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s fine traditional culture, as proposed by Xi Jinping. It is distinguished from the First Integration, which was the integration of Marxism with China’s concrete realities. Liu Xiang also called out: “One who is good at governing a state treats the people as a parent loves a child or an elder brother loves a younger brother.” [89] All require those in government to cherish the people, and officials to love the people as their own children. Xi Jinping has also repeatedly given instructions on clean governance for Party members and cadres, emphasizing that “Party members and cadres, especially leading cadres, must take strengthening moral cultivation as a very important required course in life, consciously draw nourishment from fine traditional Chinese culture, earnestly learn from the masses, seek to emulate the worthy at all times and in all places, strengthen self-discipline and accept external discipline with strict standards, and strive to win people’s hearts and achieve career success through the power of morality.” [90] Admonishing Party members and cadres to maintain close ties with the masses and address their hardships are all manifestations of the thought of “practicing benevolence and love” in the New Era. Second, for those in education, “the benevolent person loves others” means caring for and cherishing students. Mencius proposed: “There are those who are transformed like timely rain, those who achieve virtue, those who develop talents, those who answer questions, and those who are influenced privately. These five are the ways in which the gentleman teaches.” [91] Only by upholding a benevolent heart can a teacher truly accomplish the cultivation of students’ virtue and the shaping of their character. Yang Xiong believed that “a teacher is a model for others,” [92] and Han Yu stated at the beginning of his “On the Teacher”: “A teacher is one who transmits the Way, imparts knowledge, and resolves doubts.” [93] As a teacher who transmits the Way, imparts knowledge, and resolves doubts, one must certainly have love, kindness, and patience. On September 9, 2014, in his speech at a symposium with representatives of teachers and students of Beijing Normal University, Xi Jinping pointed out: “To be a good teacher, one

“仁者爱人”就是倡导人与人之间的相互帮助、助人为乐。随着社会分工的发展，仁心仁爱也成为对行业群体的道德要求。承接传统文化的精髓，“助人为乐”也是“仁者爱人”在新时代职业道德规范中的体现。而对于不同行业的群体，讲仁爱又有更具体的要求。首先，对于从政者，讲仁爱就是要求“为政以德”“爱民如子”。孔子说：“政者，正也。子帅以正，孰敢不正”“为政以德，譬如北辰居其所而众星共之。”孟子也提出，“爱人者，人恒爱之；敬人者，人恒敬之”“君仁，莫不仁；君义，莫不义；君正，莫不正。一正君而国定矣。”刘向也呼吁“善为国者，遇民如父母之爱子、兄之爱弟”。都要求从政者要爱护百姓，官员要爱民如子。习近平也多次对党员干部的廉政建设作出指示，强调“党员干部特别是领导干部务必把加强道德修养作为十分重要的人生必修课，自觉从中华优秀传统文化中汲取营养，老老实实向人民群众学习，时时处处见贤思齐，以严格标准加强自律、接受他律，努力以道德的力量去赢得人心、赢得事业成就。”告诫党员干部要密切联系群众、解决群众疾苦等，都是“讲仁爱”思想在新时代的体现。其次，对于从教者，“仁者爱人”就是要关心学生、爱护学生。孟子提出：“有如时雨化之者，有成德者，有达财者，有答问者，有私淑艾者。此五者，君子之所以教也”。教师唯有秉持仁爱之心，方能真正成就学生的德性培养与人格塑造。扬雄认为，“师者，人之模范也”，韩愈在《师说》开篇即言，“师者，所以传道受业解惑也”。作为传递授业解惑的老师，一定需要有爱心、善心和耐心。2014年9月9日，习近平在同北京师范大学师生代表座谈时的讲话中指出，“做好老师，要有仁爱之心。教育是一门‘仁而爱人’的事业，爱是教育的灵魂，没有爱就没有教育。好老师应该是仁师，没有爱心的人不可能成为好老师”。2023年9月9日，习近平在致全国优秀教师代表的信中，将“乐教爱生、甘于奉献的仁爱之心”作为教育家精神的要求，希望广大教师弘扬和践行，也说明“仁爱之心”对于教师职业道德要求的重要性。最后，为医者，“讲仁爱”就是要求“医者仁心”。孙思邈在《大医精诚》一书中写道：“见彼苦恼，若己有之，深心凄怆”“无欲无求，先发大慈恻隐之心，誓愿普救含灵之苦。”清初中医学家喻昌也倡导，“医，仁术也，仁人君子，必笃于情。”医生的职责就是救死扶伤，没有仁爱之心就无法履行自己的职责。2021年3月6日，习近平在看望参加全国政协十三届四次会议的医药卫生界教育界委员时的讲话中指出：“广大医务工作者要恪守医德医风医道，修医德、行仁术，怀救苦之心、做苍生大医，努力为人民群众提供更加优质高效的健康服务。”此外，对于各行各业的先进群体而言，“仁者爱人”也体现为一种奉献精神和牺牲精神。《论语·卫灵公》中要求，“志士仁人，无求生以害仁，有杀身以成仁”，《孟子·告子上》中主张：“生亦我所欲也，义亦我所欲也；二者不可得兼，舍生而取义者也。”对于志士仁人，“讲仁爱”就是在人民和国家利益受到威胁时，会毫不犹豫地选择舍生取义，用自己的生命捍卫人民和国家的尊严和利益。中国共产党自成立以来带领中国人民，以“‘为有牺牲多壮志，敢教日月换新天’的大无畏气概，书写了中华民族几千年历史上最恢宏的史诗。”新时代涌现出大批先进的共产党员，道德模范，见义勇为等英雄群体，其以一种爱民的情怀、不怕困难和牺牲的勇气，生动诠释了“仁者爱人”所追求的“无我大爱”的精神境界。

(3) From the perspective of the state, "emphasizing benevolence" requires "taking the people as the foundation" [87]87 "Taking the people as the foundation" (以民为本) is a traditional Chinese political concept, originating in the pre-Qin period, which holds that the people are the foundation of the state and that the ruler's legitimacy depends on securing the people's welfare.

（三）从国家来看，“讲仁爱”就是要求“以民为本”

First, from the perspective of state governance, championing benevolence means recognizing that “the people are the foundation of the state.” The “Songs of the Five Sons” in the *Book of Documents* contains the admonition, “The people are the foundation of the state; when the foundation is firm, the state is tranquil.” The “Xue Er” chapter of the *Analects* requires rulers to “guide a state of a thousand chariots by being respectful in handling affairs and trustworthy, frugal in expenditure and loving toward the people, and employing the people at the proper seasons.” The “Jin Xin II” chapter of *Mencius* contains the judgment, “The people are the most valuable; the altars of the soil and grain come next; the ruler is the least important.” The “Li Lou I” chapter of *Mencius* holds that “even with the Way of Yao and Shun, if one does not practice benevolent government, one cannot bring peace to the world.” The “Debate on Military Affairs” chapter of *Xunzi* argues that “those who love the people are strong; those who do not love the people are weak.” The “Universal Love III” chapter of *Mozi* hopes that “the old who have no wives or children may be supported and cared for to the end of their lives; the young, weak, and orphaned children who have no parents may be taken in and raised to adulthood.” Jia Yi, in his *New Book with Annotations*, put forward the requirement that “when one hears about governance, the people are the foundation of everything. The state takes them as its foundation, the ruler takes them as his foundation, and officials take them as their foundation.” Cheng Yi, in his “Memorial Submitted in Response to the Imperial Edict on Behalf of Lü Huishu,” pointed out: “The Way of governance takes following the people’s hearts as its foundation, enriching the people’s livelihood as its foundation, and ensuring peace without disturbance as its foundation.” The traditional cultural concepts of “practicing benevolent government” and “taking the people as the foundation” largely remained at the level of “people’s livelihood.” Due to the limitations of social history, “championing benevolence” did not become a universal reality; even the most basic issues of people’s livelihood were not properly resolved because of the constraints of the economic and political systems. Since its founding, the Communist Party of China has adhered to the purpose of serving the people wholeheartedly, always placing the people’s interests first. It has not only resolved the livelihood issue of “becoming prosperous” but has also realized political whole-process people’s democracy. It can be said that the establishment of the socialist system has not only materially resolved the livelihood issue of “taking the people as the foundation” but has also resolved the democratic issue of “the people as the foundation of the state.” The report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC pointed out, “We must adhere to a people-centered development philosophy. We must safeguard the fundamental interests of the people, improve their well-being, and continuously realize development for the people, development relying on the people, and development achievements shared by the people, so that the fruits of modernization benefit all the people more and more fairly.” At the same time, it stated that “all power in the state belongs to the people,” and that “we must uphold the principal position of the people, fully reflect the people’s will, protect the people’s rights and interests, and stimulate the people’s creative vitality.” These are not only an inheritance of the benevolent government’s thought of loving and enriching the people, but also an innovative development of the “taking the people as the foundation” thought in state governance on the basis of the Second Integration [88]88 The Second Integration (第二个结合) refers to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s fine traditional culture, as proposed by Xi Jinping. It is distinguished from the First Integration, which was the integration of Marxism with China’s concrete realities.. Furthermore, from the perspective of interaction between states, the “taking the people as the foundation” proposition of practicing benevolent government also helps promote peace and development in the international community. The core of “practicing benevolent government” is also opposition to war, advocacy of peace, and protection of the people’s lives and interests. The “Li Lou I” chapter of *Mencius* holds that “fighting for land, one kills people until the fields are filled; fighting for cities, one kills people until the cities are filled. This is what is called leading the land to devour human flesh, and the crime is not expiated even by death.” In 2013, Xi Jinping stated in his keynote speech at the Boao Forum for Asia: “China will adhere to the principle of building friendships and partnerships with its neighbors, consolidate friendly and neighborly relations, deepen mutually beneficial cooperation, and strive to make its own development better benefit neighboring countries.” This is because “being kind and good to one’s neighbors is a tradition of China since ancient times.” In the New Era, “to pass the torch of peace from generation to generation, to sustain the momentum of development, and to make the light of civilization shine brightly is the expectation of the people of all countries and the responsibility of our generation of political leaders. The Chinese solution is: to build a community with a shared future for mankind and achieve win-win and shared benefits.” Championing benevolence means advocating that “all under heaven are one family,” esteeming peace and goodwill, harmonizing all nations, and pursuing the Great Harmony, and longing for a beautiful world where “all under heaven is shared by all.” These concepts also provide an ideological foundation for the construction of a community with a shared future for mankind.

首先，从国家治理的角度，讲仁爱就是要认识到“民为邦本”。《尚书·五子之歌》就有“民惟邦本，本固邦宁”的告诫，《论语·学而》中要求治者，“道千乘之国，敬事而信，节用而爱人，使民以时”；《孟子·尽心下》中有“民为贵，社稷次之，君为轻”的论断，《孟子·离娄上》认为，“尧舜之道，不以仁政，不能平治天下”；《荀子·议兵》主张“爱民者强，不爱民者弱”。《墨子·兼爱下》希望“老而无妻子者，有所侍养以终其寿；幼弱孤童之无父母者，有所放依以长其身。”贾谊在《新书校注》中提出“闻之于政也，民无不为本也。国以为本，君以为本，吏以为本”的要求。程颐在《代吕晦叔应诏疏》中指出：“为政之道，以顺民心为本，以厚民生为本，以安而不扰为本。”传统文化的“施仁政”“以民为本”理念，基本上都停留在“民生”的问题上，“讲仁爱”由于社会历史的局限并没有成为普遍的现实，就连最基本的民生问题也由于经济体制、政治体制的限制没有得到应有的解决。中国共产党自成立以来就秉承全心全意为人民服务的宗旨，始终是把人民的利益放在第一位，不仅解决了“富起来”的民生问题，更是实现了政治上的全过程人民民主。可以说，社会主义制度的建立，不仅从物质上解决了“以民为本”的民生问题，更是解决了“民为邦本”的民主问题。党的二十大报告指出，“坚持以人民为中心的发展思想。维护人民根本利益，增进民生福祉，不断实现发展为了人民、发展依靠人民、发展成果由人民共享，让现代化建设成果更多更公平惠及全体人民”。同时提出，“国家一切权力属于人民”“坚持人民主体地位，充分体现人民意志、保障人民权益、激发人民创造活力”。这些不仅是对“仁政”的爱民、富民思想的继承，更是在“第二个结合”的基础上对“以民为本”思想在治国理政上的创新发展。除此之外，从国与国的交往而言，实施仁政的“以民为本”的主张也有助于推动国际社会的和平与发展。“施仁政”的核心也是反对战争，主张和平，保护百姓生命和利益。《孟子·离娄上》中认为，“争地以战，杀人盈野；争城以战，杀人盈城，此所谓率土地而食人肉，罪不容于死”。2013年，习近平在博鳌亚洲论坛会上的主旨演讲中就说道：“中国将坚持与邻为善、以邻为伴，巩固睦邻友好，深化互利合作，努力使自身发展更好惠及周边国家。”因为“亲仁善邻，是中国自古以来的传统”。在新时代，为了“让和平的薪火代代相传，让发展的动力源源不断，让文明的光芒熠熠生辉，是各国人民的期待，也是我们这一代政治家应有的担当。中国方案是：构建人类命运共同体，实现共赢共享。”讲仁爱就是讲求“天下一家”，崇尚和平友善、协和万邦、天下大同，憧憬“天下为公”的美好世界，这些观念也为人类命运共同体的构建提供了思想基础。

The thought of “championing benevolence” in traditional Chinese culture has continuously evolved and developed over the long course of history. Today, through creative transformation and innovative development, it has become a norm and standard for regulating the harmonious development of relationships between people, between people and things, between people and society, and between states. In the New Era, the fine tradition of “championing benevolence” will also provide a rich historical foundation for advancing Chinese-path modernization. Therefore, we must continue to deeply explore and promote the ideological essence of “championing benevolence” to gather spiritual strength for realizing the Chinese Dream.

中华传统文化的“讲仁爱”思想在历史的长河中不断发展演进，在今天经过创造性转化和创新性发展，已成为调节人与人、人与物、人与社会、国家与国家之间关系和谐发展的规范和准则。新时代，“讲仁爱”的良好传统也会为推进中国式现代化的建设提供丰厚的历史底蕴，因此，仍要深入挖掘和弘扬“讲仁爱”的思想精髓，为实现中国梦凝聚精神力量。

(The author is a professor and doctoral supervisor at the School of Marxism, Wuhan University.)

（作者系武汉大学马克思主义学院教授，博士生导师）

Online editor: Ma Jingren

网络编辑：马京仁