道德真誠問題內嵌於早期儒家對「仁」的探討中。鑒於「名」是禮的抽象形式，孔子為規範行為的禮樂系統構築道德情感基礎——仁，將名—行一致的禮樂機制深化為名—行—心雙層一致的道德真誠機制。然而，孔子為等級名位系統構築道德之基時，「自我」的秩序角色先在於道德角色，二者均外在於「自我」，孔子並未論證道德為何是「自我」的應然選擇。對此，孟子將外在的道德之名轉化為內在的本然之「性」，實際上是以一種內在的道德角色塑造「自我」——「心」，從而證成道德是人的本然選擇。這一思路與孔子「正名」思想前後相續，區別在於道德來源是以外在的「名」還是以內在的「性」呈現。

The issue of moral sincerity is embedded in the early Confucian exploration of “ren”. Given that “name” is the abstract form of ritual, Confucius constructed the moral emotional basis of “ren” for the ritual system that regulates external behavior, and deepened the ritual mechanism of name-act consistency into the moral sincerity mechanism of name-act-heart double layer consistency. However, when Confucius constructs the foundation of morality for the hierarchical name system, the orderly role of the “self” precedes the moral role, and both are external to the “self”; Confucius does not argue why morality is the natural choice of the “self”. In this regard, Mencius transforms the external name of morality into the internal “nature”, in effect shaping the “self” with an internal moral role, thus proving that morality is the natural choice of man. The difference lies in whether the source of morality is presented in the external “name” or in the internal “nature”.