本文旨在分析中國無政府主義如何建構倫理方面的建設性理論。無論西方還是中國，無政府主義（Anarchism）的主要作用在於強烈的批判性，而至於其建設性理論，往往被視為烏托邦。可是，如果當時的無政府主義者真正相信「烏托邦」的到來是可能的話，我們必須要問：「烏托邦」為何能夠成立？我們探索其理論依據之後，才能評斷它是否為「烏托邦」，也才能夠瞭解其理論缺陷何在。我們在中國無政府主義的倫理觀上也可見這種批判性與建設性的兩種層面。在中國無政府主義者的言論中，針對三綱、宗教等「偽道德」的批判尤為激烈，有時甚至出現連「道德」本身都否定的言語。然而，此時他們所說的「道德」實際上是作為外在規範的道德，而他們拒絕外在道德規範的結果，倫理秩序變得更加依賴每個人的內在道德性，由此他們呈現出道德主義者之面貌。中國無政府主義論及人性的時候，一方面利用西方科學知識主張科學式倫理觀，另一方面依然依照傳統思維表達以「無我」、「良心」等概念為核心的倫理觀。本文針對後者的傳統思維進行分析時發現，其倫理思維為解消衝突而融合為一體的一元思維，進而與以多樣衝突為前提的現實之間出現隔閡。在此可見中國無政府主義的烏托邦性質。

This essay intends to analyze how Chinese anarchists constructed ethical
theory for their ideal society. The most influential aspects of anarchism are its criticisms of social constraints. Its constructive aspects are conversely generally regarded as utopian. But, if the Chinese anarchists were convinced that “utopia” was feasible, we must inquire why and how it was to be realized. By gaining a fuller understanding of the plans of the Chinese anarchists, we can probe their theoretical defects and judge whether these plans really were “utopian.” In the ethical thoughts in Chinese anarchists, we also find both critical and constructive aspects. They criticized san’gang (three bonds) and religion harshly as “fake morals,” and sometimes even denied the existence of “morality” itself.
However, the “morality” they were referring to actually meant the moral
coerciveness from outside, and since they refused all outside restraints, order in future society was all the more dependent upon “inside” morality.
When Chinese anarchists referred to ethics, they made maximum use of scientific knowledge and insisted on moral improvement by the way of science.
On the other hand, they also used such concepts as wuwo (anatta) or liangxin (goodness of mind) derived from traditional ways of thinking. This combination of the two aspects often led to intellectual incoherence. This paper is mainly concerned with the traditional aspects. If finds that the thinking of the anarchists was mono-dimensional, that is, they broke the existing diversity in the ethical order for the purpose of solving social conflicts. Therefore, the reality (diversity of human existence) and the theory (uniformity) are separated, and in the end Chinese anarchism shows its idealistic character.