國內學術流行一種看法，認為德國社會學家韋伯所說的「存心倫理學J和「責任倫耳里學」是相互對立的，而龐德底倫理學是存心倫理學之典型。有人據此反對同時籍龐德底「道德自律」及「存心倫軍史學J與韋伯底「責任倫理學」來詮釋儒家思想。本文透過對相關文獻的分析澄明:韋伯對存心倫理學的批評並不適用於龐德底「存心倫理學」。龐德底「存心倫理學」與韋伯所謂的「責任倫理學」不但不形成對立，甚至可以涵越它。本文也指出以孔、孟為代表的儒家主克思想基本上包含兩個倫理學面向，這兩個面向分別對應於龐德底「存心倫理學」與韋伯底「責任倫理學」。

Itis a popular opinion among scholars that Max Weber'swesinnungsethik" and “Verantwortungsethik"are contradictory to each other， and Kant's ethics is often regarded as a type of the former. Therefore， it is viewed as self-contradictory， to interpret Confucianism in terms of Kant's noral autonomy" and esinnun magse thiik，\" together with Weber's“Verantwortungsethik". In this paper， by an analysis of Kant's and Weber's texts， I demonstrate that Weber's criticism of esinnungsethik" is not suitable for Kant'swesinnungsethik". Not only KantyGesinnungsethik" and Weber'serantwortungsethik" are logically compatible， the former even implies the latter. Finally， I show that the Confucianism， as Confucius and Mencius advocate， has two dimensions which correspond to Kant's"Gesinnungsethik" and Weber's“Verantwortungsethik" respectively.