天伦和人伦共生伦理永恒——秦汉传统中基于发生角度的伦理分类

天伦、人伦之分最晚始于秦汉，两者在彼此对应中时被混用。从发生角度而言，天伦是天生的伦理，人伦是人为的伦理。天伦、人伦同气分形，共生中国人的伦理永恒、伦理信仰：天伦同气，因血缘而在代代传承中贯通有限生命，内生诚信，分形人伦；人伦基于诚信，为各自目的，从血缘和天伦向外全方位分形为姻缘、情缘、地缘、业缘、神缘、网缘等，使夫妻、朋友及各种职业伦理、社会伦理视需要和可能而及时结合或解散。伦理永恒是中国人的永恒，内化为伦理信仰，与有关因素共生，永葆中华文明生生不息，迥异于世界其他几大文明的命运与其宗教信仰的关系。敦睦伦理，消除伦理危机，关系到国家长治久安、文明生生不息，社会各界责任重大，国家的伦理责任更为重大。

Natural and Artificial Ethical Relations Make Chinese Ethical Immortality: A Phylogeny-based Ethical Classification in Qin and Han Dynasties

This paper introduces for the first time some key issues such as ″the classification of ethical relations,″ ″Chinese ethical immortality″ and ″Chinese type of faith,″ vitalize the tradition that has sorted ethical relations into Natural Relations (Tianlun) and Artificial Relations (Renlun) since the Qin and Han dynasties, and carry forward the traditional wisdom that interprets how the same root branches out into different forms.  The paper attempts to trace the origins of the classification of ethical relations. Tianlun and Renlun correspond to different phenomena and categories: Tianlun refers to the natural ethical relations, and Renlun refers to the artificial relations. They started in Qin and Han Dynasties, or maybe even earlier, but are still full of vitality. This paper tries to prove such correspondences, clear up the confusions，define their connotations, and develop their denotations. Based on the fact that Tianlun and Renlun evolved from the same root, we will first try to demonstrate the immortality of Chinese ethics: Tianlun originated from the ethical relations between parent and child and between brother and sister of the same strain. Tianlun evolved into Renlun, passes down from generation to generation and connects all transitory lives. Eternity is born in this experience. Renlun is based on honesty and serves its own purposes. Consanguinity and Tianlun branch out into relations of the married couple, lovers, professions, religions, online relationships and so on. Based on necessity and possibility, such relations (husband and wife, foster parent and child, friends and all professional and social ethics) may be formed or dissolved. The relationships can be intimate, somewhat intimate and loose. All Renlun returns to Tianlun and both are eventually assimilated into immortality. Tianlun and Relun co-produce Chinese ethical immortality. The immortality of Chinese ethical relations is typically Chinese: it is realistic in contrast to faramita; it is empirical in contrast to transcendental; it is endogenous, transcending life and death, in contrast to the Christian God, Islamic Allah or Buddhist Buddha. In history, it has been accompanied by many other factors in the continuation of civilization and the lasting stability of the country. In reality, it faces many challenges which need to be studied and answered. The classification of Tianlun and Renlun involves a series of vital issues that have only been mentioned, yet not fully studied in the previous researches. First, in addition to phylogeny, the approaches to ethical classification also include links, fields, content, ranking, space-time, real-virtual and other dimensions, each of which has many levels and phases, developing and co-developing mutual ethical restrictions. Second, in the history of ideology, Renlun (according to Mencius) came before Tianlun (in Gongyang Zhuan and Guliang Chuan). Their orders of occurrence should be identified and sorted. Third, Tianlun and Renlun have brought the focus of the nature-human relationship onto ″Lun,″ or ethical relationship. Is there any major implication here? If yes, then what it is? What relationship existed between Tianlun and Renlun, nature and human, Tao of nature and humanity? Fourth, both Tianlun and Renlun have their ethical constraints on ethical entities, societies and countries. What are their purposes, and what is their mechanism? What are their relationships to benevolence and justice, or between loving relatives? What are their relationships to the loyalty of subjects to their monarch, or between righteousness and family loyalty or between righteousness and profit? Fifth, how could the origin, dimension, characteristics, mechanism and functions of the immortality of Chinese ethical relations be internalized into traditional Chinese faith? Is the immortality in traditional Chinese faith, being realistic, empirical and endogenous, still alive and well? Could they co-produce a modern Chinese belief in combination with other factors? Sixth, what is the realistic vitality of the above factors? If they change with respect to ethical differentiation, how would they change, and what is their deeper influence on the present social entities? These questions all need to be clarified.