本文所评述的三种资产阶级伦理观,虽都是一些陈旧的货色,但在今天仍然有着一定的市场,特予发表,以供批判。“主观论”是一种彻头彻尾的主观唯心主义伦理观,其反动性一目了然。既然仅仅以一个人的主观信念和感觉作为道德评价的标准,那就必定要否认道德的社会基础和客观标准。宣扬这种伦理观的目的无非是为极端个人主义行为辩护,企图替帝国主义、殖民主义的罪行作出“合乎道德”的解释。“相对论”把道德看做是相对的东西,认为个人行为要服从他所属社会统治集团的利益。在“相对论”者看来,“一个属于纳粹集团的成员,如果他的社会相信他有责任去协助拷打和杀害犹太人的话,他就有责任这样做。”按此推论,岂不是过去封建统治阶级和现在帝国主义国家统治阶级的道德标准都应该肯定了吗?这当然是荒谬绝伦的。“客观论”一方面虚伪地承认“客观责任”,另方面又“同意一个人的主观责任总是照他相信是对的事情去做”。而这里所谓“客观责任”却是人和社会所不可知的,因此这种“理论”归根到底是用“主观责任”代替了“客观责任”。由此可见,这三种“理论”都是错误的,它们的说法不一,但同样都脱离了社会的经济基础和阶级关系来看道德,都抹煞了道德的阶级性和客观标准。本文作者在标榜对“相对论”和“主观论”批判的同时,鼓吹把“相对论”和“主观论”的一些“洞察”同“客观论”结合起来,这表明他的伦理观不过是各种资产阶级伦理学说的杂烩而已。 Although all the three bourgeois ethical ideas reviewed in this article are old-fashioned goods, they still have a certain market today for special publication. Subjective theory is an out-and-out subjective idealism ethical view, its reactionary at a glance. Since the assessment of one’s subjective beliefs and feelings is the standard of moral evaluation, we must deny the social foundation and objective criteria of morality. The purpose of this ethic is to justify extremist individualism in an attempt to make an “ethical” interpretation of the crimes of imperialism and colonialism. Relativity treats morality as something relative, believing that individual behavior obeys the interests of the social ruling clique to which he belongs. In the view of “relativityists”, “a member of the Nazi group has a duty to do so if his society believes he has a responsibility to assist in the torture and killing of the Jews.” According to this corollary, is it not the past feudal ruling class And should the moral standards of the ruling class in the imperialist countries now be affirmed? This is, of course, absolutely absurd. On the one hand, “objective theory” hypocritically recognizes “objective responsibility” and on the other hand “agrees that a person’s subjective responsibility always follows what he believes to be true.” However, the so-called “objective responsibility” here is unknown to both man and society. Therefore, this “theory” in the final analysis replaces “objective responsibility” with “subjective responsibility.” From these we can see that these three “theories” are all erroneous. They all differ in their opinions. However, they all disregard the economic foundation of society and the morality of class relations, thus deny the moral class and objective criteria. While advocating the criticisms of “relativity” and “subjectivity”, the author of the article advocates combining some “insights” of “relativity” and “subjectivity” with “objective theory”, which shows that his ethics is nothing but various Bourgeois ethical theory of the hodgepodge only.