作為典型的中華舊律條款，「子孫違犯教令」的存廢問題，曾在清末法律改革時期引發激烈的爭論。經過考察發現，在長期的法史演進中，該條款經常與不孝罪聯繫在一起。唐律在繼承往古法律的基礎上，把「不孝」歸屬於「十惡」條款，將「供養有闕」行為采列其中，同時在「訟」律下收載「子孫違犯教令」條款，奠定了二者並立的法律格局。在此格局下，「不孝」作為一種罪名集合，並不直接涉及具體量刑；「子孫違犯教令」（包括供養有闕）載在刑律，與前者既有密切關聯，又實有不可混淆之處。在司法實踐中，雖然沒有對這種成文法律的細微差別給以特別措意，卻同時兼顧道德和法律兩個層面，既講求通過法律手段維護和穩固家庭倫理秩序，又將違反道德和法律的、有瑕疵的教令和供養行為予以區別，進行相應的法律制裁，追求個案的實質正義。進而或可認為，清末保守派認識對於中國家庭倫理秩序（道德）的自信，以及對於個案司法實質正義的堅持，二者結合起來，形成了一種根深蒂固的想法，相信關於家庭倫理關係的法律內容仍舊可以在社會新舊交替的時刻部分保留，並希圖藉此煥發帝國的榮光。

As a typical article in Chinese ancient code, the adoption or abolishment of the “Disobedience of parental teaching and orders by descendants” had caused fierce arguments on the legal reform period in the late Qing Dynasty. It’s found through investigation that, on the long-term evolution process of legal history, this article was often connected with the offense of ill-piety. Based on the inheriting of past laws, the Tang Code classified the “offense of ill-piety” as the “Top Ten Evils” Articles, and listed the “absence of maintenance for one’s parents and grandparents” into it, and also included the article of “Disobedience of parental teaching and orders by descendants” under Dou Song, which laid the legal arrangement of co-existence of the two. Under this arrangement, “ill-piety” became a collection of offenses, and didn’t directly involve specific sentences; the “Disobedience of parental teaching and order by descendants” (including the “Absence of maintenance for one’s parents and grandparents”) was listed in criminal law, which was closely connected with the former, however, there was indeed differences among the two. In judicial practices, though there wasn’t any special statement on the subtle differences of the enacted laws, both moral and legal levels were considered, as familial ethical orders were maintained and kept steady with legal measures, and at the same time the immoral and illegal order-taking and parental raising conducts were differentiated from the flawed ones to be given corresponding legal sanctions, so as to pursue the essential justice of specific cases. Or to be exact, the conservatives on the late Qing Dynasty’s confidence on Chinese familial ethical orders (morality) and their insistence on the essential judicial justice on specific cases, were united together, to form a deeply-rooted thought that believed the legal contents on familial ethical relations could still be partially retained on the period of society’s transition form the old to the new, and hoped the empire’s glory could be thus irradiated.