Kant made a distinction between "internal freedom" and "external freedom", and he thereafter illustrated the difference between "duty of Virtue" and "duty of Right" on the basis of it. What duty of Virtue requires is pure motivation of an action, which means "to act only for the sake of duty". What duty of Right requires is the legality of an action. The above-mentioned distinction may be an important line for Chinese culture or society with high emphasis on virtue to transform its original attitude into emphasizing the spirit of "rule with law". That is, although it is necessary for us to require ourselves to act only for the sake of duty of Virtue, instead of equally requiring others, we may first judge whether their actions are legal or not. Only through profound self-reflection, someone may be conscious of whether his motivation of action is pure or not. In other words, demanding the purity of a motivation of acting only for the sake of duty belongs to self-disciplined territory. I believe the clarification on duty of Virtue and Right may give a reasonable response to the famous critique of "killing in the name of justice" made by Dai Zhen, Confucianist of the Qing dynasty, to criticize Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism. To judge people based on the legality of their external behaviors is in deference to their freedom of choice, which should be the foundation for a sound society. Such freedom may also be understood as the transcendental freedom, and through this aspect we can clarify the relationship between "inward cultivation" and "outward governance", between "rule with virtue" and "rule with law".