假若傳授道德戒律與培育德性是道德教育的其中一項任務的話，那麼這些戒律與德性通常被預期為具有普遍意義的。然而，在甚麼意義下，道德的普遍性可以被肯定及接受？道德的普遍性受到兩方面的質疑。一、是否有適用於任何時代與地域的道德？二、縱使建立了不為特定時空所限的道德， 這種普遍的道德是否可欲？對於後者，Bauman 以一種後現代觀點予以否定。他的理由是：每個道德判斷都是獨特的，每名道德主體都是不可取代的，人與他人的關係是不對稱的，因此，不能對任何人都作出一致一律的道德要求。他認為，追求道德的普遍性是現代思想家的虛妄夢想，後現代主義必須加以戮破。如此，我們 -- 不論作為道德哲學研究者還是德育的推展者 -- 面對的困局：一方面我們強調道德的相互性 (如互相尊重、互愛互助 )，此被理解為普遍性的一個面向；另一方面我們要維持道德的主體性，使道德不致淪為平等主義式的命令。本文試圖藉著分析「普遍性」一概念，以及對道德各層面的劃分，為此困局尋求一出路，並進而點示出道德教育在不同層面上應用的偏重。

　　　　　Moral maxims are supposed to be universal, but in what sense is their universality acceptable? The universality of morality is facing two challenges: 1.Are there any moral maxims applicable at all time and place? 2. Even if a morality free from spacio-temporal restrictions can be discovered, is such an universal morality desirable? Bauman gives these two questions a negative answer from a post-modern point of view. He claims that each moral judgement is unique, every moral agent is irreplaceable, and the relationship between one person and another is asymmetrical, therefore, it is not appropriate to ask all people to bear the same responsibility. Seeking for moral universality is a dream of modern philosophers, he indicates, and should be debunked by postmodernists. In this respects, we--whether as moral philosophers or moral educators--are trapped by a dilemma: we uphold reciprocity (e.g. mutual respect) which is understood as a manifestation ofuniversality on the one hand, and on the other we insist on moral subjectivity so that moral maxims whould not become egalitiarian commands. In this paper, I try to review the concept of "universality" and furthermore, distinguish different levels of morality. By so doing, I wish the dilemma in question can be resolved and the varied emphases of moral education on various levels can be shown.