儒家哲學乃道德取向，而道德是實踐的。道德實踐的功能在使個人安身立命，使社會安和樂利。儒家至聖先師孔子，就能在實踐的修德進路中，把個人的完美，定位在「悅」的心境中，而將群體的完善，定位在「樂」的氛圍中。 《論語》開宗明義就指出：「學而時習之，不亦悅乎；有朋自遠方來，不亦樂乎」(學而篇)。 自己單獨學習，心中愉「悅」，與朋友交開，心中快「樂」。儒家入世的精神，完成「悅樂」的生命於今生救世；基督宗教關懷來生來世的永福，因而把「悅樂」不但定位在今生今世，也定位在末來的天國。 新約聖經中，耶穌基督的話：「汝等當悅樂，因天國賞報既豐且厚！」(馬太福音五章十二節)。 康德哲學的精華，在設法康立道德哲學，其墓碑上的「穹蒼繁星在我上，道德法則存我心」(Der gestirnte Himmel ueber mir，das moralische Gesetz in mir)。康德哲學中「天人之際」也就媒介於其心中的「道德法則」。 如果比照儒家的道德功能的「悅樂」心境，康德是在形上基礎上著力而不若儒家的實際取向，著重道德實踐之後的成果。一個人心境悅樂，大可推論出其道德情操；道德情操可以，而且唯有「悅樂」的心境來証成。 吾人在康德的整個生平中，真不易找到「悅樂」的具體事跡；甚至，在其全部著作中，也找不有關「悅樂」體驗的陳述；有的，盡是對「悅樂」概念的分析；也即是說，康德把「悅樂」看成為純理論的，而不是具體實踐的。這種情形，或許就會使人懷疑，究竟康德的哲學，是否為西洋哲學諸子中，最適宜拿來與儒家作比較的對象，更遑論康德與儒家相互補足了。當然，如果認為哲學的理論，可以補哲學實踐的不足；而不是反過來，以實踐補理論的不足，作為順理成章的思想進路。這樣，吾人的說法就應該是儒家的實踐，可以補康德哲學理論的不足；而不是康德可以補儒家的不足了。 本論有嘗試以「道德」概念為核心，從儒家的倫理道德的實踐，以及基督的宗教道德的體驗，來探討彼等「悅樂」的心境，以與康德的無上命令的「道德」，以及由這「道德理論」所開展的探討，作某些方面的比較；希翼能從中對康德哲學的再認識，再評價。

　　　　　Confucianism is morally oriented, while morality is practical. The function of moral practice is to enable individuals to make a life for themselves and create a safe and prosperous society. Therefore, with a practical approach, Confucius defined the personal sense of perfection as "pleasure" and the collective sense of perfection as "delight." Confucian Analects (Lun Yu) begins with "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application? Is it not delightful to have friends coming from distant quarters?" Learning on one's own is a "pleasure," while associating with friends is "delight." The Confucian secularism is to gain "pleasure and delight" in this life, while Christianity is concerned with everlasting blessing. Therefore "pleasure and delight" are to be achieved not only in this life but also later in heaven. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ said: "Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you" (Mathew 5:12). The essence of Kant's philosophy is the effort to build up the moral philosophy. The epigraph on his tombstone is: "Der gestirnte Himmel ueber mir, das moralische Gesetz in mir" (Stars ahead and moral law within). In Kant's philosophy, the distinction and crossing between the "thing-in-itself" and the limited being of mankind are his moral laws within. In comparison with the "pleasure and delight" as a moral function of Confucianism, Kant was concentrated on the metaphysical foundation rather than the Confucian practical orientation and emphasis on the results of moral practice. We can certainly figure out one's morality from his or her pleasure and delight; morality can and only can be illustrated through "pleasure and delight." We can hardly any stories about "pleasure and delight" throughout Kant's life; we can't even find any statements about the experience of "pleasure and delight" in all his works. What we do find is nothing but analyses about the concepts of "pleasure and delight," that is, Kant sees "pleasure and delight" in a theoretical rather than practical fashion. This fact certainly makes one wonder if Kant's philosophy is the best one of all western philosophies to be compared with Confucianism, let alone supplementing one another with the latter. Of course, if we see the idea that philosophical theories supplement philosophical practices rather than the other way around as the right approach, we should say: Confucian practice can supplement Kantian theory, rather than the other way around. In this paper, we try to take "morality" as the key to approach "pleasure and delight" in relation to the practice of Confucian ethic morality and the experience of Christian religious morality. Then we can compare "pleasure and delight" with the Kant's categorical imperative "morality" and the exploration set out from this "moral theory." As a result, we hope to re-recognize and re-evaluate Kant's philosophy.