明末袁黃的《了凡四訓》幾乎成為新的道德典範，劉宗周害怕士人流於功利而著《人譜》與之相抗。二者在目的、修養方法上，呈現出極明顯的差異，但是都可視為當時的道德法典。《了凡四訓》、《人譜》思想的根本歧異在於對於義與命的認知不同。《了凡四訓》認為「義可造命」，即行善可獲致自身的幸福；《人譜》則主張道德與功利無關。這一個根本歧異，使袁黃修養論更注重人與社會的關係，但因訴諸天鑑，屬於他律道德，境界不高，但適用者眾。劉宗周休養論則講求道德自覺，屬自律道德，境界較高，但僅適用極少數的人。二者各有利弊，表面上水火不融的理論，其實卻是互補的「道德法典」。

“Liao-Fan's Four Lessons” by Yuan Huang in late Ming dynasty almost became a new moral code, while Liu Tsung Chou wrote “Jen Pu” for fear that the academia succumbed to the lure of fame and wealth. The two books manifest great diversity in terms of their goals and methods, yet both of them can be regarded as the moral code at the time. The fundamental difference of the thoughts of “Liao-Fan's Four Lessons” and “Jen Pu” is based on hteir different concepts of “Yi (morality)” and “Ming (fate)”. “Liao-Fan's Four Lessons” believes that “Yi can create Ming”, which is “doing charity will bring the happiness of one's own.” “Jen Pu” suggests that morality has nothing to do with fame and wealth. This fundamental difference results in Yuan Huang's emphasis on the relation between human beings and the society, conforming to the judgment of fate, belonging to implemented morality, which can be applied to the majority. Liu Tsung-Chou's moral theory stresses self-aware morality, belonging to the self-disciplined sphere--a higher level but can only be applied to very few people. There are both good and bad sides of the two philosophies; on the surface they seem to be contradictory, while in fact they are complementary moral codes.