國內學術界流行一種看法，認為德國社會學家韋伯所說的「存心倫理學」和「責任倫理學」是相互對立的，而康德底倫理學是存心倫理學之典型。有人據此反對同時藉康德底「道德自律」及「存心倫理學」與韋伯底「責任倫理學」來詮釋儒家思想。本文透過相對文獻的分析證明：韋伯對存心倫理學的批評並不適用於康德底「存心倫理學」。康德底「存心倫理學」與韋伯所謂的「責任倫理學」不但不形成對立，甚至可以涵蘊它。本文也指出：以孔、孟為代表的儒家主流思想基本上包含兩個倫理學面向，這兩個面向分別對應於康德底「存心論理學」與韋伯底「責任倫理學」。

　　　　　It is a popular opinion among scholars that Max Weber's "Gesinnungsethik" and "Verantwortungsethik" are contradictory to each other, and Kant's ethics is often regarded as a typed of the former. Therefore, it is viewed as self-contradictory, to interpret Confucianism in terms of Kant's "moral autonomy" and "Gesinnungsethik," together with Weber's "Verantwortungsethik". In this paper, by an analysis of Kant's and Weber's texts, I demonstrate that Weber's criticism of "Gesinnungsethik" is not suitable for Kant's "Gesinnungsethik". Not only Kant's "Gesinnungsethik" and Weber's "Verantwortungsethik" are logically compatible, the former even implies the latter. Finally, I show that the Confucianism, as Confucius and Mencius advocate, has two dimensions which correspond to Kant's "Gesinnungsethik" and Weber's "Verantwortungsethik" respectively.