王霸之辨是孟子政治思想的核心之一，在後世引起了不少討論與爭辯。其中一項重要的爭論點是︰王霸之分究竟是同質的還是異質的？本文作者認為︰孟子將王霸之分視為異質的，因為其王霸之辨是其義利之辨在政治領域中的邏輯延伸。孟子的王霸之辨代表一種「存心倫理學」的觀點，這種觀點雖強調「善」之異質性，但仍可將功利原則視為衍生的道德原則。因此，作者認為︰在朱子與陳亮辯論漢高祖與唐太宗的歷史地位時，朱子較陳亮更能把握孟子王霸之辨的本義。面對陳亮以道之現實性相質疑，朱子亦提出「與天理暗合」之說，以安頓漢高祖、唐太宗的歷史地位。可惜的是，朱子未能像康德、黑格爾那樣，由此進一步正視人類的私欲對歷史發展的推動力，不但未能盡釋後人之疑，亦使孟子政治思想中的一個重要面向隱而不彰。

　　　　　The distinction between the “kingly way” (wang tao) and the “hegemonic way” (pa tao), a focal point of Mencius' political philosophy, has incited various discussions and disputes. A major controversy, among others, involves the following question: whether this distinction is a matter of degree or a matter of essence. This author proposes the latter, because such a distinction is logically implicated in Mencius' differentiation between “rightness” (i) and “profit” (li). Mencius' distinction between the kingly way and the hegemonic way denotes a viewpoint of “Gesinnungs-ethik,” which, while presupposing the heterogeneity of the “good,” may involve the principle of utility as a derivative moral principle. In the debate between Chu Hsi and Ch'en Liang over the historical status of Han Kao-tsu and T'ang T'ai-tsung, therefore, Chu Hsi better uncovered the connotation of Mencius' distinction between the kingly way and the hegemonic way. Confronted with Ch'en Liang's challenge in terms of the historical actuality of “tao,” Chu Hsi argued that the deeds of Han Kao-tsu and T'ang T'ai-tsung had already embodied the “tao” in a tacit manner. Nevertheless, unlike Kant and Hegel, Chu Hsi did not move forward to deal with the issue of human desires as a motive force of history. Chu thus left hidden an important dimension in Mencius' political philosophy, which has continued to arouse queries and debates.