本研究的主要目的，是要從臺灣與美國大學生對於「實踐義務」和「違反道德」 兩類問題的反應，突顯出儒家思想倫理觀與 Kohlberg 之「後俗規道德」的差異。西方個人 主義的倫理觀認為：個人到了道德發展的最高階段，應當會採取普遍的正義原則。儒家倫理 觀所提倡的「庶人倫理」，在「程序正義」方面強調「尊尊原則」；在「分配正義」方面強 調是「親親原則」。當親人的作為違反「不作為」的「消極義務」時，個人應當盡力加以維 護。本研究的結果顯示：臺灣大學生和美國大學生在判斷自己對他人所應踐行的「積極義務 」時，同樣都認為：對待與自己較為親近的父母、配偶、子女和家人應當採取義務奉獻的原 則；相反地，對於與自己較疏遠的朋友、同事、陌生人和競爭者，則適用公平對待的原則。 兩群體之間，只有量的差異。但是在判斷違反道德的行為時，臺灣大學生和美國大學生的反 應卻有明顯的差異：當道德判斷涉及未盡到對家人的「積極義務」時，兩組大學生都會考慮 行為者與自己的關係，而作出錯誤程度不等的評分。但是就違反「消極義務」，即侵犯他人 權利的行為而言，美國大學生並不會因為行為者與自己的關係而影響到對該行為之錯誤程度 的評定；相反地，臺灣大學生在判斷侵犯個人權利的行為時，卻會考慮行為者與自己的關係 親疏遠近，而作出不同的判斷。

　　　　　The major purpose of this study is to distinguish the distinctive features between Confucian ethics of ordinary people and Kohlberg's post-conventional morality. The study compared American and Taiwanese college students' responses to items about practicing positive duties to others and judging the immorality of violating the negative duties done by others. The results indicated that both groups were obligated in a descending order to assume positive duties to their parents, spouse, children, and relatives. They also believed that the equity rule should be applied to friends, colleagues, strangers, and competitors. On these two dimensions, the two cultural groups were different in extent only. However, when judging the wrongness of not assuming positive duties to family members done by other, Taiwanese students tended to take the relationships between the actor and the judge into account. In case of evaluating others' misbehaviors of violating negative duties, Taiwanese students were much influenced by his interpersonal relationships with the actor, while American students were not.