「存心倫理學」、「形式倫理學」與「自律倫理學」是康彿倫理學經常被貼上的標籤， 康德本人從未使用這三個語詞來指稱他的倫理學系統，但是它們在康德的著作中都有根據。 後人使用這三個標籤來指稱康德倫理學時，或涵有肯定之意，或表示批評之意，由此衍生出 不同的涵義。由於這些涵義混淆不清，引發許多無謂的爭論。在當代中國哲學，牟宗三先生 藉康德的「自律」概念來詮釋儒家思想，亦引起了類似的爭論。本文試圖從詮釋學的角度將 這三個概念在康德倫理學系統中的涵羲與它們作為哲學概念應有的涵義區別開來，並說明它 們彼此的關係。透過概念之釐清，我們不但可以顯示哲學概念在運用上的詮釋學面向，也可 以解決上述的爭論。

　　　　　"Gesinnungsethik," "formal ethics, "and "ethics of autonomy" are the terms by which Kant's ethics has often been characterized. All these terms are traceable to Kant's works. althouth he has never used them to denote his ethical system. But as marks of Kant's ethics, these terms are ambiguous: they may be used either positively or negatively. Such ambiguity has given rise to unnecessary controversies in the West. Since Prof. Mou Tsung-san interprets Confucianism in terms of Kant's concept of "moral autonomy," such controversy can also be found in contemporary Chinese philosophy. From a hermeneutic point of view, this paper attempts to analyse the meanings of these terms as Kant's ethical notions and as general philosophical concepts. Moreover, this paper aims at not only shedding new light on the hermeneutic dimension in the use of philosophical concepts, but also clarifying the above- mentioned controversies.