论“父为子隐，子为父隐，直在其中”           黄启祥

在过去十多年间，学术界围绕“父子相隐”问题就儒家伦理展开了一场学术争鸣。一方认为，父子相隐合乎天理人情；另一方则认为，父子相隐违法悖德。双方对父子相隐的评价势不并立，但对父子相隐的理解却是相同的，即都认为父子相隐是互隐其恶，都认为孔子把亲亲隐恶视为“直”德。但细致地考察《论语》以及相关文献则发现，上述理解乃是对孔子的一个误读。孔子所谓“父为子隐，子为父隐”并非相互隐恶，而是意指正义的家庭属性和主动的道义担当。“父子相隐，直在其中”，并非主张徇情枉法或漠视社会公德，而是旨在提示一条破解“孝（慈）义两难”问题的德性之路。

On “A Father Screens His Son, and a Son His Father,

Which Incidentally Does Involve a Sort of Uprightness”

Huang Qixiang

In the past ten years, there has been a debate among scholars about the issue “a father screens his son, and a son his father”. One side argued that “a father screens his son, and a son his father” is natural to human beings; the other side argued that they are against the law and contrary to morality. Both sides stand opposite each other on the issue, but their understandings of its meaning are the same. Both hold that “a father screens his son” means that a father covers up his son’s crime, and the same to “a son screens his father”. Both maintain that Confucius call such behavior a sort of uprightness. If we read The Analects more carefully, we will find that such an understanding is a misunderstanding. What Confucius wants to say is not that a father covers up his son’s crime, or that a son his father’s crime, but that a father should take the blame for his son, or a son for his father. Confucius does not propose abusing the law and practicing favoritism, or disregarding social ethics, but indicates an answer for the ethical dilemma of whether or not a father should sacrifice himself for his criminal son, or a son his father.