论文部分内容阅读
儒家对复仇的主张,不是仅有《公羊》一家之说,《穀梁》另有一套言之成理的复仇观。根据《穀梁》对《春秋》经文的解读意见,不仅复九世之仇的齐襄公不值得推崇,而且对背负父仇的鲁庄公该如何作为也不是简单的拥护或斥责。怨仇不是证成复仇行为的充足理由。要判断复仇的是非,离不开现实情境的考察。说复仇是一项人权、善、美德或价值,都是不可取的。
Confucianism’s idea of revenge is not the only one of the “Rams,” but “Gu Liang” has another set of justified views of revenge. According to Gu Liang’s interpretation of The Spring and Autumn Period, not only is Qi Xianggong, who is the enemy of the past, unworthy of his esteem, but it also does not mean simply advocating or denouncing Lu Zhuang as father and hatred. Resentment is not a sufficient justification for revenge. To judge the revenge of right and wrong, can not be separated from the reality of the investigation. It is not advisable to say that revenge is a human right, goodness, virtue or value.