【摘要】 林宏星教授的评论，虽然着眼于荀子个案，但实际涉及的是一个一般性的政治哲学理论问题：政治义务的证成是否可以离开道德？对此，林教授的回答是否定的，他对笔者的不满亦由此衍生。他对政治义务的理解存在某种混淆：政治义务的正当性，并不意味着这种义务是无条件的、决定性的。即便人们因为道德理由而拒绝履行政治义务，也不能因此得出结论说：政治义务没有其正当性。政治义务的正当性不应由于存在其上的道德义务而受质疑。李勇的评论由批判与建构两方面组成，论文的前半部分批判地考察了笔者关于赡养义务的论证，认为笔者通过权利论和感恩论来讨论赡养义务是不成功的；论文的后半部分提出新的论证——关系论证——为赡养义务进行辩护，附带讨论了要不要赡养问题父母的问题。检视李勇的关系论证，我们发现，这个论证除了存在概念不清的问题，在核心部分亦未能真正超出感恩论的思路。如果亲子关系像一般人理解的那样，是指生物学意义上的关系，那么亲子关系本身并不能为赡养义务提供辩护。如果亲子关系像李勇实际理解的那样，其实是指一种后天形成的施爱—受爱关系，那么这个论证毋宁是在重复感恩论的教义。更多还原

【Abstract】 Although Professor Lin Hongxing’s comments focus on the case of Xunzi, they actually involve a general theoretical question of political philosophy: can the justification of political obligations leave morality? In this regard, Professor Lin’s answer is negative, and his dissatisfaction with the author is derived from this. Lin’s understanding of political obligations is somewhat confused: the legitimacy of political obligations does not mean that such obligations are unconditional and decisive. Even if people refuse to perform their political obligations for moral reasons, they cannot conclude that political obligations have no legitimacy. The legitimacy of political obligations should not be questioned because of the existence of moral obligations. Li Yong’s comments are composed of criticism and construction. The first half of the paper critically examined the author’s argument on the maintenance obligation, and believed that it was unsuccessful for the author to discuss the maintenance obligation through the theory of rights and gratitude. The second half of the paper puts forward a new argumentthe relationship argument-to defend the duty of support, and discusses the question of whether to support parents. Examining Li Yong’s relationship argument, we found that, in addition to the problem of unclear concepts, this argument did not really go beyond the idea of gratitude in the core part. If the parent-child relationship, as commonly understood, refers to the relationship in the biological sense, then the parent-child relationship itself cannot defend the maintenance obligation. If the parent-child relationship, as Li Yong actually understood, actually refers to an acquired lover-beloved relationship, then this argument would rather repeat the doctrine of gratitude.更多还原