本文以歌絲嘉的道德價值根源理論所標示的三個條件來分析荀子之道德哲學的形態。依據孔子之把禮樂攝歸於仁，而以仁心之安不安作為道德根源所在，孔子之倫理學形態乃是內在論。荀子之道德價值根源不出自性、心或天，因為荀子之性之生而自然要求無窮的情欲的滿足，乃是惡的根源；心具有知道、可道、守道和指導其他官能的能力，但亦非禮義的根源。禮義乃出自聖王之特殊的才能所創造。荀學之道德價值之論述有無窮後退之弊，而且禮義也不是一般百姓所能享有的創造。對一般人而言，禮義法度乃是外在的，是要學習的，故荀子之倫理學形態為外在論。孟子之以仁義禮智等一切道德價值均出於不忍人之心，是以孟子亦為內在論，可以論定為繼承孔子的義理系統。本文認為孔孟之為內在論，與康德或休謨之內在論不同，特標之為道德意識的內在論，以示與康德和休謨相異之特色所在。

In this paper, I employ the three conditions of Christine Korsgaard’s theory of sources of normativity for the analysis of Hsün Tzu’s ethics. Since Confucius has established that ren is the moral source of rituals (li) and musical operas (yue) that is, all kinds of mundane values and the mind of ren is the source of moral normativity. Hence, Confucian ethics is a kind of internalism. According to Hsün Tzu, human nature, human mind and Heaven are not the source of moral normativity. Li and I as social constitutions are created by the special talent of the sage king. Common people could not share such creation but follow them. Hence, for the common folks, moral principles are external guiding principles and need be learned. Therefore, Hsün Tzu’s ethics is externalism. As Mencius takes our unbearable mind of other’s sufferings as the source of morality, his is also internalism and thus a direct heir of Confucius. Both Confucius and Mencius theories are internalism and I name them as a kind of moral consciousness internalism to show the difference with Kant’s and Hume’s philosophies.