Ethic and morality are key concepts for understanding ethics and moral philosophy. In previous research, the two notions are often indistinguishable and even interchangeable, because they share the same origin in terms of meaning, both referring to social customs, habits, protocols, and so forth. However, the development of academic history reveals important distinctions between ethics and morality, even regarding which of them holds the authority to interpret the other. For example, Hegel elevated morality to ethic, while Li Zehou advocated the study of morality from the perspective of ethic. Their studies indicate that ethics and morality have synchronic interpretations, meaning that they can be explained mutually. An obvious trend in the development of contemporary ethics is the gradual departure from the “stereotype” that “ethics is moral philosophy,” moving instead towards engaging with and serving the real and new “human relations” world with a broader horizon in a unique manner, thus achieving the “free development” characterized by distinction yet not separation from moral philosophy. This will propel moral philosophy to be oriented towards the shaping of individual virtues, and ethics to the regulation of interest relationships over ethical entities. In this context, it may become feasible to conceptualize morality without ethical norms and ethics without moral imperatives, and resolve the dispute between so-called virtue ethics and normative ethics.

Philosophy is the research of nature, individuals, society, and their noumena. The fundamental question of Chinese philosophy revolves around the relationship between Heaven and humans, while the meta-question is about how humans should live in the world. To address these questions, Chinese philosophy has established a framework with six components: the theory of benyuan, the theory of human nature, the theory of human mind, the theory of life, ethics, and politics. Among them, the transcendental theory of benyuan and the theory of human nature constitute metaphysics, the theory of life, ethics, and politics, which take real life as the research object, constitute physics, and the theory of human mind, fall under a philosophical discipline positioned conceptually between metaphysics and physics could be named as metaphysical physics (shang er xia xue). The presence of philosophy within Chinese traditional thoughts is underscored by the use of metaphysics as a criterion for judging the existence of philosophical elements in a system of thought.

In contrast to Western intellectualism and Indian spiritualism, Chinese culture is characterized by a virtue-oriented spirit that emphasizes morality and goodness. Amidst the impact of Western culture, numerous scholars and official documents have explored, argued for, and articulated this overarching spirit. The virtue-oriented spirit of Chinese culture is primarily manifested in the following aspects: morality as a distinctive feature in the formation and development of Chinese culture; morality as the core of all cultural elements; the supremacy of morality as fundamental to Confucian doctrine; and morality as the essence of cultural identity and daily life for the populace. The core and essence of promoting the fine traditional Chinese culture lie in fostering the virtue-oriented spirit of Chinese culture. This virtue-oriented spirit holds significant contemporary value in guiding and integrating society, harmonizing interpersonal relationships, and cultivating noble character.

In the 1980s, Meng Peiyuan proposed the “Chinese theory of heart nature,” which classified Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism in traditional Chinese philosophy as “the theory of heart nature.” This is an original perspective, which not only summarizes the commonalities of the heart nature theories of various schools, but also emphasizes the characteristics of heart nature theories of Confucianism. The “Chinese theory of heart nature” is the product of the “Emotional Reason School” in contemporary philosophy, involving “New Confucianism,” “Emotional Confucianism,” “Life Confucianism,” “Free Confucianism,” “Spirit Confucianism,” and so on. However, for Meng Peiyuan’s Emotional Confucianism, the “Chinese theory of heart nature” is actually just an early transitional concept. The traditional theory of heart nature is not the thought of all Confucian schools, let alone Confucianism of Confucius and Mencius, but rather a philosophical construction of NeoConfucianism in Song and Ming dynasties. Its philosophical essence belongs to the subjective philosophy of traditional ontology, so it is necessary to accept the reflection of the forefront of contemporary philosophical thought, namely, to accept the inquiry of “why subjectivity is possible.” Therefore, the contemporary transformation of the heart nature theory means deconstructing the old theory of heart nature, tracing back to the life situation of presubjectivity, and thus reconstructing subjectivity and its heart nature, especially the individual subjectivity of modernity.

Han Feizi’s understanding of human nature is far more complicated than the doctrine of evil human nature. He acknowledges that there is goodness in human nature, and it could render people to live peacefully in affluence. But in scarcity, the goodness in human nature becomes ineffective, and the pursuit of material profit becomes the main driver of human actions. While the majority can only calculate short-term material interests, the minority can do long-term planning. Besides, vanity, a unique quality of human, is a secondary driving force of human actions. Han Feizi acknowledges that only a handful of people can transcend the pursuit of material profit and vanity, and hold onto virtues instead. However, these people are the disruptors of a political regime, and should not be encouraged. Han Feizi argues that the avoidance of harm is a more powerful driving force, compared with the pursuit of profit, in which he emphasizes punishment rather than reward in regulating people’s behaviors.

The consciousness of human community is based on the search for universality. According to the different paths of the search for universality, the understanding of human community in Chinese philosophy can be divided into different types, such as governance community, natural community, Heaven-man community, and moral community. In terms of governance community, Chinese philosophy pursues a kind of universal governance order, recognizing “human nature and the Way of Heaven” with the same consciousness. In terms of natural community, Chinese philosophy pursues the universality of natural consistency, establishes an overall mode of interpretation of the world on the basis of the way of nature. In terms of Heaven-man community, Chinese philosophy believes that there exists a transcendent universal Way of Heaven, and that adherence to the law of unity of the Way of Heaven enables human life to transcend specific differences and move towards harmony and consistency. In terms of moral community, Chinese philosophy takes the path of constructing a universal moral metaphysical ontology as a means of debating the universality of the moral ontology and its way of functioning, thereby realizing the ideal state of the unity of all things. Creative transformation and innovative development of the pursuit of universality and the consciousness of human community associated with traditional Chinese philosophy can highlight the significance of Chinese philosophy to the world.

The contemporary Yi-ology has achieved many results in the aspects of classic restoration, philosophical elucidation, the history of Yi-ology, and science-based Yi-ology, which far-surpassed previous Yi-ology in both of depth and breadth. However, with the changes of the times and the development of academic culture, the problems in Yi-ology are becoming increasingly prominent, such as the lack of macroscopic vision, the new breakthrough methodology, the concern to reality, and substantial academic interactions. The future studies of Yi-ology will focus on enriching and summarizing existing research, exploring new fields, starting from the original texts, addressing current realities, and establishing a new Yi-ology system through mutual engagement of Chinese and Western philosophy and culture from a global perspective. This approach aims to facilitate the global dissemination of Yiology and its active participation in international dialogue.

Chinese philosophy is a philosophy based on “home” rather than merely a philosophy about the home. “Home” is the origin from which the individual emerges. Heaven and Earth are the origins from which humanity emerges. Human knowledge and thought allow individuals to transcend the undifferentiated unity of “home,” becoming individual existences while also endowing themselves with a universal ethical mode of existence. Returning to oneself through the act of departure becomes the inevitable way to realize human existence. Civilization, as a rational forward movement, is inevitably accompanied by the obscuration of ignorance, causing individuals to deviate from their true essence. The realization of human existence inherently contains a dimension of returning to one’s original essence within its forward movement. In the depths of the human soul, there is an original and persistent nostalgia for “home.” Chinese philosophy emphasizes “knowing where to stop,” with Daoism advocating “having become remote, it returns” and Confucianism advocating “returning from a short distance,” which aims to maintain a balanced tension between advancement and stopping, preserving the holistic significance of human existence. Humans, as holistic beings, grasp themselves and their surrounding world in an original modal way. Human existence originates from “home,” with the closest emotional expression being “kinship.” “Home” and “kinship” serve as intermediaries or bridges for individuals to realize universal love for themselves and others, extending to “loving the people and all things.” This universality, founded on the premise of difference, bestows the image and meaning of “home.” Thus, human self-identity and the development of civilization can achieve their authentic significance and rational foundation. The modal existence approach followed by Chinese philosophy presents a unique spiritual direction for the future development of philosophy.

Whether emotions can serve as the foundation for morality is what emotional ethics concerns and involves in the first place. Based on the theory of inherent humanity, pre Qin Confucian scholars established the foundation of ethics and morality by distinguishing humans from animals, that is, the “ease of heart” indicates the dynamics and rationality of humanity. They regarded “being true to conscience” and “ease of heart” as the basis for moral behavior. The heart is the source of moral consciousness, and its ease is the foundation of moral behavior. Morality is rooted in people’s natural needs and physical feelings. It concerns the self and evokes a sense of home. “Ease” is not only about ease of conscience but also involves benevolence, righteousness, and etiquette. The ease of heart represents a unity of “emotion and rationality” and “conscience and norms.” This paper reconstructs the basic problem domain of Confucian ethics of emotion from the perspectives of “what is ease,” “where to be at ease,” and “how to be at ease,” reflects on the dilemma posed when interpreting the dichotomy between emotion and rationality, and attempts to explore a “thick concept” approach to interpreting Confucian ethics, so as to better demonstrate the spiritual origin and embodied thinking characteristics of Confucian ethics.

The relationship between the body and mind is one of the most important topics in Chinese and Western philosophies. Wang Yangming held the view that “body, mind, consciousness, conscience, and things are one piece,” and the five elements are integrated and inseparable, which together form the “true self” of “integration with the world and all things,” namely, the “big self.” The “big self” represents the original field of pre-objectification, pre- cognition, and pre-theorization. In general, “mind” is the induction of the original field; “body” is the manifestation of the original field. However, due to the self-objectification of consciousness, people cling to the “body’s self” and fall into the “small self” separated from others: “body” becomes the physiological basis relative to the mind, consciousness, conscience and things, and “consciousness” becomes the psychological activity relative to the body, mind, conscience and things, so there is a relationship of “non-uniformity and non- difference” between body and consciousness. Wang Yangming’s discussion of body and mind is not focused on the feeling and cognition under the interaction of physiology and psychology at the level of “small self,” but on returning to the original “big self” to realize the settlement of life, involving cosmology, ontology, and other broader perspectives. In this regard, it is possible for Chinese and Western philosophies to learn from each other in the discussion of the body and mind.

Throughout the history of Chinese philosophy, philosophers have interpreted humans and the world from different perspectives. Contemporary scholars have proposed new views and perspectives to deepen our understanding and insight into humans and the world. Against this background, the concepts of “viewing through affairs” and the “intention noumenon theory” deal with humans and the world through the lenses of “affairs” and “intention” respectively. The perspective of “viewing through affairs” marks a progression from “concrete metaphysics,” and “affairs” are presented as the concrete implementation of “concrete metaphysics.” “Viewing through affairs” is mainly characterized by “originality,” “unity,” and “concreteness.” “Originality” serves as the foundation, “unity” represents the negation of the “division of existence,” and “concreteness” signifies the triumph over “abstractness.” The “intention noumenon theory” seeks to interpret humans and the world from the perspective of “intention,” viewing the world from three dimensions: “creation of intention,” “actualization of intention,” and “generation of the realm of intention.” The perspectives of “intention” and “affairs” have something in common in understanding humans and the world, allowing them to blend with each other. “Intention” initiates the understanding of humans and the world, while “affairs” represent the specific implementation; intention catalyzes the generation of affairs, and in turn, affairs embody intentional actualization. Through diverse perspectives, we can get a more profound and comprehensive understanding of humans and the world.

The concept of “inner sage and outer king” (neisheng waiwang 内圣外王) first appeared in Zhuangzi, later evolving to become the Confucian Way (Dao 道 ). Daoist sages and Confucian sages are inconsistent in terms of inner sage due to the fundamental starting point of their thoughts and the way of thinking and reasoning, and thus the ways of their inner sage have their own characteristics and are inseparable. Regarding outer king, Confucian sages are more proactively concerned with real politics and social life, and the way of the king is richer and stronger. Confucian “inner sage” and “outer king” take “body” as the coordinate, and the directions of force are different, one being inward while the other being outward, but the two are actual one, unified in the ideal personality of the saint. From a modern perspective, Confucian “inner sage and outer king” features historical rationality and realistic vitality, and constitutes our valuable thought resources for the creative transformation and development of the fine traditional Chinese culture nowadays. That said, it has its historical limitations.

The two passages, “Li Lou II” of the Mencius 孟子·离娄下 (Mencius 2A.2) and “Gongsun Chou I” of the Mencius 孟子·公孙丑上 (Mencius 4B.26), have been difficult to undestand for readers of all times. However, according to the hermeneutic circle, i. e., works of the same time must have shared the same concepts, topics, and writing style, if they are to be interpreted from the perspective of the Zhuangzi, these two passages will be easy to understand. Based on this interpretation, deliberation (gu 故) in “Gongsun Chou I” means deliberation or craft, which comes close to the meaning of wisdom (zhi 智) and thus facilitates our understanding of the whole passage. In “Li Lou II,” Gaozi’s words, “If words are not satisfactory to me, I will not let them trouble my mind; if something does not produce satisfactory result in my mind, I will not let them influence my qi 气 ” disclose a spiritual realm as high as that stated in Chapter 12 “Heaven and Earth” of the Zhuangzi 庄子·天地: “Though the world might praise him and say he had really found something, he would look unconcerned and never turn his head; though the world might condemn him and say he had lost something, he would look serene and pay no heed.” What is more, Mencius’ “unperturbed mind (bu dong xin 不动心)” is actually the vast, flowing spiritual realm (haoran zhi qi 浩 然之气) which results from abiding by righteousness, and this realm keeps quite a distance from Zhuangzi’s detached mind in the face of right and wrong, which is achieved by “the fasting of mind (xin zhai 心斋).”

Since the implementation of the reform and opening up, China has made substantial progress and significant achievements in ethics research, leading to the establishment of a well rounded discipline system and the development of a distinctive research tradition. While it is essential to uphold tradition, it is equally important to transcend it. In future ethics research, we should transcend the traditional approach dominated by learning and imitating Western philosophy and organizing historical materials, and progress towards a more advanced stage that emphasizes innovative development. The new generation of scholars should effectively utilize mainstream academic resources, especially the main spirit reflected therein. While showing respect and appreciation for the theoretical contributions of earlier generations of ethics scholars, they should expand their horizons to foster an ethics research pattern and atmosphere that align with the new era.

Both Western and Chinese civilizations have constructed ethical worlds based on the structures of family and state. In the Western “country” civilization, the fate of this ethical world is marked by a “tragic sentiment,” whereas in the Chinese Guojia civilization, the cultural conditions and ethical spirit are characterized by “family-state sentiment.” This sentiment transcends mere family spirit or patriotism, embodying an integrated ethical sentiment that encompasses the individual, family, state, and all under Heaven. The ethical wisdom of family-state justice in Guojia civilization comprises both everyday wisdom and extraordinary wisdom. Everyday wisdom permeates the entire life and existence of individuals, manifesting through various national festivals. Extraordinary wisdom refers to the ethical wisdom that reconciles conflicts between family and state, historically and logically unfolding into two traditional forms: the state-centered “loyalty to the country” and the family-centered “mutual concealment out of kinship loyalty.” The issue of family-state ethical justice has accompanied the century-long process of modern Chinese civilization, from the Chinese revolution to the reform and opening-up period. This process reflects a dialectical progression of “ethical construction—ethical revolution—ethical liberation.” Modern Chinese civilization remains the Guojia civilization but has evolved into new forms and faces new challenges. It is imperative to achieve creative transformation and innovative development of the Guojia civilization through communal ethical justice, contributing to the creation of a new form of human civilization marked by distinct Chinese characteristics.

The concept of “common good” takes on various theoretical forms throughout the histories of both Chinese and Western philosophies. In “Identification with the Superior” of Mozi 墨子·尚同, Mozi endeavored to create an ideal community and advocated “unification of righteousness in the world.” He sought to integrate the complex and diverse individual wills into a collective community will, promoting the pursuit of the overall interests (“common righteousness”). According to the “common good” theory, the political proposition of “identification with the superior” (shang tong 尚同) does not represent a form of despotism but an “integrated common good” that emphasizes the “common righteousness” shared by all people. This “common good” theory encompasses two dimensions: “identification with Heaven” and “identification with the people.” Both of the dimensions underline the pursuit of “common righteousness.” Mozi’s idea of “identification with the superior” can enrich the “common good” theories in the world and highlight the universal significance of traditional Chinese political thought and the distinctive path of thinking based on the universal significance.

Developing a socialist moral evaluation system with Chinese characteristics should be rooted in the dynamic practice and practical needs of building socialism with Chinese characteristics while drawing on the intellectual resources and philosophical wisdom from the historical evolution of Chinese society and its rich cultural traditions. Traditional Chinese society has embraced a pluralistic moral cultural philosophy, creating a multifaceted moral evaluation system that integrates Confucian, Daoist, and Buddhist elements. This system, marked by distinct Chinese characteristics, recognizes the moral values of Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism as valid moral standards, applying them in various contexts to assess people’s moral attitudes towards work, achievements, and other aspects, thus forming a diverse pattern of traditional Chinese moral evaluations. This pluralistic moral evaluation system serves as a value beacon for the moral life of the Chinese nation in traditional society and continues to offer significant moral guidance in present-day Chinese society. The traditional Chinese moral evaluation system remains a powerful force in shaping the moral character of the present-day Chinese nation and promoting moral positivity, providing valuable insights for the development of a socialist moral evaluation system with Chinese characteristics.

The mainstream of modern Western philosophy is a subjective philosophy based on mind-body dualism. Unlike Western philosophy, which mainly concerns being, Chinese philosophy, represented by Confucianism, highlights life and living. Most modern Chinese philosophers readily embrace materialism owing to the longstanding tradition of qi philosophy in China. This form of materialism, however, is not mechanical materialism, as it is not based on dualism. The zoeontological subject is established based on body-mind monism. It is closely related to two philosophical propositions: the cosmology of the philosophy of qi, and the notion of human beings as the heart of cosmos, thereby providing an initial outline of the philosophy of zoeontology.

The concept of a good death is an important issue that ethics should focus on. With the rise of individualism, medical practices have undergone subtle changes, and Western bioethics has begun to consider, from a subjective perspective, which normative conditions constitute a good death. In contrast, the traditional Confucian view of shanzhong 善终 (good ending) emphasizes the unity of life and death and the transcendence of death from an objective perspective, regarding the moral value of living a good life as the moral requirement for judging a good death. By fully acknowledging the historical changes in the concept of death, we can facilitate a dialogue between these two perspectives, enriching each other and helping modern individuals attain a more comprehensive and morally desirable understanding of death.

A correct comprehension of the human-machine relationship in the age of intelligence is essential for preventing ethical risks associated with artificial intelligence (AI), and the comprehension of the ethical nature of the human-machine relationship delineates a boundary between humanism and technocracy. From the ethical perspective of humanism, mankind’s ethical world will not be subverted despite the presence of super AI, as human relations, ethical laws, and ethical orders are “exclusive” to mankind. While robots may “participate” in social ethical life through preset programs inside them, this does not qualify them as true ethical subjects. Furthermore, robots will not bear ethical responsibility given its basic provisions, as they lack the capability for self-awareness or the ability to explain their actions. Human beings bear full responsibility for AI, rather than simply sharing this responsibility. When we speak of strengthening the ethics of robots, we refer not to the ethics of machines, but to the ethics involved in mankind’s design, development, application, and operation of intelligent robots. Adhering to humanistic ethics is essential for discussing AI ethics, as it helps avoid ambiguity and confusion in comprehension.

Contemporary ecological ethics faces a narrative dilemma of how to narrate the moralities of non-human living entities. Western ecological narratives, which emphasize human- or nature-centered perspectives, tend to reduce the symbiotic relationship between humans and all living entities to a mechanical object relationship of either/or, which is neither in accordance with humanity nor aligned with the purpose of nature. Confucian ecological ethics, rooted in the fundamental spirit of “the unity of Heaven and man,” approaches the narrative from the perspective of the human conscience narrating the universe, using the logic of narrating material virtues through human benevolence. The narrative contents present a natural humanistic discourse characterized by the continuous and interactive interplay of “gained from Heaven and achieved through benevolence.” Methodologically, Confucianism narrates the transcendental “higher-level understanding” with the daily experience of “studying concrete things,” linking the unique value of humans as “the heart of Heaven and Earth” with the conscious responsibility of humans to “ordain conscience for Heaven and Earth,” thereby achieving a narrative effect that aligns with both the purposes humanity and nature. This approach helps to mitigate the internal “center” dispute within ecological ethics, integrate factual descriptions with value judgments, and construct a proactive humanistic practice theory through a positive temporal lens, thereby avoiding a negative, passive moral reductionism.

The consciousness of sharing fostered by the digitizing transformation and development in society has overturned the economic ethical assumptions built upon the consciousness of ownership. The widespread utilization of intelligent machines and artificial agents has presented challenges to labor ethics. Furthermore, the subtle persuasion and manipulation of humans by technologies, such as algorithms, along with the technologization of both the human body and mind have made it challenging to adapt to principles such as fairness, justice, autonomy, and voluntariness. These changes have introduced new potential ethical risks, obscuring the distinction between private and public spaces, transforming cognitive practices into ethical ones, and elevating accountability to a new topic that connects epistemology, ethics, and ontology. Our actions, perceptions, intentions, and morality have become intertwined with modern information technology. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a new ethical framework based on the relational self, consciousness of sharing, leisure labor, and subversion of various dichotomous concepts. This signifies the initiation of the second process of “a man as a human being.”

Algorithms are strategy mechanisms and run programs based on data as the basic resource, aimed at solving problems and completing tasks. They serve as the “nervous centralis” and “soul” of artificial intelligence (AI), but they are not “value-neutral.” When data is collected, stored, and analyzed with technologies such as machine learning for automated decision-making, the standpoint of the one who designs and writes algorithms, the source and accuracy of data supporting and training the algorithms, and the value load and value selection intrinsic to the algorithms, as well as the behavioral tendency of specific value subjects based on the algorithms and the independent evaluation and decision-making of intelligent systems, may all lead to a certain degree of algorithmic discrimination, ultimately affecting the realization of social justice. Compared with the social discrimination familiar to people, algorithmic discrimination is more extensive, diversified, accurate, targeted, concealed, and “cunning.” As we advance the intelligent transformation of society, it is essential to establish the status of all people as value subjects, “embed” the values of justice into intelligent algorithms, and establish dynamic evaluation and supervision mechanisms. Only through these actions can we make necessary regulations on algorithmic discrimination and reconstruct a just social order in the era of intelligence.

In applied ethics, principlism demonstrates an approach to applying ethical principles to specific practices. Unlike proponents of deductivism, which relies on a moral system based on a supreme principle with universal applicability, and those of casuistry, which depends on analogical evaluation based on perceptual judgment, principle ethicists seek middle-level principles that bridge abstract moral theories and concrete moral practices. These principles provide a normative framework with value standards and argumentative foundations for addressing ethical conflicts. While non-maleficence, beneficence, justice, and autonomy are considered as traditional ethical principles, human rights, dignity, privacy, and responsibility have emerged as widely recognized modern ethical principles. The middlelevel principles in applied ethics are self-evident in nature, fundamentally rooted in human moral intuition. These principles maintain a coherent and coordinated relationship, requiring specific interpretation and flexible weighting according to different contexts in practice.

Based on the social identity theory, this paper analyzes the questionnaires collected from 405 employees in two stages to explore the mechanism of influence of Confucian ethical leadership on employees’ unethical pro-organizational behavior. The results show that Confucian ethical leadership negatively affects employees’ unethical pro-organizational behavior; ethical identity serves an intermediary role between Confucian moral leadership and employees’ unethical pro-organizational behavior; the superior-subordinate relationship not only positively regulates the relationship between Confucian ethical leadership and moral identity, but also further regulates the intermediary effect of moral identity.

“Eco-environmental governance” refers to a dynamic process of translating environmental governance knowledge into practice. Ethical governance of the ecoenvironment serves as an important link that facilitates the transition from environmental governance cognition to concrete implementation. The discussion on the ethical governance of the environment has been ongoing for a long time. However, reaching a consensus within the academic community remains challenging, and some scholars still question its rationality. From the perspective of Marxist environmental governance, “eco-environmental governance” refers to a governance system composed of the subject, content, and methodology of environmental governance. Accordingly, the rationality of ethical governance of the ecoenvironment should be analyzed based on the three most fundamental elements. Regarding the environmental governance subject, the dual existence of individual “ethical beings” and the collective “ethical community” indicates the possibility of the ethical governance subject in the eco-environment. In terms of the environmental governance object, a dual predicament of “ethical disorder” in the social sphere and “moral absence” in the natural sphere determines the inevitability of ethical governance content in the eco-environment. As for environmental governance means, the “ethical guidance” at the mind level and “ethical regulation” at the behavioral level prove the necessity of the ethical governance method in the eco-environment.

In the big data era, data has become a core element in biomedicine, with extensive applications across fields such as biogenomics, clinical medicine, and biobanks. These shifts bring new opportunities and severe challenges for Bioethics research. The opportunities are manifested in expanding the scope of bioethics from a focus on “individual good” to the “public good,” fostering a transition from purely qualitative or quantitative approaches to interdisciplinary integration, and enhancing bioethical governance from “Monhism” to “pluralism.” However, challenges also arise, such as the potential misalignment between data analysis and real bioethical issues, the risk of bioethics succumbing to dataism, and a lack of awareness and expertise regarding big data within the field. This dual situation highlights the trends and dilemmas facing bioethics research in the era of big data, which warrant the attention of contemporary bioethics scholars.

The driving force behind the development of bioethics stems from a concern for the weak or vulnerability. Mainstream bioethics advocates understanding vulnerability within the context of autonomy, interpreting it as a lack or reduction of autonomy, and emphasizing the protection of special vulnerable groups. Critics question the rationality of this traditional model, arguing that interpreting vulnerability with the context of autonomy in bioethics not only ignores the universal vulnerability of humanity but also easily dilutes social responsibility. In fact, in the real-life picture of humanity, autonomy and vulnerability are always intertwined. With a proper understanding of autonomy, bioethics can still effectively interpret vulnerability within the context of autonomy. However, bioethics requires a holistic theory of vulnerability that emphasizes the protection of particularly vulnerable groups while embracing the broad, universal vulnerability of humankind.