The thought framework of the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations provides great help to both society and individuals, more so, in my opinion, than the West's thought framework of the supremacy of love.

From the point of view of the entire society, the most important thing is that all relationship-defined obligations objectively are mutual help by the various parties in human relationships. The government helps the citizens by keeping order and security in a country, and the citizens in turn help the government by obeying the law, answering drafts, paying taxes and other support, when necessary dissenting and dissuading, and so forth. The parents help the offspring by raising and teaching them, and the offspring in turn help the parents by obeying, respecting, providing support and care during the parents' old age, when necessary dissenting and dissuading, and so forth. All other relations and relationship-defined obligations follow the same logic: they all involve mutual help. So, when the parties in a relationship carry out their respective relationship-defined obligations, that actually represents the parties mutually helping each other. This mutual help is actually the fundamental basis of civilization; all human civilization is built on this principle. Only by people concentrating on different kinds of work and then exchanging the resulting mutually beneficial acts and objects, can civilization be built and maintained, and mutual help is the central principle of this division of labor and exchange. Since the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations requires that people mutually help each according to the obligations defined by the relationships they have with each other, the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations guarantees mutual help. Thus the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations provides the most advantageous social order and the most fertile ideological soil for the development of civilization and the progress of human society. Was it mere coincidence that when ancient China adhered to the ideology of the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations, China was so advanced compared to the rest of the contemporary world?

In comparison, the help that people must render to others as demanded by the supremacy of love does not have this mutual quality. The agape love described by the supremacy of love is very selfless and noble, but it is one-sided and unilateral. Thus it is suited in daily living to charitable donation but not to multiple, repeated, sustained, longer term mutual help or mutual benefit. The one-sided quality of love is a serious flaw in the framework of the supremacy of love. In today's world, many people take advantage of this flaw to make unfair demands on "society", which in fact is just other people, thinking that "society" and other people owe them one-sided obligations and have to unconditionally take care of them, while they don't have to in turn take care of "society" and other people. Used to the one-sided quality of love, even when making unreasonable demands on others these people act in a very self-righteous manner.

Also from the point of view of the entire society, everyone's ability is finite and cannot look after the whole sociey. When, however, a member of the society consistently and in a sustained manner carry out his or her relationship-defined obligations, then the parties with whom that member have relationships will be consistently and in a sustained manner looked after, emotionally and materially. There is, if one uses one's imagination, a circle of emotional and material well-being radiating out from such a member of society, covering the people with whom he or she has relationships with. In turn, he or she is also taken care of by the parties with whom he or she has relationships, such that he or she is also covered by many such circles of emotional and material well-being radiating out from others. When all members of society consistently and in a sustained manner practice the discharge of obligations, then everyone in that society will be consistently and in a sustained manner looked after, emotionally and materially. All those circles of emotional and material well-being radiating out from each member of society will overlap and meld together to cover everyone. By everyone tending to his or her relationship-defined obligations the entire society is cared for as a whole. It then approaches Confucius' ideal as expressed in his "The Great Together (li yun da tong)": "...the aged have the appropriate last years, those in their prime have the appropriate employment, the young have the appropriate growth and development, and elderly men with no spouses or children, widows, orphans, elderly people without children or grandchildren, the handicapped, the ill – all are provided for..." The society will then achieve the highest degree of sustained emotional and material well-being possible for the stage of understanding and technology that the society possesses. The supremacy of relationship-defined obligations maximizes a society's happiness.

As for the individual, the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations is very liberating and empowering, and gives one a great sense of security and mutual trust. That is because whether one is fulfilling one's relationship-defined Obligations is an objective fact and fully verifiable, and there's no need to worry about what's happening in the other party's head: "does he/she still love me? Is what I am doing sufficient to retain his/her love? If I give a different opinion, will he/she love me less?" All one has to do is to fulfill one's well-known-to-all, prescribed, objectively verifiable obligations, which, by the way, include providing different opinions and dissuasion when appropriate, and one can rest assured that the other party owes one the fulfilling of its obligations. If they aren't carried out, one has the full right to demand that they be carried out. (See my blog entries of Traditional Chinese Culture is Liberating and Empowering - 1, Traditional Chinese Culture is Liberating and Empowering - 2, Traditional Chinese Culture is Liberating and Empowering - 3)

There is also no need to use, as in the West, very demonstrative means to express love, such as passionate kissing or embracing in public, to obtain and keep the love and favor of the other party. The supremacy of relationship-defined obligations lets people relax and not have to worry that one day, if the other party in the relationship no longer feels appreciation, admiration or love, the relationship will suddenly come crashing to an end. All that's necessary is for one to persevere in carrying out one's obligations as defined by the relationship, and the relationship will continue.

Therefore, love is expressed by fulfilling one's relationship-defined obligations with all one's heart and soul. In traditional Chinese culture, i.e. Chinese culture before the twentieth century, what is lauded in novels, plays and songs is exactly this behavior of fulfilling one's obligations with all of one's heart and soul no matter what the difficulties or how great the sacrifice. The subjective feeling of love then is included in and expressed by this objective behavior. The Chinese tradition of the supremacy of relationship-defined obligations puts the objective behavior first and the subjective feeling of love second. (See my paper "Chinese People and the Expression of Love".) As in the Chinese tradition, when relationship-defined obligations are supreme, to complete one's daily obligations with a reverent and joyful attitude, to the best of one's ability, is enough of an expression of love.

Of course, we don't rule out the use of very demonstrative means of expressing love; it's just that it is not required to obtain and maintain the other party's love and favor. If an individual or a people whose custom and preference is to use very demonstrative methods of expressing love chooses to embrace the worldview and framework of the supremacy of love, then of course it is fine to continue this custom and preference.

As for the charge that "there is no love to begin with" when the relationship-defined obligations are supreme, that's absolutely false. The above paragraphs fully demonstrate this point. Among people love will of course exist and should exist. The basic textbook of Confucianism "Di Zi Gui (弟子规)" quotes Confucius to say, "All who are human, one must love"; how much more so when it is among people in the closest relationships? When relationship-defined obligations are supreme, love is st ill very important; it's just that love is not supreme, and also, as mentioned above, it is not necessary to use very demonstrative methods to express love.

Quite intriguingly, not putting love as supreme but putting relationship-defined obligations as supreme can, contrary to what one might expect, give rise to even better and stronger love. The reason is that the love that grows out of mutually fulfilling obligations, especially over a long period of time, is a lot stronger and a lot more mature than love based on admiration of image or on sexual attraction. (See my blog "The Chinese Supremacy of Relationship-Defined Obligations vs. the West’s Supremacy of Love".)

人伦至上的思想构架，给社会和个人提供的帮助很大，我认为比西方爱至上的思想构架所提供的更为大。

从整个社会的角度来说，最重要的是，人伦定义的义务和责任，客观上都是人伦关系中的各方进行互相帮助。政府以维持秩序和安全来帮助人民，人民也反过来以守法、服役、纳税供养、有必要时劝谏等等行为来帮助政府；父母以教导和养育来帮助子女成长，子女们也反过来以服从、尊敬、侍奉老年、有必要时劝谏等行为来帮助父母。其他人伦关系都是同样的道理，都是互相帮助。人与人关系的各方，履行人伦指定的义务和责任，其实就是进行互相帮助。而互相帮助，是人类文明的根本，所有人类文明都是基于这项原则的。人们之间要各人做不同的工作，然后互相交换工作所产生的行动和物品，以此互利互惠，人类文明社会才能成立起来和延续下去，而互相帮助就是这个分工和交换的中心原则。人伦至上规定人们根据关系定义的义务和责任来互相帮助，所以是互相帮助的最好保障。因此，人伦至上对文明发展和社会发达提供最有利的社会秩序和最肥沃的意识形态土壤。当古代中国遵守人伦至上的意识形态时，也是当时世界上最为先进和发达的国家之一，这会只是个偶然吗？

相比之下，爱至上所要求人们作出的对人帮助，则没有这种互相性质了。爱至上所叙述的无私忘我的爱，正因为是非常无私和伟大的，所以是单方性质的，是不要求回报的。这个单方的爱在日常运作中合适慈善捐赠，但不合适多次重复的、持续的、长久性的互相帮助和互利互惠。爱的单方性质，是爱至上构架的一个严重弊病。现代世界很多人就是利用这个弊病，对“社会”，其实即是对其他人们，作出不公平的要求，认为“社会”及他人对他们欠下单方性质的义务和责任，要无条件照顾他们，而他们则不必反过来照顾“社会”及他人。这些人习惯了爱的单方性质，向他人作出不合理要求时还振振有词。

也从整个社会的角度来说，一个人的能力有限，不能照顾整个社会，但是，当一位社会成员一贯地、持续地履行人伦定义的义务和责任，那么跟他（她）拥有人伦关系的各方都在感情上和物质上得到一贯的、持续的照顾。可以想像，从这位社会成员发放出一个感情和物质生活的幸福快乐圈，覆盖着跟他（她）有关系的人。同时，这位社会成员反过来亦获得跟他（她）有关系的人的照顾，也被从这些人们发放出来的感情和物质生活的幸福快乐圈覆盖着。当社会所有成员都一贯地、持续地履行人伦定义的义务和责任，那么那个社会的所有人都在感情上和物质上得到一贯的、持续的照顾。所有那些从每位社会成员发放出来的一个个感情和物质生活的幸福快乐圈便会交搭重叠，覆盖着所有的人。每人照顾自己的人伦义务和责任时，整个社会便会得到照顾，走向孔子《礼运大同》的“老有所终，壮有所用，幼有所长，鳏寡孤独废疾者，皆有所养”。这个社会的感情和物质生活的幸福快乐程度，便能够达到以该社会拥有的科技和理解力所能够达到的最高点。人伦至上，使社会能够得到最大程度的幸福快乐。

对个人来说，人伦至上授予人们心灵很大的解放和权利，很大的安全感和互相信任。这是因为有没有履行人伦所规定的义务和责任，是完全能够客观证实的，完全不需要担心对方的脑子在想什么。他（她）还爱我吗？我做的足够使他（她）继续爱我吗？我提出不同意见他（她）会不会爱我少些呢？这些都不用担忧，我只需要履行我众所皆知的、规定的、能够客观证实的义务和责任，而这些义务和责任也包括了适当时提供不同意见或劝谏，我就可以很放心，对方也必然会反过来履行对我的义务和责任。不然的话，我拥有充分权利要求对方这样做。（见我的博客文章“传统中华文化授予人们解放和权利：1”, “传统中华文化授予人们解放和权利：2”, “传统中华文化授予人们解放和权利：3”）

有了关系的存在，不管这关系是自愿的（夫妻、朋友）还是生下来便有的（父子、兄弟），就可以拥有很高度的安全感。有了关系的存在，我就可以信任对方，对方也可以信任我，双方都不需要猜疑对方的脑子里爱或欢心还存在否，双方都必然会履行义务和责任，可以完全互相信任。

亦不需要像西方那样，用很富于表达性的方法来表示爱，公众场所里激情热吻、拥抱等，来博取和延续对方的欢心和爱。人伦至上让人们很放心，如果跟他们有关系的对方，有一天对他们不感觉欢心、欣赏、仰慕、或爱，关系并不会因此就突然完蛋。只要坚持完成自己由关系所规定的义务，关系就会延持下去。

因此，爱是用全心全力完成自己的义务和责任来表示的。华人传统文化里，即二十世纪之前的文化里，小说、戏剧、歌曲等歌颂的就是这种不管困难或牺牲多大都用全心全力来完成义务和责任的行为，而“爱”这个主观的感觉，是包含和表现于行为之中的。人伦至上的华人传统文化把客观的行为放在前，把主观的感觉放在后。（见我的文章“华人和爱的表示”。）像华人们传统的那样，带著恭谨喜悦的心情，全心全力完成每天的义务和责任，人伦至上的时候，这样表示爱就足够了。

当然，也不排除用很富于表达性的方法来表示爱，只不过是不一定需要用这种方法来博取和延续对方的欢心和爱而已。如果一个人或一个民族，采用了人伦至上的思想构架，但是风俗和喜好是用很富于表达性的方法来表示爱的，那么继续这种风俗和喜好是当然可以的。

至于人伦至上时“根本就没爱的存在”这个指控，那是完全错误的，以上所说的已经充分证明了这点。人与人之间，爱当然会存在，亦需要存在。孔教基本课本《弟子规》引述孔子说，“凡是人，皆须爱”，何况是最亲近的人呢？人伦至上时爱仍然是很重要的，只不过爱不是至上而已，亦只不过如上文所说那样，爱的表示方法不需要用很富于表达性的方式而已。

很奇妙，不以爱为至上而以人伦为至上，反而很多时会得到更好、更坚固的爱，理由是互相履行义务和责任，尤其是在较为长期的相处情况下，所栽培出来的爱，比起对形像的仰慕所引发的爱，或由性欲所引发的爱，往往会更为成熟和坚强。（见我的博客文章“中华人伦至上对西方的爱至上”。）