Abstract: The distinction between moral and immoral values is made from within a particular morality,whereas the distinction between moral and non-moral values is made from a theoretical perspective beyond all particular moral perspectives.The trouble with indirect approaches toward the specific nature of moral values,such as linguistic,psychological,and sociological approach,finds itself in circularity,i.e.they all presuppose that people have already known what morality is.And the trouble with the direct Kantian approach,the intermingling of meta-ethics and normative ethics,is that it results in an idealized concept rather than a working concept which is inadequate to the varied and pluralistic reality of moral values.For moral values,universality is weaker than generality,but stronger than consistency.The principle of universality is far from universally valid.Moral values are not necessarily overriding but possibly have a relatively weak position in people’s value system.Moral valuation should go along a value continuum instead of a dichotomy of right and wrong and of good and bad.The criteria for moral choices in concrete contexts are not absolute but to some extent relative.

Key words: moral values, specific nature, approach, universality, overridingness, moral valuation, value continuum