i disagree with you,
as Mengzi and Wunzi is just on the same road of thought from 孔子 (Conzi in English??),
they all say about 禮, and that 禮 is from everyone's heart,
all of them agree, if you ask yourself, you will know what you should do and what you shouldn't.
thus, the final value judge is done by human.
I'm not so sure about this. Xunzi viewed Li-ritual as essential to regulate people's behaviour: it was external. Mengzi was more of an internalist, so I think his view was different.
but in 董仲舒 theory, a consciousness heaven exist,
and doing the job of punish, reward,
thus the final value judge moved from human ourself to heaven.
I'm no expert on Dong Zhongshu and have not read the entire Chunqiu Fanlu. But as far as I know, Dong's "Heaven" (天) was not
a conscious deity, but rather "Nature." It did not consciously reward and punish people/rulers, but was responsive (Ganying 感應 ?). He adopted this conception from the Huang-Lao Daoists and/or the Yin-Yang theorists, whereby all of one's actions have repercussions and the rulers should take inspiration from Nature and follow its seasons to maintain harmony. For example, in the social world, if a ruler oppresses his people, the inevitable response will be rebellion. And today, if we keep polluting our environment, we will have global warming. There is no consciousness involved: simple cause and effect. But people like Dong went too far, imo, by claiming that if a ruler governs poorly, the crops will not ripen, there will be floods, etc. (The way I see it, if he oppresses the people, the crops may not get harvested
, but his poor governing will not prevent the grain from ripening). This has been called "correlative thought" where all human actions have correlates in Nature.
As I mentioned, Dong was showing his influence from the Huang-Lao/Yinyangjia. Confucianism, in focusing solely on mankind and human morality was found lacking by intellectuals of the Han Dynasty. They seemed to have lost touch with their connection to the natural world. (Just as we have today). Personally, I don't find Dong's Chunqiu Fanlu all that insightful, but that's what happens when one is committed to preaching morality, (and tries to connect it to Nature).
Now, if I am mistaken and Dong really did
believe Tian was conscious and rewarded and punished people/rulers, is this really not "Confucian"? In the two major "Confucian Classics," the Shangshu (尚書) and the Shijing (詩經), Tian is
conscious and rewards and punishes people and rulers.
Conzi(thats what 孔子 in english right??) said, for a man without the kind heart, what's the meaning to obey the laws/rules?
[since all what you act should be told by your kind heart, but not rules]
孔子 is Kongzi (or Confucius). Another translation is "A man who is not Good—what has he to do with ritual?"
Conzi said, it is only your decision to be a kindhearted man, how can other people force you to be kindhearted?
Yes, but in that same 'chapter' (12.1) Confucius says: "Do not look unless it is in accordance with ritual; do not listen unless it is in accordance with ritual; do not speak unless it is in accordance with ritual; do not move unless it is in accordance with ritual." And "Restraining yourself and returning to the rites constitutes Goodness (仁)." So it seems following
the ritual rules
of behaviour constitutes goodness/'kind-heartedness' !
so you see, if a people act kindly because he affraid the punishment from heaven,
that's meaningless, he just got the heart of fear, but not the heart of kindness.
what 董仲舒 do is make 漢武帝 got the heart of fear!
Yes, just like Judeo-Christianity. I wouldn't say it's "meaningless," but it, imo, is certainly not ideal.