论文→[ 时政论文 ]

论罗尔斯「对」的优先性

阅读量:02021-08-31作者:吴泽玫来源:学术论文
首页 - 时政论文 - 本页网址:https://www.woailunwen.com/shizheng/72764/

研究生: 吴泽玫
研究生(外文): Tse-Mei Wu
论文名称: 论罗尔斯「对」的优先性
论文名称(外文): On Rawls''s Claim of the Priority of the Right
指导教授: 林火旺林火旺引用关係
学位类别: 硕士
校院名称: 国立台湾大学
系所名称: 哲学研究所
学门: 文学
学类: 哲学学类
论文种类: 学术论文
论文出版年: 2004
毕业学年度: 92
语文别: 中文
论文页数: 146
中文关键词: 正义即公平、行为主体争论、沉岱尔、「对」的优先性、罗尔斯
外文关键词: Michael J. Sandel、Justice as fairness、John Rawls、Priority of the right、Agency debate


摘 要


本文旨在阐明罗尔斯「对」的优先性主张。在涉及主要社会制度对于基本权利、义务、以及社会合作利益的分配问题上,罗尔斯反对古典效益主义将「对」定义为「好」的极大化以及「好」优先于「对」的主张。在《正义论》中,罗尔斯主张赋予「对」优先的地位。对罗尔斯而言,「对」在两个意义下优先于「好」:知识论的意义与道德限制的意义。前者指的是具道德正当性的正义原则,可以在不预设任何特殊价值观的情况下被推导出来;后者指的则是正义原则为可允许的价值观和生活方式,设下了不得逾越的范围限制。
本文首先探讨罗尔斯如何藉由公平的概念以及原初立场的理论设计,来证成「对」的优先性。其次将分析与评估沉岱尔的批评论证,沉岱尔认为罗尔斯「对」的优先性主张乃奠基在一种错误的行为主体观之上。笔者将指出,藉由罗尔斯在后期理论中所提出的方法论澄清,他可以成它a回应沉岱尔的批判。第三,本文将分析与评估学者们针对「对」的优先性在理论可欲性与应用可行性方面,所提出的各种批判。最后,笔者将指出,藉由适当的诠释与修正,罗尔斯「对」的优先性主张乃是可欲且可行的,故其可作为社会正义理论的基础。


Abstract


The purpose of this thesis is to elucidate John Rawls’s claim of the priority of the right. In issue concerning the way in which the major social institutions distribute fundamental rights and duties and determine the division of advantages from social cooperation, Rawls argues against classical utilitarianism that it defines the right as the maximization of the good and that it gives priority to the good over the right. In A theory of Justice, Rawls proposes to view the right as the prior. For Rawls, the right is prior to the good in two senses: the epistemological sense and the moral sense. The former means that the principles of justice can be derived in a way that does not presuppose any particular conceptions of the good, and the latter means that the principles of justice set limits to permissible conceptions of the good and ways of life.
In this thesis, I begin by examining how Rawls justifies the priority of the right in terms of the idea of the fairness and his design of the original position. Next, I analyze and assess Michael J. Sandel’s criticisms, which argue that such priority is based upon a defective conception of agency. I point out that, with the methodological clarification in his later theory, Rawls can reply to Sandel’s criticisms effectively. Third, I analyze and assess some criticisms about the desirability and the feasibility of the priority of the right. In conclusion, I point out that, through proper interpretation and modification, Rawls’s claim of the priority of the right is both desirable and feasible; hence can be accepted as the basis of the theory of social justice.


目 录


导论………………………………………………………………… 1
一、研究动机………………………………………………… 5
二、研究方法与各章纲要…………………………………… 7
第一章 《正义论》与「对」的优先性………………………… 11
第一节 罗尔斯对效益主义的批判………………………… 12
一、效益主义论「对」与「好」……………………… 13
二、效益主义的难题…………………………………… 16
第二节 正义即公平与「对」的优先性…………………… 19
一、原初立场的理论设计……………………………… 21
二、「对」的优先性之证成…………………………… 24
第三节 「对」的优先性之意涵…………………………… 25
一、道德限制意涵……………………………………… 25
二、知识论意涵………………………………………… 28
第二章 「对」的优先性与行为主体的争论…………………… 33
第一节 沉岱尔论「对」的优先性与「自我」的优先性… 34
一、源自康德哲学的理论基础………………………… 35
二、原初立场与无负担自我…………………………… 38
三、沉岱尔的行为主体观-构成性自我……………… 45
第二节 自由主义者对沉岱尔的反驳与回应……………… 51
一、自我认同中「道德人格」与「人格」的区别…… 51
二、自我认同与社群…………………………………… 53
三、沉岱尔的自我观及其论证之问题………………… 55
四、在何种意义下,罗尔斯主张自我优先于其目的… 59
第三章 罗尔斯后期理论为「对」的优先性辩护……………… 63
第一节 合理多元事实与「对」的优先性………………… 64
一、合理多元事实要求确立「对」的优先性………… 65
二、确保「对」的优先性之方法论…………………… 69
第二节 罗尔斯对沉岱尔的回应…………………………… 71
一、原初立场作为一种代表性设置…………………… 72
二、区分立约者、公民与日常的观点………………… 73
三、对构成性社群的批评……………………………… 76
四、为差异原则的行为主体观辩护…………………… 77
第三节 政治性人观是否违反「对」的优先性………………… 79
一、批判:政治性人观违反「对」的优先性………… 80
二、罗尔斯的可能回应方式…………………………… 82
第四章 「对」的优先性之相关批判与回应…………………… 89
第一节 「对」的优先性之可欲性………………………… 90
一、失去跨社会的批判基础…………………………… 91
二、哲学家不应放弃追求真理………………………… 92
第二节 罗尔斯对可欲性问题的回应……………………… 94
一、仅针对民主社会正义问题而提出的方法论……… 94
二、反思均衡与合理的重叠共识……………………… 97
第三节 「对」的优先性之可行性…………………………100
一、政治问题无法简璆�面性学说的争议……………100
二、有关「对」的合理多元事实………………………102
三、毁约的不可避免性…………………………………104
第四节 罗尔斯对可行性问题的回应………………………106
一、透过公共理性与民主程序来解决政治问题………106
二、对正义的合理分歧不危及「对」的优先性………111
三、没有无损失的社会…………………………………113
结论…………………………………………………………………123
参考书目……………………………………………………………129


参考书目


一、英文部分


Ackerman, Bruce. “Political Liberalism.” Journal of Philosophy. 91, 7 (1994): 364-386.
Alejandro, Roberto. “Rawls''s Communitarianism.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 23, 1 (1993): 75-99.
Arneson, Richard J. “Introduction.” Ethics. 99, 4 (1989): 695-710.
---“Primary Goods Reconsidered.” Nous. 24 (1990): 429-454.
--- “Rawls versus Utilitarianism in the Light of Political Liberalism.” The Idea of a Political Liberalism: Essay on Rawls. Edited by Victoria Davion and Clark Wolf. Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000. Pp. 231-252.
Brink, David O. Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Buchanan, Allen. “Revisability and Rational Choice.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 5 (1975): 395-408.
--- “Assessing the Communitarian Critique of Liberalism.” Ethics. 99, 4 (1989): 852-882.
Caney, Simon. “Liberalism and Communitarianism: A Misconceived Debate.” Political Studies. 40 (1992): 273-289.
Cragg, Wesley. “Two Concepts of Community or Moral Theory and Canadian Culture.” Dialogue. 25 (1986): 31-52.
Doppelt, Gerald. “Is Rawls’s Kantian Liberalism Coherent and Defensible?” Ethics. 99, 4 (1989): 815-851.
Forst, Rainer. “How (not) to Speak About Identity: the Concept of the Person in A Theory of Justice.” Philosophy and Social Criticism. 18 (1992): 293-312.
Frankena, William K. Ethic. 2nd ed. Edited by Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1973.
Freeman, Samuel. “Utilitarianism, Deontology, and the Priority of Right.” Philosophy and Public Affairs. 23, 4 (1994): 313-349.
Galston, William A. “Moral Personality and Liberal Theory: John Rawls''s "Dewey Lectures".” Political Theory. 10, 4 (1982): 492-519.
--- “Pluralism and Social Unity.” Ethics. 99, 4 (1989): 711-726.
Gardbaum, Stephen A. “Law, Politics, and the Claim of Community.” Michigan Law Review. 90, 4 (1992): 685-760.
Goldman, Holly Smith. “Rawls and Utilitarianism.” John Rawls’ Theory of Social Justice: An Introduction. Edited by H. Gene Blocker and Elizabeth H. Smith. Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1980. Pp. 346-394.
Graham, Kevin M. “The Political Significance of Social Identity: A Critique of Rawls''s Theory of Agency.” Social Theory and Practice. 26, 2 (2000): 201-222.
Gutmann, Amy. “Communitarian Critics of Liberalism.” Philosophy & Public Affairs. 14 (1985): 308-322.
Habermas, Jürgen. “Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls''s Political Liberalism.” The Journal of Philosophy. 92, 3 (1995): 109-131.
Hampshire, Stuart. “Liberalism: The New Twist.” The New York Review of Books. 40, 14 (1993): 43-47.
Hampton, Jean. “Should Political Philosophy Be Done without Metaphysics?” Ethics. 99, 4 (1989): 791-814.
Hare, R. M. “Rawls'' Theory of Justice.” Reading Rawls: Critical Studies on Rawls’ A Theory of Justice. Edited by Norman Daniels. Oxford: Basic Books, 1975. Pp. 81-107.
Hart, H. L. A. The Concept of Law. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1961.
--- “Between Utility and Right.” The Idea of Freedom: Essays in Honor of Isaiah Berlin. Edited by Alan Ryan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979. Pp. 77-98.
Herzog, Don. Happy Slaves: A Critique of Consent Theory. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press, 1989.
Kagan, Shell. Normative Ethics. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1998.
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Practical Reason. Translated by Lewis White Beck. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1956.
--- Kant’s Political Writings. Edited by Hans Reiss. Translated by H. B. Nisbet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.
Kymlicka, Will. “Liberalism and Communitarianism.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 18 (1988a): 181-203.
--- “Rawls on Teleology and Deontology.” Philosophy and Public Affairs. 17, 3 (1988b): 173-190.
--- Liberalism, Community and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989a.
--- “Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality.” Ethics. 99, 4 (1989b): 883-905.
--- Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
Laden, Anthony Simon. “The House That Jack Built: Thirty Years of Reading Rawls.” Ethics. 113, 2 (2003): 367-390.
Larmore, Charles. “Pluralism and Reasonable Disagreement.” Cultural Pluralism and Moral Knowledge. Edited by Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller, Jr., and Jeffrey Paul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Pp.61-79.
Laslett, Peter. and Fishkin, James. “Introduction.” Philosophy, Politics and Society, Fifth Series: a Collection. Edited by Peter Laslett and James Fishkin. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979. Pp.1-5.
Macedo, Stephen. Liberal Virtues. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981.
--- “How Moral Agents have become Ghosts.” Synthese. 53 (1982): 295-312.
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Edited by Roger Crisp. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Moon, J. Donald. Constructing Community: Moral Pluralism and Tragic Conflicts. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.
Neal, Patrick. “Justice as Fairness: Political or Metaphysical?” Political Theory. 18, 1 (1990): 24-50.
Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974.
Paul, Jeffrey and Miller JR., Fred D. “Communitarian and Liberal Theories of the Good.” Review of Metaphysics. 43, 4 (1990): 803-830.
Prusak, Bernard. “Commonweal Interview with John Rawls.” John Rawls: Collected Papers. Edited by Samuel Freeman. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1999a. Pp. 616-622.
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1971.
--- “Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory.” The Journal of Philosophy. 77, 9 (1980): 515-572.
--- “Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical.” Philosophy and Public Affairs. 14 (1985): 223-251.
--- “The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 7 (1987): 1-25.
--- “The Priority of the Right and Ideas of the Good.” Philosophy and Public Affairs. 17 (1988): 251-276.
--- “The Domain of the Political and Overlapping Consensus.” New York University Law Review. 64 (1989): 233-255.
--- Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.
--- “Reply to Habermas.” The Journal of Philosophy. 92, 3 (1995): 132-180.
--- John Rawls: Collected Papers. Edited by Samuel Freeman. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1999a.
--- “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited.” The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1999b. Pp. 129-180.
--- A Theory of Justice. Rev. ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1999c.
--- Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Edited by Erin Kelly. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2001.
Raz, Joseph. “Facing Diversity: The Case of Epistemic Abstinence.” Philosophy and Public Affairs. 19, 1 (1990): 3-46.
--- Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.
Rorty, Richard “Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism.” Hermeneutics and Praxis. Edited by R. Hollinger. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1985. Pp.197-202.
Sandel, Michael J. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
--- “Morality and the Liberal Ideal.” The New Republic. May 7 (1984): 15-17.
--- “The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self.” Communitarianism and Individualism. Edited by Avineri Shlomo and De-Shalit Avner. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Pp.12-28.
--- Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Scheffler, Samuel “The Appeal of Political Liberalism.” Ethics. 105, 1 (1994): 4-22.
Sidgwick, Henry. The Methods of Ethics. Bristol, UK: Thoemmes Press, 1996.
Talisse, Robert B. “Rawls on Pluralism and Stability.” Critical Review. 15 (2003): 173-194.
Tan, Kok-Chor. “Liberal Toleration in Rawls''s Law of Peoples.” Ethics. 108, 2 (1998): 276-295.
Taylor, Charles. Hegel and Modern Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
--- Philosophical and the Human Sciences: Philosophical Papers Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
--- Philosophical Arguments. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1995.
Walzer, Michael. “The Communitarian Critique of Liberalism.” Political Theory. 18 (1990): 6-23.
Williams, Bernard. Moral Luck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Young, Iris Marion. Justice and Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990.




二、中文部分


Daniel Bell,《社群主义及其批评者》(Communitarianism and its Critics)李琨译,香港:牛津大学出版社,2000。
石元康〈交叠共识与民主社会中政治哲学的工作:洛尔斯理论最近的发展〉,收入石元康等合著,《当代政治思潮》,台北:民主基金会,(1992):131-176。
江宜桦〈社群主义的国家认同观〉,《政治科学论丛》 第八期(1997):85-110。
林火旺〈多元价值和「对」的优先性〉,《台大哲学论评》 第十五期(1992):35-51。
---〈罗尔斯的自由主义与人的理想〉,《美国月刊》 第八卷第九期(1993):114-124。
---〈罗尔斯之政治自由主义与道德生活〉,收入钱永祥、戴华主编,《哲学与公共规范》,台北:中研院社科所,1995a:114-124。
---〈自由主义可否建立一个政治社群〉,收入陈秀容、江宜桦主编,《政治社群》,台北:中研院社科所,(1995b):249-270。
---《政治自由主义与公共理性》,台北:行政院国家科学委员会专题研究计画成果报告,2001。
---〈公共理性的弁鄐峔鉽郃謘r,《政治与社会哲学评论》 第八期(2004):47-77。
张福建〈多元主义与合理的政治秩序:罗尔斯《政治自由主义》评释〉,《政治科学论丛》 第八期(1997):111-132。
钱永祥〈社会整合与罗尔斯自由主义的政治性格〉,收入钱永祥、戴华主编,《哲学与公共规范》,台北:中研院社科所,(1995a):115-133。
---〈社群关係与自我之构成:对沉岱尔社群主义论证的检讨〉,收入陈秀容、江宜桦主编,《政治社群》,台北:中研院社科所,(1995b):279-314。
戴华〈罗尔斯论「对错的优先性」〉,《人文及社会科学集刊》第二卷第一期 (1989):57-83。
---〈个人与社会正义:探讨罗尔斯正义理论中的「道德人」〉,收入戴华、郑晓时主编,《正义及其相关问题》,台北:中研院社科所,(1991):257-280。

累计有19527人觉得此论文有用

免责声明

论罗尔斯「对」的优先性
本文内容整理自网络,有修改,版权归原作者所有。如有侵权,我们将立即更正或删除相关内容。
联系邮箱 webmaster(#at)woailunwen.com [ (#at)改为@ ]
正义即公平 行为主体争论 沉岱尔 优先性 罗尔斯

网友回答

还没有人提问论罗尔斯「对」的优先性,现在提问沙发就是你的!
点击加载更多