頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 個人與社群之間的衝突=The Conflict between Individual and Community |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 苑舉正; | 書刊名 | 東海大學文學院學報 |
| 卷 期 | 42 2001.07[民90.07] |
| 頁 次 | 頁307-329 |
| 分類號 | 570.952 |
| 關鍵詞 | 正義論; 效益主義; 政治原子論; 社群主義; 內在目的; Theory of justice; Utilitarianism; Political atomism; Communitarianism; Internal teleology; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 一九七○年代以來,羅爾斯(J. Rawls)的《正義論》成治哲學論述的基點。在這些論述之中,我們可以依照「自由主義」與「社群主義」這兩個方向來檢視它們所關心的核心問題:如何確保個人自由?本文首先從羅爾斯的點,闡述他對於該核心問題所抱持的基本原則與立場,然後,再從批判的角度,檢視諾錫克(R. Nozick)如何從古典「自然權利」的觀點,批判羅爾斯理論。接著,我們將以泰勒(C. Taylor)為社群主義的代表,說明他對於諾錫克理論的批判。在這個批判中,我們發現泰勒與諾錫克兩人理論之不同,是基本立場之間的差異。有鑑於達成整合這個差異的目的,我們引用麥肯塔爾(A. McaIntyre)對於「內在目的論」的闡釋,冊揚一種化解個人與社群之間衡突的可能性。最後,在結論中,我們認為:一、以「理論性概念」作為不同立場的區別,是沒有 實質意義的;二 、有關「如何確保個人自由?」問題,應當視之為「實踐性」的問題,答案必須在現實的政治環境之中發掘,才有被實現的可能。 |
| 英文摘要 | Since 1970S, J. Rawls’ reputed book A Theory of Justice has became the basis of various arguments. Among these arguments, we can analyze their core question (i.e., ‘How does individual liberty be assured?’) by taking into account the difference between liberalism and communitariansim. This article begins by examining Rawls’s viewpoints, illustrating his standpoint towards this question. And then, we will see how r. Nozick criticizes Rawls’ viewpoint by following the classical idea of ‘natural rights’. After that, by taking C. Taylor as communitarian, we will expose his criticism on Nozick. In this criticism, we realize that the difference between Nozick and Taylor refers to that of their theoretical presuppositions. In order to achieve a compromise between them, we therefore come to an explanation of A. MacIntyre’s ‘internal teleology’, hoping to resolve the conflict between the ideas of individual and community. Finally, we conclude: 1. that distinguishing positions theoretically is senseless; 2. that the core question should be a question of practice and its answer existing in political practices. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。