頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 羅爾斯為什麼不贊成大同主義者的全球正義方案?:一個方法上的考察=Why Does Rawls Disagree with the Cosmopolitan Approach to Global Justice?: A Methodological Investigation |
---|---|
作者 | 林炫向; | 書刊名 | 政治與社會哲學評論 |
卷期 | 15 民94.12 |
頁次 | 頁1-48 |
分類號 | 570.952 |
關鍵詞 | 全球正義; 民族間的律則; 大同主義; 羅爾斯的政治建構論; 合理性的概念; 迴避的方法; 證立觀; Global justice; The law of peoples; Cosmopolitanism; Rawls's political constructivism; Idea of the reasonable; Method of avoidance; Justification; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 大同主義者對羅爾斯「以民族為中心」的全球正義理論普遍感到不滿,他們認為全球正義的主體應該是個人而不是民族或國家。不過,根據Kok-ChorTan的分析,此一爭論的更深層的原因是:羅爾斯想追求一種獨立於整全式學說的政治正義觀,而Tan認為這不可能成功。Tan認為唯有訴諸於整全式自由主義的個人自主性觀念,自由主義才不會自我挫敗。本文作者認為Tan的批評是基於他對羅爾斯的建構論方法的誤解。為了澄清羅爾斯的政治建構論,本文詳細地闡釋羅爾斯的合理性的概念、迴避的方法、以及誰立觀。透過此一分析,本文試圖展現羅爾斯進路的內在一致性,由此襯托出何以訴諸整全式的自由主義是不可行的,並透過這一方式間接地為羅爾斯的「以民族為中心」的進路辯護。 |
英文摘要 | Most cosmopolitan liberals are discontented with John Rawls's “theory of global justice. They believe that the basic unit of moral concern should be individuals not peoples, and Rawls’s“people-centric”approach is accountable for the flaws of The Law 01 Peoples. According to Kok-Chor Tan's analysis, however, this debate has a deeper root. He argues that the flaws of Rawls's The Law of Peoples are an accentuation of a problem inherent in political liberalism itself, i.e., Rawls’s aspiration for a conception of justice independent of comprehensive doctrines, which Tan contends impossible. Tan believes that only by appealing to comprehensive liberalism’s idea of individual autonomy can liberalism avoid being self-defeating. In this article I argue that Tan’s contention is based on misunderstandings of Rawls’s method of constructivism. In order to clarify the nature of Rawls’s political constructivism, I explain in details Rawls’s ideas of the reasonable, method of avoidance, and justification. Through this explication of Rawls's ideas, 1 attempt to reveal the internal integrity of Rawls's constructivist approach, which by contrast also helps to explain why appealing to comprehensive liberalism is implausible. By refuting Tan’s criticism of Rawls, 1 also mean to offer indirectly a defense of Rawls’s “people-centric” approach. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。