论明清之际公私辩中“私”的正当性及其限度

有学者认为,明末清初形成的重视“个人”的 一股思想潮流,自清代中叶以来从地表消失,直到近代,以梁启超等人为代表的思想家又展 现 了现代性的“个体”观念。这种观点的实质是认为在明清之际的公私辩中已经出现了维护独 立性的个体、个人的思想。实际上,深入分析以黄宗羲、顾炎武、王船山为代表的明末清初 思想家的公私辩中对“私”的正当性辩护及其限度,可以发现,尽管私、私欲在某种程度上 被肯定,但并未获得独立性地位,相对于公而言,私仍然具有某种伦理之恶的属性;在群己 关系中,“己”获得了一定程度的重视,但仍然局限于抽象的概念层面,并不具有 现代的个人、个体属性。从明清之际至近代,公私辩的逻辑进路是一脉相承的,“公”是“ 私”的前提,“群”是“己”的限度,他们的区别在于各自致力于探寻达至“公私和谐” 的路径不同。     

中国传统伦理道德中的公私观及其现代辨析

公私观念是中国传统伦理文化的一个核心概念和重要的道德范畴。公私含义演化及观念生成的逻辑奠定了传统伦理中"贵公"的价值观,它是中国文化特有的伦理气质。历史地分析公、私概念内涵及其主体关系的演变,客观地揭示传统公私观念的伦理价值和道德意涵,是传统公私观现代价值辨析的理论前提。传统公私观念的形成有两个基本载体,一是本体论意义上的共同体之公的伦理观念载体,二是认识论意义上天下为公的道德观念载体。这两个载体构成传统公私观的伦理本质,形成存在的实然与道德的应然之间的张力。传统公私观的现代困境恰恰在于混淆了两个基本载体,使得"公""私"无法各安其位,进而出现伦理失序和道德失守。澄清之解,可以从借鉴义利和解之道以及对分殊公私的伦理与道德之理,从根本上使公私回归伦理本性。     

王船山义利之辨中的公私取向

王船山义利之辨是与公私之辨密切联系在一起的。船山不仅对利作出了公利、私利的区分,而且对义也作出了公义、私义的区分,整体上要求重公义、轻私义,重公利、轻私利,故此提出了"循公废私""存公抑私"等命题。与此同时,船山对个人私利亦作出了完全有别于理学的独到性分析,承认个人私利的正当性与合理性,并在此基础上提出了"尚公崇私"的伦理学命题,体现出一种早期启蒙的伦理倾向。船山这种"尚公崇私"论蕴含着将公共利益与个人利益有机统一起来的因素,是对理学"贵义贱利"以及否定个人正当利益的批判性超越,而其公私论与义利论的结合则彰显出超越道义论与功利论的对立而朝向义利并重、公私兼顾的价值目标。     

“公”与“私”的道德化——对先秦时期“公”“私”内涵转变的考察

日本学者沟口雄三注意到中国的"公"与"私"独有的伦理色彩,但他将这种伦理色彩归因于先秦道家"天"的观念并不准确。先秦的"公"与"私"从最初的具体身份指称,转变为表示"公正"与"偏私"的抽象道德概念,在先秦文献中有迹可循。"公"的伦理色彩并非全然来自道家之"天"。从《礼记·礼运》可以看出,虽然"公"在儒家语境中获得伦理色彩,但它的基础在于儒家对"共"的理解,与道家"天"的观念无关。     

单位制变迁中工人与国企情感疏离研究

本文以东北J市H企业为例,探究单位制变迁过程中集体情感疏离问题。通过国企变迁三阶段^①的调查研究发现,疏离原因有三:其一,在公私合一向公私分化的转换过程中,"公"与"私"的制度规范开始流变,工人处于茫然状态。其二,公私分立向公私多元化变革,代表公权力的管理层权力获得强化的同时,伴随的是工人私权利的弱化,"公"的制度与"私"的个体之间被简化为人与人的关系,公、私内容与形式产生错位与扭曲。其三,在公私分立向公私多元化转换过程中,"公"的制度授予性角色延续,公私沟通理性不足,职业伦理、公共文化认同受阻。本文认为,单位制度变迁背景下,国企形构的公私合一向公私分立、公私多元化转换过程中,员工处于"无意义"状态、情感疏离之中。理想的公私分化、公私多元与公私互构实为契约精神、契约法定关系建构的开始,它容括职业道德伦理与行动法则各个层面。     

道德之“民”的诞生

"公民"与"道德"之间的同一性及其生成的"公民道德",有待由"发生"到"诞生"的理念革命。"公民"是个体与社会之间的相互承认,"公民道德"的真谛是通过道德生命的生长诞生真正意义上的"公"之"民"或"道德之‘民’"。道德之"民"的诞生经历了"伦理上的造诣"—"道德世界观"—"道德主体"的辩证过程,展现为"伦理人"—"道德人"—"成人"的有机生命进程。"德"或道德在本性上是一种伦理上的造诣,伦理是人类的家园,伦理家园的守望迎来"精神"的日出。伦理造诣—伦理家园—伦理精神是"伦理人"诞生的三部曲。"道德世界观"是道德世界的自我意识,以道德与自然、义务与现实即中国传统道德哲学的义与利、理与欲、归根结底公与私的对立及其自觉为前提;但是道德世界观的本质是二者之间"被预定的和谐",关键在于必须透过道德行动实现二者之间的和谐。现实中对立—信念中预定和谐—通过行动实现和谐,是"道德人"诞生的生命节律。"道德人"的发展,是道德主体的生成。道德主体经过"良心—善—道德世界"的诞生过程,良心扬弃道德世界观的"二律背反",但内在"一个人的心"与"所有人的心"的矛盾;"善"是特殊意志与普遍意志的统一,但具有抽象性;道德主体扬弃良心与善中的矛盾与分裂,"收拾精神,自作主宰",追求并达到"成人"境界。"公民道德"本质上是一种创造,既是"公民"与"道德"同一的道德主体的创造,更是伦理世界与道德世界同一的人的世界的创造。     

宗教对话的转型与日本“公共哲学”新视阈

本文在对日本学者宗教对话理论研究成果进行梳理的基础上,分析了全球化时代诸宗教间对话向"实践模式"转型过程中发生的变化与有待破解的难题。通过援引日本学者提出的"活私开公"之公共哲学理论,进一步分析了破解转型期宗教间对话困境与难题的方法,即诸宗教在相互尊重独立性的同时,要以"活私"的态度、"开公"的姿态肩负起宗教对于人类社会的"公共性的责任",针对人类社会面临的紧迫难题,展开互助与协作。     

“公”与“私”的悖论--中国人“自私”行为的历史溯源

中国人的“自私”行为和“公德”缺乏 ,不是一个简单的道德现象 ,它的“不道德”获得了一种“道德信念”的强烈支持。回溯历史可以发现 ,这个道德信念的制度背景和基础都带有明显的“公”的性质 :中国农业产权的显著特征是“公” ;中国社会分配的调节制度是“公” ;中国文化的基本观念是“公”。在这个“公”与“私”的悖论之后 ,其逻辑转换的关键点是个体权利的极端缺乏。作为历史长期演化的产物 ,“私心”虽然不应该受到过多的道德谴责 ,但却十分不利于中国现代化建设和社会文明的进步。要从根本上改变这种状况 ,就必须扩大个体对生产资料的支配权 ;收入的调节问题则应该通过建立和完善现代社会化保障制度来解决。在此基础上 ,弱化“分配正义” ,发展出承认个体交易选择的“交换正义” ,牢固地确定个体的私有权利     

论古典儒家的公私权益观——兼论对古典儒家公私观念的误解

公私关系归根结底是利益关系。从公私的实然义,即君国与社会及个人的层面考察儒家的公私利益观,更能得其实。儒家尊重个体权益,肯定个体正当权利之于国家霸权利益的优先性,为士农工商等私人谋求利益乃国家之根本目的和责任。儒家也承认国家利益的必要性,但需给予限制,以免损害到私人利益,赋税是调节公私利益的杠杆。概言之,若从公私利益关系看,儒家倡导公私互动、公私共谋的公私利益观,并不主张惯常所认为的"崇公抑私"、"以公灭私"、"大公无私"等观念。     

明清之际的两种“公”的观念——从黄宗羲、王夫之比较的视角

明清之际天下之"公"的观念,在继承传统的同时,又基于明代后期"人欲"的伦理正名而有所发展。其在具体内涵上,出现了两种不同的倾向。其一以黄宗羲为代表,认为存在一种客观实在的、作为资源的"公利","公"是对这一客观公共资源的共享;其二以王夫之为代表,认为"私"利是基本的社会现实和思考"公"之秩序的起点,"公"则是各个"私"利间协调和谐的状态。前者是作为"共"的公利共享的"公",后者是作为"通"的私利调和的"公"。这两种不同的"公"的观念体现在黄宗羲和王夫之关于井田论、封建论、君臣关系等领域的观点差异中。     

公立医院“药事服务费”背后的利益博弈与调适

公立医院增设药事服务费是医疗收费的一次重大改革,涉及多方利益.正确、科学调适“利益”问题,事关改革成败.药事服务费利益调适应遵循与医改整体目标相一致、患者利益第一、政府责任以及因地制宜原则.提出伦理调适与政策、经济调适并重;加大行政监管力度;药事服务费制度与现行收费制度改革同步;以此为契机建立新的医院考核评价机制等建议.     

Public and Private Values

In this paper, we experimentally examine whether looking at other people's pricing decisions is a type of a decision rule that people over‐apply even when it is not applicable, as in the case of private‐value goods. In Study 1, we find evidence that this is indeed the case—individual valuation of a subjective experience under full information, elicited using incentive compatible mechanism, is highly influenced by values of others. In Study 2, we find that people expect to use this rule to some degree with respect to actual consumption of goods, especially goods with some public value (music), and less so for private‐value goods (noise). However, people expect to use the rule to a very large extent when they are required to express their valuation of a good using a dollar figure (Study 3). These results can shed light on price behavior as rigidities and rents. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Between Private and Public Sectors

This article validates Simon Kuznets’ argument that minorities prefer the private sector to the public sector in order to avoid discrimination. Based on new archival findings, comparative interethnic research shows that majority Greek civil engineers in the interwar years developed close, interlocking relations with the government and national institutions, which elevated their socio-professional status. Despite the absence of anti-Jewish legislation, this process effectively excluded equally qualified Jewish engineers from Greek-controlled power networks and employment. The Greek nationalistic climate of the times permeated the civil engineers’ professional associations and Greece's one higher educational institution (National Technical University of Athens) of engineering. As the professional networks consolidated to protect their interests, Jewish civil engineers and architects, employers and employees alike, were effectively shut out with no possibility of benefitting from professional integration or association with the mainstream community of civil engineers. Jewish civil engineers were, therefore, channelled into restricting their services to Jewish clients and community projects. However, with the newly developing large-scale armaments industries in the 1930s, Jews opted to train as chemical, mechanical, and electrical engineers to fill positions in family-owned firms (as did their fellow Greeks), and also found employment in lower paying jobs that Greek engineers considered unattractive in state-owned facilities.     

Deliberating About the Public Interest

Although the idea of the public interest features prominently in many accounts of deliberative democracy, the relationship between deliberative democracy and the public interest is rarely spelt out with any degree of precision. In this article, I identify and defend one particular way of framing this relationship. I begin by arguing that people can deliberate about the public interest only if the public interest is, in principle, identifiable independently of their deliberations. Of course, some pluralists claim that the public interest is an implausible idea, which casts doubt on the idea that there might be something for people to deliberate about. Yet while, following Brian Barry, we can get around this problem by defining the public interest as an interest in which everyone shares qua member of the public, what still needs to be explained is why people should be prepared to privilege this particular capacity. I argue that the account of political equality with which deliberative democracy is bound up offers a compelling explanation of this sort, even if it also gives rise to some difficult questions of feasibility. I conclude by considering the charge that any political scheme that framed the relationship between deliberative democracy and the public interest in this way would be undesirable.     

公共利益的经济法哲学透视

法学家们在运用传统的“种加属差”的方式定义公共利益时遭遇了概念的不确定性的强烈冲击,迫使一部分人转向对公共利益的描述而非界定。维特根斯坦的“家族类似”与韦伯的“理想类型”认为概念的形成对对象要一定有所取舍,这种取舍只能采取对核心特征的强调来进行,于是一定的典型便成为人们观察问题的焦点。现代经济法的产生及变迁轨迹无不表明其利益观毋庸置疑的定格在公共利益本位上,将经济法中以经济自由和经济秩序为表征的公共利益观上升为公共利益的典型和理想类型也是方法论上的必然。