基于机会平等的分配正义

分配作为人类重要的社会活动,不仅关系到社会成员的经济状态,更对人们的社会权利和地位产生巨大的影响。在现代文明社会中,分配正义的伦理意义在于:如何在不侵犯社会成员自由的前提下,为人们带来应得的利益,保障、捍卫社会成员之间的平等地位和权利。在社会的层面上,平等是分配正义的首要伦理价值。福利、资源、权利(能力)都是分配的主要对象和领域。福利平等、资源平等、权利(能力)平等,似乎都可以在一定程度上作为正义分配的依据,但又都面临着各自平等理论的困境。文章从机会平等的角度,对分配正义进行了理解、研究和考察,并且构建了复合机会平等分配体系,力图实现作为机会平等的分配正义。     

对西方政治经济学分配正义逻辑的批判

对分配正义的探讨要有政治经济学的视野,西方政治经济学探讨分配正义并不像以往一样局限于政治和社会的目的,而是把分配正义纳入经济学的探讨中。古典政治经济学分配正义理论的要义在于:一方面,立足于从生产和再生产过程来论及分配正义问题,把分配作为再生产过程的一个环节来看待;另一方面,从要素的贡献角度来确立分配公正的标准,从而使"按应得分配"成为最基本的分配原则。这些基本思想是马克思分配正义理论的重要来源。但是马克思的分配正义理论与古典政治经济学有显著的区别:一是虽然从生产过程出发来谈分配问题,但主要从生产决定分配、生产关系决定分配关系的立场来讨论分配的定位问题;二是虽然同意"按要素的贡献分配",但是认为要素在各个社会的地位是不一样的,在资本主义社会中劳动要素的地位没有得到充分体现;三是虽然古典政治经济学也谈分配中的阶级利益因素对分配正义的影响,但总是把资本主义私人占有方式视为分配正义的基础。马克思则从对资本主义制度的批判来解决分配正义的前提问题。通过研究西方政治经济学的分配正义思想以及马克思对西方政治经济学分配正义逻辑的批判,能够更加深刻地理解马克思分配正义理论的实质,拓宽分配正义研究的视野。     

分配正义的内在张力

"分配正义"是人类对其分配活动进行价值认识、价值判断、价值定位和价值选择而形成的一种正义价值观念,其要义在于强调和追求分配的正义性或公正性。狭义的分配正义是追求物质财富的公正分配而形成的一种正义价值观念,广义的分配正义是追求包括物质财富在内的所有社会资源的公正分配而     

环境伦理视阈中的分配正义原则

分配正义不仅存在于收入分配领域,还存在于自然资源在同代人或不同代人之间的分配过程之中。分配正义是人与自然、人与人之间和谐协调与可持续发展的伦理基础。与一般意义的分配正义主要是指对一定社会结构、社会关系和社会现象的一种伦理认定和道德评价相区别,环境伦理视阈中的分配正义主要体现自然资源在国家之间的公平分配、国内的公平分配、代际之间的公平分配、人类的需要与环境本身之间公平分配等层面,概括地讲,也就是代内正义、代际正义和种际正义。     

充分的分配正义何以实现

完善的分配正义应该是充分的分配正义,它包含了以经济标准来进行分配的经济的分配正义和以社会标准来进行分配的社会的分配正义。充分的分配正义包含的两种分配标准及其相应的两种分配正义之间存在着经济效率和社会公平的内在冲突,这种内在冲突不仅进一步证明了完善的分配正义只能是把"做蛋糕"和"分蛋糕"有机结合起来的充分的分配正义,也给充分的分配正义的实现设置了巨大的困难。我们认为,把伦理学和经济学结合起来,采用一种建立在"历史原则"之上的动态的"伦理妥协"的方式应该是实现充分的分配正义的有效路径。     

论马克思的分配正义思想

马克思关于分配正义的思想是我们深入理解与准确把握当代中国分配正义问题的思想基础与理论前提.在马克思的视阈中,"分配"既具有经济学、社会学意涵,又具有哲学的形上意蕴.资产阶级以"劳动决定权"为前提,在分配中注重程序、忽视结果的"平等权利",其结果是造成分配的不正义.正义的分配应该超越"平等权利",以人的全面发展为分配原则与价值目标,使人真正享有人类文明与社会进步的成果,创造更为丰富的社会财富.     

财富共享的正义基础

财富共享可从财富的共同享有享用和公平享有享用两方面去理解。共同享有 享用,是指由广大人民群众共同创造的社会财富应为大家共享,而不能仅为少数人享有享用 。在现代个体化发展不断凸显、人们的权利—责任意识不断清晰的社会背景下,财富共享必 具体化为财富分享,即按照社会正义原则来分配财富。分配正义是财富共享的正义基础和基 本原则,这一基本原则包括差异性正义原则和同一性正义原则。差异性正义原则是按照被认 可的“差别”进行分配之原则,同一性正义原则是按照被认可的“同一”进行分配之原则。 财富共享是两种分配正义原则的协同统一,现实地表现为一次分配与二次分配的统一。     

效用主义与分配正义

效用主义的分配模式是对正义的重大挑战。首先,效用主义的效用原则有两个版本,但是通过分析可以发现它们存在着不一致,而且在分配过程中这两个版本都会导致某些无法接受的分配结果。其次,即便做出某些修正,效用主义的分配方式也往往会遗漏分配正义中的一项极为重要的价值——平等。最后,效用主义的分配方式无法真正实现分配正义,因为在分配正义中,效用并非总是一种压倒性的因素。     

从罗尔斯到弗雷泽的正义理论的发展逻辑

当代正义理论有一条基本的发展路径,即从罗尔斯的分配正义理论经哈贝马斯的话语正义理论再到弗雷泽的三维正义理论。而这条路径发展和演变的基本逻辑就是:在"什么的正义"问题上,从追求普遍公平的实质正义向追求参与平等的程序正义转变;在"谁的正义"问题上,从追求统一价值目标而采取统一行动的代理人、共同体成员或国家公民向追求多样化价值目标而进行话语交往的多元共同体、公众或个体转变;在"如何正义"问题上,从以经济再分配为根本向以经济再分配、文化承认与政治建构并重转变。在正义理论的这一发展过程中,民主对于正义的构成作用日益凸显,并成为正义制度合法性的基础。     

当代全球分配正义的理论论辩

全球分配正义理论是政治哲学中一个颇具争议的问题。全球分配正义理论的核心关注点是人们生活中所产生的利益或负担在全球范围内的分配问题,因此,它要回答的问题是:我们到底有权利获得什么,以及谁实际上应该为我们提供那些我们有权获得的东西。对这两个问题的回答构成了全球分配正义理论论辩的基本框架,即两种区分、四种理论:关系主义和非关系主义理论、平等主义和底限主义理论。关系主义理论试图通过指出"这个世界的某种特征和状况"这样的事实来为全球分配正义的存在提供理由,而非关系主义理论则用强调"人人具有平等的道德地位"这一事实来为正义必须跨越国界提供辩护。底限主义者认为全球分配正义的关注点应该仅仅聚焦到人的基本需要和对严重贫困的缓解上,平等主义者则强调,即使我们缓解了贫困和满足了基本需要,分配正义仍然有正义的理由去反对已有的全球不平等。文章最后分析了底限主义与平等主义从国家责任、平等的公制、民族身份、国家强制等方面就"正义"是否应该跨越国界所展开的论辩。     

Perceptions of Justice in Employment Selection Decisions: The Role of Applicant Gender

In contrast to the vast majority of justice literature that controls for applicant gender, the present study investigated the role of applicant gender in relation to applicant procedural and distributive justice perceptions after being informed of an organization's reject/accept decision. A sample of 503 students completed a selection test, believing the results would be used to make initial selection decisions for an organization recruiting from a university. Two weeks later, participants were given selection decisions (randomly assigned), and procedural and distributive justice perceptions were assessed. Hierarchical regression analyses indicated gender moderated the relationship between selection decision favorability and organizational justice perceptions. As hypothesized, in comparison with rejected males, rejected female applicants reacted most negatively to both forms of justice. On the other hand, selected female applicants had a more positive reaction than selected male applicants to both procedural and distributive justice. Potential implications for these and other findings are discussed.     

Perceptions of Systemic Justice: The Effects of Distributive, Procedural, and Interactional Justice

The literature on organizational justice has identified 3 key components of this process: distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. On the basis of fairness heuristic theory, we reasoned that employees may use perceptions of these 3 components as a basis for drawing inferences about the fairness of the organization as a whole (i.e., their perceptions of systemic justice). A field study was conducted on a sample of 232 employees working in various organizations. Results show that employees' perceptions of procedural justice and interactional justice in their organizations positively predicted perceptions of systemic justice (i.e., that the organization was fair overall). Perceptions of distributive justice, however, did not predict perceptions of systemic justice. Practical implications of these findings are discussed.     

Hobbes's Account of Distributive Justice as Equity

This paper examines the rationale for and grounds and implications of Hobbes's redefinition of distributive justice as equity. I argue that this unprecedented reformulation served to ensure the justness of distributive laws. Hobbes acknowledges that the sovereign can distribute rights and goods iniquitously by failing to treat citizens as equals. However, he insists that improper allocations are not unjust, properly speaking – they do not `wrong' citizens. To support this claim, Hobbes puts forth the un-Aristotelian maxim that merit in distributive justice is due by grace alone. You deserve what the sovereign gives you: there is no desert prior to and independent of his allocation of rights. For Hobbes, distributive justice does not track but create merit. It follows that distributive laws cannot fail to give what is due (which would be unjust). This paper proceeds to analyze the nature of the limits equity sets to the apportionment of goods. I argue that these limits are moral and purely procedural: citizens cannot invoke equity to claim a fair share of the goods distributed. Thanks to Hobbes's redefinition of distributive justice, the justness of the sovereign's conduct, and hence his legal immunity, remains intact.     

社会公平感、机构信任度与公共合作意向

社会公平从古至今都是人类追求的崇高社会理想。对社会公平的感知即社会公平感直接决定着个体的机构信任,并影响其公共合作参与。本研究将社会公平感分为分配公平和程序公平,将机构信任度分为工具信任和动机信任,采用实验室情境设计的方法,引入最后通牒博弈和免责博弈范式,通过2个实验系统探讨"公正无私,一言而万民齐"的因果机制。研究发现分配公平与程序公平正作用于个体的公共合作态度与意向,在此基础上建立起公共合作的双路径模型:外部路径由分配公平产生工具信任和动机信任,进而触发公共合作;内部路径由程序公平产生动机信任和工具信任,进而触发公共合作;二者结合构成个体参与公共合作的双动力系统。双路径模型的适用性在组织情境和社会情境下均得到了支持。     

再论分配正义——答段忠桥教授

<正>我在《哲学研究》2011年第3期发表《分配正义:从弱势群体的观点看》一文(下引仅注页码),表达了关于分配正义问题的一些观点,特别是提出了分配正义的原则。这篇文章的论证逻辑如下:首先,一种分配只有得到弱势群体的同意,它才能是正义的;其次,分配正义的原则应该把弱势     

The Politics of Masochism

This essay explores why people sometimes act against their economic interests, and, more particularly, why people sometimes knowingly and intentionally support economic inequality even though they are disadvantaged by it, a phenomenon I call masochistic inegalitarianism. The essay argues that such behavior is an inherent and widespread feature of human nature, and that this has important though previously overlooked practical and theoretical implications for any conception of distributive justice. On the practical side, masochistic inegalitarianism suggests that any theory of distributive justice with more than the most modest egalitarian aspirations is inherently self-defeating (or at least self-limiting) because it will naturally produce the background conditions necessary to trigger masochistic behavior among the very people it is designed to assist. On the theoretical side, masochistic inegalitarianism suggests that there are serious problems with any theory of distributive justice based on the idea of hypothetical consent. This is because people with masochistic tendencies would be unlikely to consent to the distributive arrangements these theories have presumed, and the arrangements to which they would be likely to consent would allow a far greater degree of economic inequality than we are prepared to acknowledge as intuitively just. Either we must rethink our intuitions, or, as I contend, there is something about masochistic inegalitarianism that robs hypothetical consent of its moral force.     

Unity with(in) Plurality: Rawls’s Idea of Public Justification Reinterpreted

Abstract

This paper explores and interprets Rawls’s idea of public justification by analysing the types of reasons that citizens use when engaged in public justification of a political conception of justice. In particular, I focus on the distinction between “consensual” and “distributive” modes of justification. Some critics have argued that Rawls is unclear whether he is relying on “consensual” or “distributive” forms of reasoning; others argue that Rawls shifts inconsistently between them. I attempt to clarify this puzzle. I show that consensual and distributive modes of public reasoning are not mutually exclusive to each other. On the contrary, they are introduced as necessary components of public justification in Rawls’s theory. Thus, his model is consensual-cum-distributive. I also suggest some reasons why this model can better account for the liberal idea of pluralism, and how it offers a more realistic moral and political psychology, giving the account greater epistemic virtue than its alternatives.     

分配公正、程序公正、互动公正影响效果的差异

以大学生奖学金评比为例,探讨了组织公正各维度影响效果的差异。以661名大学生为被试,采用2×2×2的完全随机设计,以情境故事法（scenarios）呈现刺激,研究了奖学金评比中分配公正、程序公正、互动公正对大学生学习投入、班级荣誉感、班级归属感、与辅导员的关系的影响。结果表明,组织公正三个维度与效果变量之间存在清晰的对应影响关系：分配公正主要影响具体、以个人为参照的效果变量;程序公正主要影响与组织有关的效果变量;互动公正主要影响与上司有关的效果变量。     

No Justice Without Democracy: A Deliberative Approach to the Global Distribution of Wealth

Abstract

The debate about global distributive justice is characterized by an often stark opposition between universalistic approaches, advocating an egalitarian global redistribution of wealth (Beitz, Pogge, Barry, Tan), and particularistic positions, aiming to justify a restriction of redistribution to the domestic community (D. Miller, R. Miller, Blake, Nagel, Rawls). I argue that an approach starting from the deliberative model of democracy (Habermas) can overcome this opposition. On the one hand, the increasingly global scope of economic interactions implies that the range of individuals concerned with the redistribution of wealth should also be increasingly universal. On the other hand, the need for democratic deliberation refers to the fact that demands of justice should be contextual and should take into account the particular circumstances, needs and values of the people concerned. Both concerns can be realized simultaneously only within a multi‐layered democratic system in which redistribution is a concern at the domestic, the international and the global level.     

基于贡献原则的幼儿分配公平性

分配公平性是指个体如何以公平的方式对资源进行分配, 其主要依据3个原则：贡献(equity)、平等(equality)和需要(need)。最新研究表明, 幼儿很早就已经具有基于贡献原则的分配公平性判断与行为, 双加工理论对于该研究结果能够给出更为适当的解释, 心理理论与情境卷入水平分别从认知和情绪方面对幼儿分配公平性的发展有着重要影响。未来研究应注重研究内容的具体化, 对幼儿基于贡献原则的分配公平性发展特点、相关影响因素及其内部动机进行深入探究。