略论董仲舒的"以德为国"思想

在汉代,如果说,汉武帝时期确立的"德主刑辅"是一种积极的统治政策的话,那么,董仲舒的"以德为国"(<春秋繁露·立元神>)则从治国理念上对这种统治政策提供了系统的理论支持.本文认为,"以德为国"的德治思想既是代黄老之学而兴的一种积极的治国理念,同时也是对武帝时期刑法酷烈在理论上的补偏救弊,其实质和落脚点在于以德正君.     

朱熹的德刑观新论

宋代著名思想家朱熹,继承和发展我国古代法制思想中的德刑理论,形成了一定的体系和特点,在政刑德礼系统中定位德刑而趋道,在传统德主刑辅基础上揭示本源而求中,在倡导以严为本时有限定而非重。只有准确把握朱熹德刑观的内涵,才能科学地揭示其地位和价值,从中获得以德以法治国安邦的历史启示。     

荀子"刑、德"思想探析

荀子“刑”、“德”思想自有其独特的学术品格,但溯其源流,大抵远绍周公“明德慎罚”思想,近承孔子“为政以德”、“先教后诛”思想,下启董仲舒“德主刑辅”思想,诸多思想与表述甚至直接袭用《尚书》等书、引证孔子等语录事迹,在先秦儒家刑德思想发展系统中是不可或缺的重要一环。     

《黄老帛书》之刑德关系诸说辨

关于《黄老帛书》刑与德的关系,学界大体有三种观点：一是德彰刑隐说,二是德主刑辅说,三是重德轻刑说。这三种看法均值得商榷。帛书刑德关系是以四时、阴阳为理据的。与四时相关联,刑德分布具有“晦、微”和“明、章（彰）”的特性,相应的,刑德在被施用的过程中也应展现出各自的特性;与阴阳相关联,帛书规定刑德具有不可或缺的整体性。尽管,相应于四时、二者的施用有先后之分,但并不能导出主辅之别。若按阴阳关系的一般原则（包括帛书的阴阳法则在内）,属阳的德本应对属阴的刑起着支配、主导的作用,但帛书于刑德关系的论述中未完全遵守这一法则,显示出其理论体系的矛盾性,谓帛书主张德主刑辅有挪移董仲舒之说的嫌疑。而称帛书重德而轻刑,同样也有此倾向。     

晚清管子研究述论

晚清以降。诸子学走向复兴。作为其中重要一支,《管子》一书也摆脱以往“德主刑辅”、“以子证经、史”的边缘地位,受到广大士人、学者的关注。大致而言,晚清的管子研究经历了“通子致用”、“援西释管”和“改塑管子”三个阶段,逐渐完成了由古典向近代的学术嬗变。     

社会主义核心价值观入法入规的伦理意蕴 ——以德法相济的运行为视野

以习近平同志为核心的党中央倡导社会主义核心价值观入法入规,重新阐释了人类道德价值的内容、形式与机制。从伦理内容创新上看,社会主义核心价值观入法入规为传统德主刑辅思想注入新的伦理思想,刷新了“德”与“法”的内涵与外延;从伦理思维范式上看,社会主义核心价值观入法入规实现了德与法的深度融合;从伦理运行机制来看,社会主义核心价值观入法入规确立了将伦理价值与法律价值相结合的评价机制,激活了“德治”软实力与“法治”硬实力共同发力的动力机制。     

儒法道治国方略比较研究

中国古代治国方略以儒、法、道三家为最有代表性。儒家主张“以德治国”,其核心是“心治”;法家强调“以法治国”,其核心是“力治”;道家倡导“无为而治”,其核心是“天治”。三家治国方略各具特色,亦各有不足,在政治实践中应兼采并用,各取所长,优势互补,以实现国家的长治久安。三家治国方略虽称发达,却仅属于“治道”,属于管理学范畴,而于“政道”甚少涉及,这与中国古代严酷的专制主义政治有密切关系。     

孔子德刑观的审视与解读

孔子德刑观承前启后。与前人不同,跨越运象以思阶段,形成完整的形上体系;同时又统领后来者,后儒在德刑之"神"、之"形"上都在沿用、传承孔子之所创。表达方式上,孔子首创直接对比方式,将德、刑直接对比,更利于观点的表达、理解和接受,当代中国道德建设便是缺少类似于此的精炼表达和内容阐释;孔子还开了从心理层面诠释德主刑辅的先河,增强了德主刑辅观点的可信度,当下中国道德建设亦应重视伦理道德的心理属性,切忌按经济操作手法来建设道德;最为主要的是孔子在德与刑之间植入了"礼"这个制度性规范,通过礼这个"制度"来保障道德精神在现实生活中的实现,中国封建社会悠久而成功的德治典范便是归功于此,当代中国道德建设也应借鉴于此,将"德治"的软实力通过"德制"这个硬措施来保障和实现。     

比较与参照:中西传统政治哲学的理论基础与道德意义

一、中国传统政治哲学的德治与法治中国传统政治哲学是对治国方略的理论思考。传统治国方略的主流是儒家的德治,德治的基本内容有以下几个方面:一是有德之人在位;二是在位者推行道德教化;三是实行利民惠民之政;四     

儒家德刑观论析

在道德与法律、德治与刑罚的关系问题上,儒家从其仁爱的思想原则出发,主张为政以德,强调社会管理者自身的道德修养;主张德刑兼治、德主刑辅,重德治、轻刑政;主张宽猛相济,先教后刑;主张富而后教,强调社会道德教化,重视道德对人们行为的规范作用。儒家的德刑观在中国社会长期的历史发展中产生了深远的影响,今天仍然可以为我们的道德建设和法制建设提供许多有益的借鉴和启示。     

The Knowledge Rule and the Action Rule

In this paper I compare Timothy Williamson's knowledge rule of assertion with Ishani Maitra and Brian Weatherson's action rule. The paper is in two parts. In the first part I present and respond to Maitra and Weatherson's master argument against the knowledge rule. I argue that while its second premise, to the effect that an action X can be the thing to do though one is in no position to know that it is, is true, its first premise is not: the data do not support the claim that whenever X is the thing for one to do, one is in a position to assert that it is. In the second part I consider Maitra and Weatherson's alternative hypotheses, arguing that they do not provide a better explanation of the linguistic data. I conclude, in particular, that the knowledge rule is preferable to the action rule.     

为“金规则”辨

学界近年在对“己所不欲,勿施于人”这个中国式的“金规则”的议论中,存在不少误读、误解。择要言之,一是将“金规则”之“金”理解为“道德价值最高”;二是用“知道做不到”质疑、贬低“金规则”;三是以“不同”的存在否证“金规则”：四是认为“金规则”不适合现代社会。然而经过仔细辨析可以发现,这些其实都是不确之语。     

Rule Consequentialism and Scope

Rule consequentialism (RC) holds that the rightness and wrongness of actions is determined by an ideal moral code, i.e., the set of rules whose internalization would have the best consequences. But just how many moral codes are there supposed to be? Absolute RC holds that there is a single morally ideal code for everyone, while Relative RC holds that there are different codes for different groups or individuals. I argue that Relative RC better meets the test of reflective equilibrium than Absolute RC. In particular, I contend that Relative RC is superior because it accommodates our convictions about costless benefits. Some have charged that Relative RC threatens our convictions about the generality of moral codes and that it leads inevitably to what Brad Hooker calls “runaway relativism.” I argue that Relative RC has principled reasons for stopping this imagined slide down the slippery slope.     

Rule consequentialism and disasters

Rule consequentialism (RC) is the view that it is right for A to do F in C if and only if A’s doing F in C is in accordance with the set of rules which, if accepted by all, would have consequences which are better than any alternative set of rules (i.e., the ideal code). I defend RC from two related objections. The first objection claims that RC requires obedience to the ideal code even if doing so has disastrous results. Though some rule consequentialists embrace a disaster-clause which permits agents to disregard some of the rules in the ideal code as a necessary means of avoiding disasters, they have not adequately explained how this clause works. I offer such an explanation and show how it fits naturally with the rest of RC. The second disaster objection asserts that even if RC can legitimately invoke a disaster-clause, it lacks principled grounds from distinguishing disasters from non-disasters. In response, I explore Hooker’s suggestion that “disaster” is vague. I contend that every plausible ethical theory must invoke something similar to a disaster clause. So if “disaster” is vague, then every plausible ethical theory faces a difficulty with it. As a result, this vagueness is not a reason to prefer other theories to RC. However, I argue, contra Hooker, that the sense of “disaster” relevant to RC is not vague, and RC does indeed have principled grounds to distinguish disasters from non-disasters.     

Moral Relativism and Majority Rule

A number of arguments against relativism are based on the concept of majority rule. Since, the arguments allege, on relativism moral truth is founded on majority opinion, relativism entails that (a) moral progress and reform are impossible, (b) propaganda, advertising, brainwashing, and high birth rates turn mistaken moral judgments into correct ones, (c) moral horrors, if enough people believe them acceptable, are not moral horrors at all, (d) finding out what’s right and what’s wrong is extremely easy, (e) moral reasoning is very different from what we normally take it to be, and (f) internal criticism of a moral code is impossible. These arguments get their due in this article, which first defines and explicates relativism and then exposes, explains, and criticizes the arguments. Especially important to understand about the relation between relativism and majority opinion is the notion of a convention. Accordingly, it is discussed at some length.