“德治”平议

目前学界批评传统“德治”的意见多带有主观随意性 ,然而对“德治”需要作符合历史实际情况的公平评价。孔子关于“德治”的本义是“德治”与“政治”并举。在中国封建社会里“德治”只具有相对的意义 ,“德治”与“政治”、“刑治”都是通过“礼治”实施的。传统“德治”形成了中华民族特有的传统文化和民族个性 ,因此对“德治”的批评应持慎重的态度。在当前实行依法治国的历史时期 ,在认识和实践上都应当把“法治”与“德治”统一起来。     

董仲舒的德治思想

董仲舒在孔子“仁”、“礼”政治思想的基础上,提出了“德治”的政治主张。其主要内容是国君必须“以仁安人,以义正我”,“不敢有君民之心”;选贤举能,任用清正廉洁之人,实现吏治的清明;要求为政“德治为主,刑罚为辅”。董仲舒的“德治”思想既渊源于孔孟儒学,亦深受阴阳家的影响,当然还与西汉初年的现实政治有密切关联。     

老子的“无为”政治与先秦其他无为思想的区别

“无为而治”是老子治国思想的核心主张。这一政治主张不仅有其特定的哲学内涵与历史成因,还与先秦其它各家的无为思想也有着根本的区别：一方面,在同属道家体系的内部,老子认为君臣俱可休息于无为;庄子则认为,君主固然可以“无为”,但臣下则必须“有为”。庄子的这一思想还同时影响了法家韩非一派的“元为”观。另一方面,老子与儒家孔子“无为”的差别,则更多地体现在一种治国理念上的“道治”与“德治”截然分殊。     

管子社会整合思想与积极构建和谐社会

管子作为中国古代著名的思想家和政治家,在春秋战国时期就提出以“富国安人”为核心目的的治国理念,这个理念分别把“贫富有度”的经济思想、“攘外安内”的政治思想和“崇礼重德”的文化思想进行了系统化的整合。随着中国经济改革的深化,我们今天也面临着贫富分化、地区不平衡以及德治与法治关系等一系列问题。笔者认为,管子的经济、政治和文化的整合思想已经具有现代社会整合思想的端倪,对解决当今中国构建“和谐社会”具有十分重要的启发意义。     

“卡里斯玛”崇拜与中国古代“德治

“谁”来实行“德治”、“谁”才能实行“德治”?围绕着这一问题,文章从韦伯的统治结构“三类型”说切入,论述了儒家的“卡里斯玛”崇拜及其与“德治”思想的关系。认为中国古代“德治”是以“卡里斯玛”崇拜为特征的“德治”,即“圣王”-“德治”。儒家寄希望于“卡里斯玛”式“圣王”来实现“民本”-“德治”-“邦宁”的“德治”理想。然而,这在“传统型”的君主制政体下是不可能真正和全面实现的。文章还分析了儒家“德治”思想的历史影响,指出除了给君主以“卡里斯玛”光环和一定程度上对君主有规范作用,唯有“德治”思想体系中的“德教”产生了实在的重大影响。     

政治伦理：“以德治国”的本体定位

德治本体问题是对“以德治国”的形而上追问,我们必须时“政治伦理”作为德治的本体定位进行探究,才能为“以德治国”提供理论资源。     

《黄老帛书》所见的另一种德治方略

《黄老帛书》以德治国说包裹在《君正篇》“一年从其俗,二年用其德”和“四年而发号令,五年而以刑正”的系统设计中。究其说,“用其德”是利用社会成员的道德（感）及其相互间的积极影响管理国家的一种方略。在对德的理解把握、德治的运作机制、可预期的作用方式和效果,以及对德治方略的定位等方面,《黄老帛书》之德治说有着与先秦儒家以德治国说颇为不同的致思方向与价值取向。前者注重被统治者道德行为的互动性,表现为对道德的客观规范的服从;而后者则执著于统治者道德品性的示范性,表现为对道德的主观人格的崇拜。     

道德与政治之间——古典儒学的德治思想及其历史境遇

古典儒学以“德治”为政治行为的最高原则与最终目的 ,期望通过由内而外的道德转化 ,将这个世界变为道德世界。先秦儒家致力于政治的道德化 ,以达到“内圣外王”的理想状态 ;但是 ,历史的事实却是儒家道德的政治化。道德与政治的不分 ,是儒家思想的特色 ,道德与政治之间的张力成为中国传统政治文化的特有景观 ,而儒家德治思想的历史境遇 ,却值得面临着现代化的今人深省。     

儒家的贤能政治及其现代困境

儒家的治国模式从根本上来讲,是一种贤能政治。所谓的"贤"是和"德"紧密联系的,主要是指人的道德品格,而"能"则是指一种治国的才干。在贤、能关系上,儒家未做严格的区分,甚至认为"德"便是一种最大的"能",因此儒家的贤能政治本质上就是"德治"。儒家的贤能政治在很长的历史时期内维持了社会的基本稳定,显示了其作为治国理念和治国方式的独特优势,然而在社会转型期的今天,其与时代发展的不适应性也越发凸显,从而我们又不得不重新审视儒家贤能政治的理论困境并思考其应对之策,进而实现其现代转化。     

以德治国:路径·功能·框架

一、路径开新: 统治、治理、善治将“统治、治理、善治”的治理演进形态作为现代德治的开新路径, 主要基于以下三个基本价值判断: 一是中国社会治理发展对于德治的需要程度; 二是人们对于德治价值的理解与接受程度; 三是德治本身以其理论与实践的双重成果之于中国治理的满足程度。选择治理理论解读“以德治国”, 旨在强调德治并非与法治分庭抗礼, 更不存在任何弱化法治权威的意味, 而只不过是要表明或更好地表明现代治理的多元事实或者说社会控制的多元格局。政治国家、民族地域作为一个实体, 其强大与否, 并不仅仅得益于某种单轨的治理主体…     

Beyond Realism and Moralism: A Defense of Political Minimalism

What is the relationship between morals and politics? What is the relationship between moral philosophy and political philosophy? Defenders of political moralism postulate moral aims or constraints for politics, and hence they see political philosophy as a chapter of moral philosophy. Contrastingly, advocates of political realism describe politics as an independent endeavor aiming at providing order and security, and conceive of political philosophy as an autonomous discipline. This article claims that political moralism and political realism share the mistake of assuming that politics has substantial, permanent goals or constraints. After criticizing political substantialism, the article explains the main ingredients of its alternative, political minimalism: (1) the idea that politics, understood as collective instrumental rationality, aims at providing adequate means for the accomplishment of people's goals, whatever these are; and (2) the conception of the relationship between morality and politics as one of “reciprocal containment.” Finally, it addresses some foreseeable criticisms of political minimalism.     

政治伦理的现代建构

政治伦理作为一门研究人类政治正当性及其操作规范和方法论的价值哲学。时政治明的发展和政治体制改革,具有导向、规范和终极价值关怀的意义。政治的正当性在于谋取人类“优良的生活”。在人类政治生活中具有优先性。围绕政治的正当性问题而展开的人类政治的价值选择和伦理结构是政治伦理的主体内容。人类生活在由政治支撑着的社会框架中,政治价值理念、政治制度伦理、政治组织伦理以及政治行为主体伦理,是现代政治伦理构成的基本框架。     

Constraining the Ruler: On Escaping Han Fei's Criticism of Confucian Virtue Politics

One of Han Fei's most trenchant criticisms against the early Confucian political tradition is that, insofar as its decision-making process revolves around the ruler, rather than a codified set of laws, this process is the arbitrary rule of a single individual. Han Fei argues that there will be disastrous results due to ad hoc decision-making, relationship-based decision-making, and decision-making based on prior moral commitments. I lay out Han Fei's arguments while demonstrating how Xunzi can successfully counter them. In doing so, I argue that Xunzi lays out a political theory restricting the actions of the ruler through both the use of ritual and law, which allows him to develop a theory that legitimizes government while at the same time constraining itself. Xunzi's political theory makes important strides in its attempt to recognize the importance of the ruler as a moral exemplar while also restricting his control in the political process.     

Happiness,morality, and politics

The idea that politics should promote the happiness of the population is rather common in the community of happiness researchers. This political view is sometimes based on the happiness principle, the fundamental ethical view that we have a strong moral reason to do what we can to maximize the happiness and minimize the suffering in the world. The first main purpose of this paper is to investigate (1) what role this principle play in ethics as a whole, how it should be weighed against other moral considerations, and (2) how exactly it should be understood, i.e. which possible version of the principle that is most plausible. This is the only way to arrive at well-founded theory of the fundamental moral (and political) significance of happiness and suffering (an “ethics of happiness and suffering”). The idea that politics should promote happiness is sometimes accompanied by the notion that we should introduce some kind of happiness index, and that it is a central goal of politics to maximize the value of this index. The second main purpose of this paper is to examine this suggestion. I will first ask (3) how such an index should be constructed, assuming that it might be a good idea to construct an index in the first place. I assume that an index of this kind cannot be plausible unless it incorporates a number of moral considerations, and that (3) is very closely related to (2). I will then ask (4) whether the suggestion is plausible, or whether there are better ways to put a politics of happiness into practice, e.g. to simply apply the knowledge we have about the determinants of happiness.     

荀子的"法后王"与儒学的走向政治

孔子与孟子以道德自律、道德教化为改造社会的手段,而对外在制度的匡正作用重视不够,在实际政治中的可操作性不强,从而被讥为“迂远而阔于事情”,不为现实政治所接纳。但救世济民这种根源于儒家思想深层的理念,必然要求后来的儒者强化儒学的现实性与在政治实践中的可操作性。荀子“法后王”就是对儒学发展要求的一个切实的回应。从这个意义上讲,“后王”毫无疑义地指“当今之王”或“近世之王”,亦即那些在春秋战国这一急剧变化的时代中变法自强的帝王,荀子探索出了儒学与政治的契合点,并由此开辟了通向政治实践的巷道。     

政治的,抑或道德的——对政治自由主义一个关键悖论的解读

政治自由主义试图将其正义观念塑造为纯粹"政治的"观念,而不能是完备性的"道德的"观念。但任何规范性的正义观念似乎都不能不是道德的,这就形成了政治自由主义所面对的一个最根本的悖论。通过分析我们可以看到,政治自由主义要克服这一悖论,必须寻求一种具有自主性的规范性政治概念。此外,政治自由主义把公民的两种道德能力当作理论前提,同时强调道德化的公民美德,这两个因素都加深了这一悖论。通过解释和分析这两种因素所带来的理论难题及其原因,文章认为,"政治的"自由主义之所以难以抹去"道德的"面纱,其根源在于政治在自由主义价值系统中的处境。     

Beyond Altruism: Identity-Construction as Moral Motive in Political Explanation

This article explores conceptual issues pertaining to the role of moral motivation in political explanation. Employing data drawn from long interview with political activists from across the spectrum of American politics, I criticize both rational actor models and so-called "dual" motivational theories, that focus on altruism as the primary moral motive in politics, in contrast to the narrow focus on a certain conception of self-interest. Against both of these approaches, I offer an identity-construction approach to moral motives in politics. This model focuses on the complex interweaving of self and moral motives, and in particular focuses on the concerns political activists have for what kind of person they are and what kind of life they are living. These types of concerns are both moral and self-regarding, and therefore defy the dichotomy between self- and other-regarding at the heart of both rational actor and "dual" motivation accounts of moral motives.     

A moral vision for the presidential election

The essay celebrates the “Mirror of Princes” writing of political philosophy that appeared in Augustine's City of God, the history of Western political philosophy and in the political thought of ancient China. It upholds the tradition of the good ruler while noting the ambiguities of morality in politics. It notes the political power of the American president in the current global context. While emphasizing the need for the good ruler to love the people he serves it focuses on the need for reform in health care, education, and race relations.     

Reflections on a Crisis: Political Disenchantment,Moral Desolation,and Political Integrity

Declining levels of political trust and voter turnout, the shift towards populist politics marked by appeals to ‘the people’ and a rejection of ‘politics-as-usual’, are just some of the commonly cited manifestations of our culture of political disaffection. Democratic politics, it is argued, is in crisis. Whilst considerable energy has been expended on the task of lamenting the status of our politics and pondering over recommendations to tackle this perceived crisis, amid this raft of complaints and solutions lurks confusion. This paper seeks to explore the neglected question of what the precise nature of the crisis with which we are confronted involves, and, in so doing, to go some way towards untangling our confusion. Taking my cue from Machiavelli and his value-pluralist heirs, I argue that there is a rift between a morally admirable and a virtuous political life. Failure to appreciate this possibility causes narrations of crisis to misconstrue the moral messiness of politics in ways that lead us to misunderstand how we should respond to disenchantment. Specifically, I suggest that: (i) we think that there is a moral crisis in politics because we have an unsatisfactorily idealistic understanding of political integrity in the first place; and (ii) it is a mistake to imagine that the moral purification of politics is possible or desirable. Put simply, our crisis is not moral per se but primarily philosophical in nature: it relates to the very concepts we employ—the qualities of character and context we presuppose whilst pondering over political integrity.     

You Ought to Know Better: the Morality of Political Engagement

I argue that, from the liberal perspective, citizens have a pro tanto moral duty to cultivate and maintain a readiness to participate in politics when such an action is called for from the moral perspective—I will call it “the pro tanto duty of political engagement.” It requires a citizen to (i) monitor what the government is doing (or not doing), (ii) evaluate its actions, and (iii) learn what she can do to intervene politically. In Section 1, I will discuss some doubts on the pro tanto duty of political engagement. In Section 2, I will describe Alexander Guerrero’s account of culpable ignorance and argue from his account that the pro tanto duty of political engagement is derived from a general moral duty to properly manage one’s morally relevant beliefs. In Section 3, I will argue that to properly assess the moral significance of any government policy or policy proposal, one must learn about the lives and personal values of those who would be affected by the policy.