从"作为公平的正义"到多元正义——罗尔斯、沃尔泽的正义理论评析

柏拉图曾一再追问:什么是正义?什么是非正义?[1]尽管他并没有给出令人满意的答案,但却已指明正义是“四德”(智慧、节制、勇敢、正义)之一。因而,当代英国政治哲学家B.巴里指出,柏拉图提出的正义问题“开创了西方的社会政治哲学”[2]。在亚里士多德那里,正义就是守法的和平等的     

向谁而说的“高贵的谎言”?

在现代政治哲学视野下,柏拉图在《理想国》中讲述的“高贵的谎言”,成为读者理解和接受柏拉图的最大阻碍之一.本文考察了几种流行的解读及其不足之处,并试图探讨另一种解读的可能性,即“高贵的谎言”并非针对被统治者而说的谎言,而是首先针对统治者(护卫者)而说的谎言.这种解读或可为理解柏拉图的政治哲学提出一种新的思路,即政治权力是一种需要付出巨大代价(自由)才能获得的东西.     

柏拉图-亚里士多德的“双重正义”思想及其当代意义

罗尔斯的正义论虽然在正义思想史上具有划时代意义,然而讨论正义问题不能仅限于此。源于古希腊的柏拉图-亚里士多德式正义思想即便在当代亦具有重要价值。亚里士多德在扬弃柏拉图"大、小字正义"类比的基础上提出了自己的"双重正义"思想,其中政制正义的原则可归结为"相互性",个体正义的原则可归结为"完善性"。从"双重正义"的视域看,罗尔斯的正义论政制正义有余而个体正义不足。对正义的思考应纳入"双重正义"的维度。     

柏拉图论混合政制

柏拉图不仅展现过言辞中的最佳政制,而且在《法义》中构建了现实可行的最佳政制:包含君主制、民主制和贵族制的混合政制。柏拉图将君主制和民主制视为元政制,两者分别代表了智慧和强力这两种基本的政治要素。君主制和民主制走向极端会导致过度奴役和过度自由,加入贵族制可使政制变得更为稳固。古典混合政制将高贵的出身、老人的稳健和节制以及民主原则融为一体,可视为哲人王的淡化形式。其中贤人统治作为主导因素,能弥合政治共同体的高低上下。     

关于正义的不同认识

“正义”(justice)是西方政治哲学中的一个核心概念,与“公正”基本同义。时至今日,对它的理解主要经历了三个不同的认识发展阶段,即从苏格拉底、柏拉图、亚里士多德对正义的肯定性的原初认识,到霍布斯对正义的否定,再到罗尔斯在社会契约论基础上对正义的新的肯定。一关于正义的原初认识最早开始思考正义问题的是苏格拉底,而最早比较完整地界定正义范畴的是柏拉图。他在其著名论著《理想国》一书中,明确地将正义规定为每一部分都各司其职,不介入其他部分的事务。在柏拉图那里,正义者最终被证明是哲学家。生意人和武士即使在正义城邦中也不真…     

唯物史观视域中的政治正义及其实践理路

政治正义是衡量政治权力来源和归宿是否正当、政治运行和秩序是否合法、政治价值结构和性质是否良善的综合评价系统。唯物史观视域中的政治正义作为合规律性与合目的性的统一,是国家治理现代化进程中不可或缺的价值标准。“民心是最大的政治,正义是最强的力量。”作为中国特色社会主义政治建设的重要价值依循,政治正义体现了新时代中国政治发展的“最强力量”,凸显了社会主义政治文明形态的鲜明底色,是共产党人崇高价值追求的生动体现。以追求“国之大者”、实现人民至上为政治属性,以立足基本国情、解决新时代社会主要矛盾为政治逻辑,以全面从严治党、勇于自我革命为政治品格,以践行人民中心、维护社会公平正义为政治目标,以树立正确义利观、助推全球正义为世界情怀,这些充分勾勒了新时代治国理政的政治方略,展现了新时代政治正义的中国智慧。     

西方伦理学史上的正义观

西方伦理学从古至今一直比较注重对正义、公正的研究。柏拉图的《理想国》可以说是古代西方的第一部《正义论》。它试图为古希腊奴隶制城邦生活建立一个正义原则。在《理想国》中,柏拉图对当时流行的各种正义观进行了分析、批评,第一次对正义范畴作了“正义就是善”的哲学规定,并划分了个人正义和城邦正义、相对正义和绝对正义。就个人来说,正义是全德,居四德之总。个人正义就是在智慧的统帅下,使灵魂的各个组成部分协调一致,各司其职,在行动上做好自己份内的事,不干涉别人。就城邦来说,正义就是组成国家的各个阶级,各尽其职,各做各的事,互不干涉。作为治国方针,正义就是内求团结,反对内讧;外求和平,反对战争。相对正义是现实世界的正义,     

孔子的德治主义和柏拉图的伦理政治

<正> 理想的制度形式与理想的道德规范的一致,是孔子和柏拉图所共同追求的。然而,由于文化历史渊源及两位思想家个性的不同,使这种“政、伦合一”在东西两大领域内又各具特色;并且这差异在后来的历史中继续发生深刻的影响。在孔子那里“仁”与“礼”这两个基本要素之间的相互制约又相互渗透,形成了宗法制度前提下的德治主义;而在柏拉图那里,在“善”的绝对信念下,通过以“正义”为主的诸种美德(包括“智慧”、“勇敢”、“节制”)之间的相互协调,共同作用,则构成知识论基础上的伦理政治。     

柏拉图成功证明了"正义就是幸福"吗?

柏拉图面对的挑战对于政治学是根本性的理论问题.智者认为没有人能够证明无权无势的正义者幸福而不义者不幸福,不义者只要通过最大的不义以权谋私就能获得超乎寻常的"强者幸福".柏拉图在回答中,首先调换了"正义"的含义,结果他所得出的所谓真正正义("内在正义")对于许多人来说显得恰恰是"不义",是灵魂中的理性压制欲望和政治中的君主集权等级精英制;这令民主派愤怒.而柏拉图又认为掌权者应当是哲人,这自然又令贵族派愤怒.在得罪了几乎所有人之后,柏拉图却又证明大权在手的哲人在"正义的国度"中也不幸福.由于现时代中相信智者的"聪明人"越来越多,柏拉图的政治哲学工作究竟是否令人信服,就不仅有学术的意义,而且有现实意义,值得人们的深入思考.     

作为21世纪一门综合性跨学科的跨国公共哲学观念

一、引言 “公共哲学”这个术语似乎是在20世纪,特别是在讲英语的世界开始使用。然而,假如我们把公共哲学这个概念定义为“从哲学上探讨诸如政治合法性、社会正义、战争与和平、环境问题、公共记忆等各种各样的公共问题的哲学”,那么,可以在西方国家及东亚国家的经典作品中找到与此相当的概念。确实,一种悠久的传统可以追溯到2000多年以前。例如,亚里士多德主义实践哲学在古希腊被提出,这种由伦理学、政治和修辞学组成的哲学可以被视为西方国家公共哲学的源头。     

孟子王道理想的心性向度

王道理想是孟子政治哲学的核心,作为一套超乎现实却又对现实具有普遍导向意义的治国理念,其践行的基石被孟子归结在人的心性之上。立足于“心”孟子提出王道缘起于“仁”,基于“性”孟子断言王道的落实在于“义”;由“心”“性”的统一确立了仁义一体的构想,据此认为,“居仁由义”是王道理想得以向现实转化的基本思路。     

Knowledge and Power in Plato’s Political Thought

Abstract

Plato justifies the concentration and exercise of power for persons endowed with expertise in political governance. This article argues that this justification takes two distinctly different sets of arguments. The first is what I shall call his ‘ideal political philosophy’ described primarily in the Republic as rule by philosopher‐kings wielding absolute authority over their subjects. Their authority stems solely from their comprehension of justice, from which they make political judgements on behalf of their city‐state. I call the second set of arguments Plato’s ‘practical political philosophy’ underlying his later thought, where absolute rule by philosopher‐kings is undermined by the impure character of all political knowledge. Whereas the complete comprehension of justice sanctions the absolute political power of those with this expertise, partial knowledge of justice disallows for such a large investment of power. Plato’s practical political philosophy argues for a mixed theory of governance fusing the institutions of monarchy with democracy in the best practical city‐state. Thus, Plato comes to realize the insurmountable difficulties of his ideal political thought, preferring a more practical political philosophy instead.     

厄洛斯神话的哲学启示

The myth of Er at the end of Plato's Republic is usually conceived as an eschatological one set in a philosophical context.It thus reveals the relationship between philomythos and phylosophos,and the interaction between myth and philosophy in a creative manner.Engaging and thought-provocating as it is,it is deployed to stir much reflection on the possible aspects of the human soul in terms of justice and injustice.In addition,it well demonstrates how Plato applies it as one of many typical cases to his post...     

How to Construct Marxian Thoughts as a Political Philosophy?

Importance of contemporary political philosophy has increased in recent decades. Since the 1970s, studies of Marx’s theories have become an important part of the discussion within contemporary theories of justice. More extensive studies concerning Marxist political philosophy from multiple perspectives are becoming a focal point in other fields of academic research. “How to understand Marx’s political philosophy?” has been a classic question for over a hundred years. Not an academic philosopher himself, Marx seems not to have issued a complete or consistent political philosophy by today’s standards, so it is only natural that his views would be interpreted differently by different scholars. While it is justifiable for us to construct Marx’s political philosophy, we must do it through a comprehensive theoretical reflection, and our construction must take full account of the history of the interpretations of Marx’s political philosophy. This applies especially of his theory of justice—a history which has lasted for more than a century. It is even more important for us to reread the original texts, particularly Marx’s early philosophical writings, and take them as the textual foundation for Marx’s political philosophy.     

施特劳斯政治哲学的精神与中国传统之重建

该文认为政治就是以公共权力分配为核心内容的游戏;政治学与政治哲学的根本区别在于政治学研究权力游戏规则的运行规律,而政治哲学则研究权力游戏规则的合法性;古典西方政治哲学所形成的是一种正义传统,而它正与中国古典政治哲学的天道传统相呼应。中国近代所形成的革命文化破坏了我们自己的政治哲学传统,重建我们自己的政治哲学和政治文化传统,是当代中国文化建设的核心任务之一。     

Richard Popkin – A Personal Memoir

This article is an introduction to an ancient Egyptian text called The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant and an argument that it ought to be seen as a classic of political philosophy. After contextualizing the tale as part of a tradition of moral and political philosophy in ancient Egypt, I explore the methods by which the text defines the proper roles of political authority and contrast its approach to justifying political authority with the argument from the state of nature so common in modern Western political philosophy. I claim that the tale's argument from dysfunction anticipates the move in contemporary Western political philosophy towards privileging non-ideal over ideal theory. I discuss challenges in translating the key term in the tale – ma'at – in light of the fact that it can be taken to mean ‘justice’ and/or ‘truth’. Finally, I discuss how the irony at the heart of its narrative can lead us to interpret the tale as having either conservative or revolutionary implications for the political system it depicts.     

Rawlsian Stability

Despite great advances in recent scholarship on the political philosophy of John Rawls, Rawls’s conception of stability is not fully appreciated. This essay aims to remedy this by articulating a more complete understanding of stability and its role in Rawls’s theory of justice. I argue that even in A Theory of Justice Rawls (i) maintains that within liberal democratic constitutionalism judgments of relative stability typically adjudicate decisively among conceptions of justice and (ii) is committed to (i) more deeply than to the substantive content of justice as fairness. This essay thus emphasizes the continuity of Rawls’s thought over time and motivates the position that Rawlsian stability is as philosophically significant and distinctively Rawlsian as justice as fairness itself.     

罗尔斯的公平正义观真的反对后果主义吗?

<正>罗尔斯在《正义论》中所提出的公平正义观对当代政治哲学产生了极大的影响,连其理论的主要反对者诺齐克都说:"《正义论》是自约翰.斯图尔特.密尔的著作以来所仅见的一部有力的、深刻的、精巧的、论述宽广和系统的政治和道德哲学著作……政治哲学家们现在必须要么在罗尔斯的框架内工作,要么解释不这么做的原因。"(诺齐克,1990年,第187页)罗尔斯在《正义论》中提出:"我的目的是确定一个能够代替一般的功利主义、从而也能代替它的各种变化形式的作为一种选择对象的正义论。"(罗尔斯,2009年,第18页。下引罗尔斯文献仅注年份和页码)他在书中采用的     

Justice: Metaphysical,After All?

Political liberals, following Rawls, believe that justice should be ‘political’ rather than ‘metaphysical.’ In other words, a conception of justice ought to be freestanding from first-order moral and metaethical views. The reason for this is to ensure that the state’s coercion be justified to citizens in terms that meet political liberalism’s principle of legitimacy. I suggest that privileging a political conception of justice involves costs—such as forgoing the opportunity for political theory to learn from other areas of philosophy. I argue that it is not clear that it provides any benefit in return. Whether a political conception of justice more adequately satisfies the liberal principle of legitimacy than a metaphysical conception of justice is an open question. To show this, I describe three ways in which political conceptions of justice have been developed within the literature. I then argue that while each might be helpful in finding reasons that reasonable citizens can accept, all face challenges in satisfying the liberal principle of legitimacy. Political conceptions of justice confront the same set of justificatory problems as ‘metaphysical’ conceptions. The question of whether a political conception is preferable should receive greater scrutiny.