从同一性正义与差异性正义看罗尔斯、诺齐克之争

发布时间：2018-07-17 00:30

【摘要】：关于正义问题以及道德哲学争论的主角是罗尔斯与诺齐克。罗尔斯认为，，正义是社会制度的首要价值，且正义意味着平等。在罗尔斯看来，西方社会自由问题已基本解决，现在要关注的是平等问题。他指出，所有的社会基本善都应该被平等的分配，除非某些不平等分配有利于“最少受惠者”。诺齐克赞同罗尔斯所主张的正义是社会制度首要价值的观点，但他主张正义在于权利，而权利神圣不可侵犯。诺齐克同情社会不平等给人们带来的不幸，但他认为，不平等并不等于不正义，而且平等也并不意味着就是正义的。诺齐克批评罗尔斯为解决平等而主张更多功能的国家，在诺齐克看来任何形式的再分配都意味着是对个人权利的侵犯，认为最好的国家就是管事最少的国家。但在罗尔斯看来，任何形式的不平等都应该加以纠正，解决不平等的唯一途径是实行国家的再分配。实质上罗尔斯与诺齐克争论的焦点是自由与平等问题，罗尔斯倾向于平等，诺齐克主张自由之上。正是两学者正义理论的尖锐对立，才引发了我们对诸多问题的思考及关于价值问题的讨论。本文从同一性正义与差异性正义看两学者之争，指出罗尔斯倾向于平等的正义理论和诺齐克自由至上的正义理论都是一元正义论，都存有不足。同一性正义与差异性正义是二元正义论，是对罗尔斯与诺齐克正义理论的超越与补充。论文第一章主要介绍了罗尔斯与诺齐克正义理论发生的背景、基本内容及影响。第二章首先从得所当得及一视同仁两原则对正义进行了澄清，概要的论述了应得与正义和平等与正义。然后对两学者正义理论进行了比较研究，指出争论之实质是自由对平等。而关系自由与平等的争论，主要表现在经济领域，涉及利益的合理分配和负担问题，主要探讨了分配正义中关于天赋是否应该参与到分配领域？如果参与到分配领域，那么多大程度进入分配领域问题？第三章是本论文核心部分，在这一章里系统的论述了同一性正义与差异性正义及两正义之协同机制，并回答了为何同一性正义与差异性正义是对罗尔斯与诺齐克正义理论的超越。同一性正义一定意义上契合了罗尔斯之平等正义理论，差异性正义一定意义上契合了诺齐克主张自由至上的正义理论。两学者正义理论最大的不足是只看到正义的一方面，缺乏动态、历史、全面、系统性。考证了罗尔斯与诺齐克正义理论的不足，最后指出协同正义，即同一性正义与差异性正义，才是当代世界对正义的诉求。结合社会现实问题，基于协同正义之协同理论，剖析了协同正义如何保障民众自由与平等基本权利，以及如何实现分配正义及构建和谐、良序社会问题。
[Abstract]:The protagonists of the debate about justice and moral philosophy are Rawls and Nozick. Rawls believes that justice is the primary value of social system, and justice means equality. In Rawls's view, the problem of social freedom in the West has been basically solved, and now we should pay attention to the issue of equality. He pointed out that all basic good in society should be equally distributed, unless some unequal distribution benefits the "least beneficiaries." Nozick agrees with Rawls' view that justice is the primary value of social system, but he argues that justice lies in rights and rights are sacred and inviolable. Nozick sympathizes with the misfortune of social inequality, but he believes that inequality does not mean injustice, and equality does not mean justice. Nozick criticized Rawls for advocating a more functional state for equality. In Nozick's view, any form of redistribution would mean an infringement of individual rights, arguing that the best state is the one with the least responsibility. But in Rawls' view, any form of inequality should be corrected, and the only way to address it is through national redistribution. In essence, Rawls and Nozick argue on the issue of freedom and equality, Rawls tends to equality, Nozick advocates freedom above. It is the sharp opposition between the two scholars' theory of justice that leads us to think about many problems and discuss the problem of value. From the viewpoint of identity justice and differential justice, this paper points out that Rawls' theory of justice, which tends to be equal, and Nozick's theory of justice, which is free and supreme, are both monolithic justice theories, which are deficient. Identity justice and differential justice are dualistic justice theory, which transcends and complements Rawls and Nozick's theory of justice. The first chapter introduces the background, basic content and influence of Rawls and Nozick's theory of justice. The second chapter firstly clarifies justice from the principle of equal treatment and equal treatment, and briefly discusses justice and equality and justice. Then the author makes a comparative study of the two scholars' theory of justice and points out that the essence of the argument is freedom versus equality. The argument of relationship freedom and equality, mainly in the economic field, involves the reasonable distribution and burden of interests, mainly discusses whether the natural talent should participate in the distribution field in distributive justice. If involved in the field of distribution, then how much into the issue of distribution? The third chapter is the core part of this paper. In this chapter, we systematically discuss the justice of identity and the justice of difference and the cooperative mechanism of the two justice. It also answers why identity justice and differential justice transcend Rawls and Nozick's theory of justice. Identity justice fits Rawls' theory of equality justice to a certain extent, and differential justice theory agrees with Nozick's theory of justice which advocates the supremacy of freedom in a certain sense. The biggest deficiency of the two scholars' justice theory is that they only see the one side of justice, lack of dynamic, historical, comprehensive and systematic. This paper examines the shortcomings of Rawls and Nozick's theory of justice, and finally points out that coordinated justice, that is, identity justice and differential justice, is the demand for justice in the contemporary world. Based on the synergy theory of synergetic justice, this paper analyzes how to guarantee the basic rights of freedom and equality of the people, and how to realize the distribution justice and build a harmonious and orderly society.
【学位授予单位】：吉首大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D091;B82-051

【相似文献】