论罗尔斯政治哲学的建构主义证成策略及其困境
发布时间：2018-07-25 10:14
【摘要】：在当代英美政治哲学的论辩语境下,证成(Justification)问题正日益引发着人们的关注。从可证成性的角度来看,不论是某种规范性原则的正当性、政治制度的合法性,还是日常行为的可接受性,如果人们希望对其进行反思、质疑或者辩护的话,都必须构造出某种方法或标准,以此来对这些原则、制度和行为的对错标准给出相应理由。罗尔斯的政治哲学不但为当代英美世界提供了一套影响深远的正义原则,同时,其学说也是对政治哲学的证成方法进行自觉反思和批判的典范。通过对基础主义和融贯论等传统证成模式的质疑和批判,罗尔斯最终明确形成了一套被称为建构主义的证成方法。这套方法意在对实践推理的前提和过程进行自觉反思,即首先要找到一种能够真实地反映出我们最为本真的生活世界的推理前提,并在此基础上拟定出一套行之有效的、严格演绎的实践推理之“程序”,以此将我们设定的所有推理前提“暂定化”,在这样一种前提和程序的双重规导和限定之下对原则、制度和行为的正当性、客观性进行批评或辩护。在罗尔斯那里,这套推理框架十分复杂且不乏模糊性,罗尔斯本人的目的诉求和这套推理框架之间也不乏紧张关系。这种紧张关系使这套推理框架随着罗尔斯的思考历程而经历了多次微妙的调整和嬗变。借助这些调整和嬗变,罗尔斯试图将“建构”的地基、实践推理的起点牢牢地扎根在人们最为真实的生活世界中,并在这一真实的生活世界中为自由主义的政治价值辩护。不过,在经验主义的论辩语境下,罗尔斯的理论意图与彻底建构主义自身的特征相矛盾。彻底的建构主义必然导向一种动态的证成模式,该模式中的一切推理要素,不论是推理的起点还是结论,都将在这种动态化的推理进程中变得不确定。相反,罗尔斯的“两个正义原则”却是一种极具确定性的自由主义价值理念,并在不同的推理语境中始终保持其确定性。就此而言,罗尔斯在经验主义立场下构造的建构主义实践推理尽管具有“去基础主义”和“暂定化”的目的诉求,但这一诉求在客观上无法贯彻得彻底,因而会潜在地引入基础主义的奥援。罗尔斯的后学——奥诺拉·奥尼尔(Onora O'Neill)力图同样以经验主义的立场来解决罗尔斯学说所蕴含的这些张力和困境,以期修筑出一幅更加彻底的建构主义图景。不过,奥尼尔这种看似更加彻底的建构主义仍然难以在“去基础主义”这一意义上通达得彻底。最后,本文将跳出罗尔斯或奥尼尔的具体论述语境,并对建构主义学说本身进行一般性的分析,该分析意在表明,建构主义学说必然与基础主义学说交织在一起展开理论的建构。
[Abstract]:In the context of contemporary British and American political philosophy, the issue of (Justification) is attracting more and more attention. Whether it's the legitimacy of a normative principle, the legitimacy of a political system, or the acceptability of everyday behavior, if people want to reflect on it, question it or justify it, from the point of view of probability. Must construct some method or standard to give the corresponding reason to these principles, the system and the behavior right and wrong standard. Rawls' political philosophy not only provides a set of far-reaching principles of justice for the contemporary Anglo-American world, but also serves as a model for consciously reflecting and criticizing the method of political philosophy. By questioning and criticizing traditional evidential models such as foundationalism and integration theory Rawls finally formed a set of evidential methods called constructivism. This set of methods is intended to reflect on the premise and process of practical reasoning, that is, to first find a reasoning premise that truly reflects our most authentic world of life, and draw up a set of effective ones on this basis. The "procedure" of strictly deductive practical reasoning, whereby all the reasoning premises we set are "tentatively", the legitimacy of principles, institutions, and actions under the dual guidance and limitation of such a premise and procedure, To criticize or justify objectivity. In Rawls' case, the reasoning framework is complex and fuzzy, and there is no shortage of tension between Rawls' purpose and the reasoning framework. This kind of tension makes this reasoning frame undergo many subtle adjustments and changes with Rawls' thinking process. With these adjustments and transmutation, Rawls tries to establish the foundation of "construction" and the starting point of practical reasoning firmly rooted in the most real life world of people, and defend the political value of liberalism in this real life world. However, in the context of empiricism, Rawls' theoretical intention contradicts the characteristics of thorough constructivism itself. Thorough constructivism is bound to lead to a dynamic model of proof, in which all reasoning elements, whether the starting point or the conclusion, will become uncertain in this dynamic reasoning process. On the contrary, Rawls'"two principles of Justice" is a kind of very deterministic liberalism value concept, and always maintains its certainty in different reasoning contexts. In this regard, although the practical reasoning of constructivism constructed by Rawls under the position of empiricism has the purpose of "de-basicism" and "tentative", it cannot be carried out objectively and thoroughly. This would potentially lead to the introduction of foundational support. Honorat O'Neill (Onora O'Neill), Rawls' postschool, tries to solve the tension and predicament contained in Rawls' theory from the standpoint of empiricism, in order to build a more complete picture of constructivism. However, O'Neill 's seemingly more thorough constructivism is still difficult to be thorough in the sense of "de-fundamentalism". Finally, this paper will jump out of the specific discourse context of Rawls or O'Neill, and make a general analysis of constructivism itself, which is intended to show that, Constructivism is bound to interweave with foundationalism to construct the theory.
【学位授予单位】：复旦大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D0
本文编号：2143496
[Abstract]:In the context of contemporary British and American political philosophy, the issue of (Justification) is attracting more and more attention. Whether it's the legitimacy of a normative principle, the legitimacy of a political system, or the acceptability of everyday behavior, if people want to reflect on it, question it or justify it, from the point of view of probability. Must construct some method or standard to give the corresponding reason to these principles, the system and the behavior right and wrong standard. Rawls' political philosophy not only provides a set of far-reaching principles of justice for the contemporary Anglo-American world, but also serves as a model for consciously reflecting and criticizing the method of political philosophy. By questioning and criticizing traditional evidential models such as foundationalism and integration theory Rawls finally formed a set of evidential methods called constructivism. This set of methods is intended to reflect on the premise and process of practical reasoning, that is, to first find a reasoning premise that truly reflects our most authentic world of life, and draw up a set of effective ones on this basis. The "procedure" of strictly deductive practical reasoning, whereby all the reasoning premises we set are "tentatively", the legitimacy of principles, institutions, and actions under the dual guidance and limitation of such a premise and procedure, To criticize or justify objectivity. In Rawls' case, the reasoning framework is complex and fuzzy, and there is no shortage of tension between Rawls' purpose and the reasoning framework. This kind of tension makes this reasoning frame undergo many subtle adjustments and changes with Rawls' thinking process. With these adjustments and transmutation, Rawls tries to establish the foundation of "construction" and the starting point of practical reasoning firmly rooted in the most real life world of people, and defend the political value of liberalism in this real life world. However, in the context of empiricism, Rawls' theoretical intention contradicts the characteristics of thorough constructivism itself. Thorough constructivism is bound to lead to a dynamic model of proof, in which all reasoning elements, whether the starting point or the conclusion, will become uncertain in this dynamic reasoning process. On the contrary, Rawls'"two principles of Justice" is a kind of very deterministic liberalism value concept, and always maintains its certainty in different reasoning contexts. In this regard, although the practical reasoning of constructivism constructed by Rawls under the position of empiricism has the purpose of "de-basicism" and "tentative", it cannot be carried out objectively and thoroughly. This would potentially lead to the introduction of foundational support. Honorat O'Neill (Onora O'Neill), Rawls' postschool, tries to solve the tension and predicament contained in Rawls' theory from the standpoint of empiricism, in order to build a more complete picture of constructivism. However, O'Neill 's seemingly more thorough constructivism is still difficult to be thorough in the sense of "de-fundamentalism". Finally, this paper will jump out of the specific discourse context of Rawls or O'Neill, and make a general analysis of constructivism itself, which is intended to show that, Constructivism is bound to interweave with foundationalism to construct the theory.
【学位授予单位】：复旦大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D0
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前4条
1 姚大志;契约论与政治合法性[J];复旦学报(社会科学版);2003年04期
2 孙小玲;;互尊和自尊的伦理学——从罗尔斯的“相互冷淡”谈起[J];复旦学报(社会科学版);2012年01期
3 韩水法;;什么是政治哲学[J];中共中央党校学报;2009年01期
4 童世骏;;理性、合理与讲理——兼评陈嘉映的《说理》[J];哲学分析;2012年03期
，本文编号：2143496
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/shekelunwen/zhengzx/2143496.html
