论罗尔斯《万民法》中的“分配正义”理念
发布时间：2019-04-09 11:58
【摘要】：《万民法》作为罗尔斯政治正义理论发展的第三个阶段,对国际层面的正义问题进行了有益探索。作为一个提倡“公平”的自由主义者,罗尔斯在该著作中讨论了国际社会的“分配正义”问题,并得到了包括批评意见在内的各方回应,但目前中国学界对这方面的关注不足。 本文首先对罗尔斯国际“分配正义”理论受到的批判进行了分类梳理,认为批评者主要不满于罗尔斯对“全球经济正义”的忽视和认为他的理论前后出现矛盾；并对罗氏“分配正义”理论的历史和理论背景、变化脉络、原则的确切含义和逻辑关系进行了重新审视和阐释分析；通过对一系列观点和论争的反思,论文讨论了罗尔斯与世界主义者的主要分歧,也阐明了罗尔斯反馈争论后的一些表述修正和基本坚持。论文在肯定罗尔斯对政治哲学“分配正义”理论有重大突破、《万民法》其实是一个“更加巨大成就”的同时,也试图认知它的理论局限或未尽问题。 本文认为,归根到底,如何将帮助全球最不利人群的“道义”,在国内社会和国际社会进行有区别又有联系的“分配”,是困扰罗尔斯的主要问题。对“全球经济正义”的两种认识,构成了罗尔斯和世界主义者的主要差别。同时,罗尔斯的分配正义理论在从国内扩展到国际社会的时候,的确发生了很大的改变,但这并不意味着罗尔斯的理论逻辑出现漏洞,相反,罗尔斯在“分配正义”问题上的基本观点,是层次分明和体系严密的。虽然罗尔斯的国际“分配正义”理论也存在局限,但问题的关键并不是罗氏政治正义理论前后出现了矛盾,而是当代国际社会贫富差距和主权国家体系决定了其理论创新上一时难以破局的困境。
[Abstract]:As the third stage of the development of Rawls' theory of political justice, the Universal Civil Law explores the issue of justice at the international level. As a liberal advocate of "fair", Rawls discussed the issue of "distributive justice" in the international community, and received responses from all sides, including criticism. However, at present, Chinese scholars pay little attention to this aspect. First of all, this paper classifies Rawls' international theory of "distributive justice" and points out that the critics are mainly dissatisfied with Rawls' neglect of "global economic justice" and that there are contradictions before and after Rawls' theory. It also re-examines and explains the historical and theoretical background of Roche's theory of "distributive justice", the context of change, the exact meaning of the principle and the logical relationship. Through reflection on a series of viewpoints and arguments, the paper discusses the main differences between Rawls and cosmopolitarians, and clarifies some reformulation amendments and basic insistence after Rawls' feedback argument. While affirming that Rawls has made a great breakthrough in the theory of "distributive justice" in political philosophy, "the Civil Law of all" is actually a "greater achievement", it also tries to recognize its theoretical limitations or unfinished problems. This paper argues that, in the final analysis, how to help the "morality" of the most disadvantaged people in the world and how to make different and connected "distribution" between the domestic society and the international community is the main problem that puzzles Rawls. Two perceptions of global economic justice constitute the main difference between Rawls and cosmopolitarians. At the same time, when Rawls's theory of distributive justice extends from home to the international community, great changes have taken place, but this does not mean that there is a loophole in Rawls' theoretical logic, on the contrary, Rawls' basic views on the issue of distributive justice are hierarchical and systematic. Although Rawls' theory of international "distributive justice" also has limitations, the key to the problem is not that there are contradictions before and after Roche's theory of political justice. However, the gap between the rich and the poor in the contemporary international society and the sovereign state system determine the dilemma of its theoretical innovation which is difficult to break for a while.
【学位授予单位】：浙江大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D09
本文编号：2455160
[Abstract]:As the third stage of the development of Rawls' theory of political justice, the Universal Civil Law explores the issue of justice at the international level. As a liberal advocate of "fair", Rawls discussed the issue of "distributive justice" in the international community, and received responses from all sides, including criticism. However, at present, Chinese scholars pay little attention to this aspect. First of all, this paper classifies Rawls' international theory of "distributive justice" and points out that the critics are mainly dissatisfied with Rawls' neglect of "global economic justice" and that there are contradictions before and after Rawls' theory. It also re-examines and explains the historical and theoretical background of Roche's theory of "distributive justice", the context of change, the exact meaning of the principle and the logical relationship. Through reflection on a series of viewpoints and arguments, the paper discusses the main differences between Rawls and cosmopolitarians, and clarifies some reformulation amendments and basic insistence after Rawls' feedback argument. While affirming that Rawls has made a great breakthrough in the theory of "distributive justice" in political philosophy, "the Civil Law of all" is actually a "greater achievement", it also tries to recognize its theoretical limitations or unfinished problems. This paper argues that, in the final analysis, how to help the "morality" of the most disadvantaged people in the world and how to make different and connected "distribution" between the domestic society and the international community is the main problem that puzzles Rawls. Two perceptions of global economic justice constitute the main difference between Rawls and cosmopolitarians. At the same time, when Rawls's theory of distributive justice extends from home to the international community, great changes have taken place, but this does not mean that there is a loophole in Rawls' theoretical logic, on the contrary, Rawls' basic views on the issue of distributive justice are hierarchical and systematic. Although Rawls' theory of international "distributive justice" also has limitations, the key to the problem is not that there are contradictions before and after Roche's theory of political justice. However, the gap between the rich and the poor in the contemporary international society and the sovereign state system determine the dilemma of its theoretical innovation which is difficult to break for a while.
【学位授予单位】：浙江大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D09
【引证文献】
相关硕士学位论文 前1条
1 柳文;罗尔斯国际正义理论研究[D];华东师范大学;2013年
，本文编号：2455160
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/shekelunwen/zhengzx/2455160.html
