【作者】 杨晓畅；

【导师】 邓正来；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 法学理论， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 多元社会的正义事业——罗尔斯政治自由主义“社会统一论”研究从问题意识上看,罗尔斯后期的政治自由主义理论旨在回应现代社会的“合理多元论事实”向其正义理论提出的下述挑战:在自由平等的公民因各种虽不相容却合理的宗教、哲学和道德“整全学说”而产生深刻分歧的情况下,合理的社会统一如何可能?进而,该社会如何在共识和统一的基础上实现社会正义、基于正当理由的稳定性和法律合法性?罗尔斯虽然明确提出了“社会统一问题”,但却为此建构了极为抽象、复杂的政治自由主义理念体系。这在很大程度上致使既有讨论因忽视或混淆了“社会统一”这一核心问题意识而误解该理论,甚至低估其理论意义。有鉴于此,本文采取“基于问题意识的重构性路径”,从罗尔斯的问题意识入手,将罗尔斯围绕“社会统一问题”进行的理论建构称为政治自由主义“社会统一论”,并将其置于问题提出的背景和罗尔斯本人的理论脉络中进行了理论重构,以把握其内在理路;同时,本文还采取了“内部视角与外部视角相结合的路径”探究其理论意义和局限。通过考察“社会统一论”的出场背景,本文纠正了认为罗尔斯的理论转向是为了回应共同体主义对“正义论”的批判这一通行看法。进而认为:“社会统一论”的提出是为了修正在现代多元社会中“正义论”因预设了某种相对同质的社会而存在的内在理论困境,并回应“正义论”无法解决的“社会统一问题”。通过考察“社会统一论”的论证基础并对该理论进行重构,本文认为:“社会统一论”将现代社会占支配地位的政治哲学基点从伦理理想层面(即何谓美好生活)“下降”到与法律的基本要求直接相关的、最基本的社会规则层面(即我们应当如何正当地生活在一起),并把围绕自由主义的政治正义观念“扩大共识,缩小分歧”作为基本目标。为此,罗尔斯首先通过将“道德建构主义”改造为“政治建构主义”的理论改造,使其正义观念脱离了康德式整全学说,进而使之成为从现代民主社会“公共政治文化”中提炼出来的、既避免了真理问题的争议又具有某种客观性的独立的“政治正义观念”。在此基础上,罗尔斯在“良序社会”这种社会理想图景的指导下,通过正义观论证、稳定性论证和合法性论证这三个层面的论证,阐明了“社会统一论”旨在基于共识而达致的三重政治价值理想及其实现条件。其中,正义观论证阐明了自由主义的正义观念依凭怎样的条件才能具有道德上的可接受性,因而能够得到不同整全学说的共识;稳定性论证阐明了现实社会中持不同合理整全学说的公民们实际上如何就自由主义的政治正义观念达成“重叠共识”,从而促进正义观念和社会秩序的稳定;合法性论证则阐明了公民们怎样将达成的共识固化为具有合法性的法律法规,从而以法律的方式保障社会的正义和稳定。为了从外部保障“社会统一问题”的解决、良序社会的实现,罗尔斯也从政体、国家(政府)和公民这三个层面建构了“社会统一论”的法律建制。通过重构罗尔斯的社会观,本文考察了正义观念的终极权威和社会统一的深层根源,并得出了不同于某些共同体主义论者的如下结论:罗尔斯不仅将现代民主社会理解为其成员具有合作需求的“社会联合”社会,而且也将其理解为社会形式和历史传统对其成员的身份具有巨大型构作用的“社会内嵌式”社会。在这种社会观的参照下,自由主义政治正义观念的终极权威和社会统一的深层根源就来源于作为世世代代的社会成员集体政治社会实践结果的社会生活形式和社会生活传统。通过探究“社会统一论”的理论意义,本文认为:从其自身的理论发展和自我期许来看,罗尔斯“社会统一论”的提出一方面回应了“正义论”无法解答的多元社会如何统一的问题,另一方面也促成了自由主义理论从整全性自由主义到政治自由主义的范式转换。而相较探寻道德真理的“整全理论”和霍布斯式的“权宜之计”论,“社会统一论”对“社会统一问题”的理论求解可谓一种“现实乌托邦式”的探求。它为理论寻求实践关怀,将政治哲学或法哲学应当发挥的作用定位于实践作用、定向作用和调和作用。它在理想与现实之间谋求最佳平衡,承认政治法律解决方案的特定时空性,并为社会统一的实现过程设定了一个由不同层次和梯度组成的“现实—理想结构”,而不是一种终极性的、完备的方案或目标。它也为政治问题探求道德基础,将自身的出发点和目标确定为通过政治法律建制维护并促进每个公民平等的道德人格。“社会统一论”的“现实乌托邦式”探求与贯穿罗尔斯理论发展始终的某种“终极关怀”密不可分,即:人生在多大程度上是可以救赎的?如何构设一种“现实乌托邦”作为我们集体生活的最终道德目标,从而消除放任自流和愤世嫉俗的危险,并提升我们生命的价值?然而,如果跳出罗尔斯的问题意识、理论预设和论证逻辑,我们会发现:无论是“社会统一论”的道德基础还是其哲学基础都有待发展和拓深。在这些方面,无论是尤尔根·哈贝马斯从“重构论”出发、迈克尔·桑德尔从“自治共和国”出发进行的批判,还是查尔斯·拉莫尔和乔治·克劳德对其道德基础和哲学基础的推进,都为我们进一步反思或推进罗尔斯的“社会统一论”提供了有益的理论努力。更多还原

【Abstract】 The Project of Justice in a Pluralistic Society: A Research on Rawls’s“Social Unity Theory”of Political LiberalismRawls’s political liberalism aims at meeting the following challenge of the“fact of reasonable pluralism”in modern society: how is social unity based on the right reasons possible in a society of free and equal citizens, who remain profoundly divided by reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral“comprehensive doctrines”? Furthermore, how can this society achieve social justice, stability and legal legitimacy on the basis of consensus and social unity? Although Rawls has clearly put forward the issue of social unity, he constructs an extremely abstract and complex system of ideas of political liberalism to resolve this problem. This has led a large part of scholars in this field to misunderstand Rawls’s political liberalism, or even underestimate its theoretical significance inasmuch as they neglected or confused social unity which represents its question awareness.For this reason, in order to grasp the inner logic of the theory, as a response to the above situations, this dissertation follows“the reconstructive approach based upon Rawls’s question awareness”, starting with the question awareness of Rawls’s political liberalism, referring to his theorization effort around this issue as the“social unity theory”of political liberalism, and reconstructing the theory by putting it into its social background and Rawls’s theoretical context. Moreover, this dissertation also follows“the approach of combining the internal perspectives with the external ones”to inquire its contributions and limits.First of all, this dissertation examines the theoretical background of the“social unity theory”and points out that the mainstream view that Rawls’s transition to political liberalism is driven by certain communitarian critiques is of no ground. The author maintains that the“social unity theory”can be regarded as a self-adjustment of the inner tension in A Theory of Justice which presupposes that the society is relatively homogeneous, a presupposition which is in conflict with a modern pluralistic society, and as a response to the“social unity problem”in a pluralistic society that A Theory of Justice can not resolve. Secondly, this dissertation reconstructs the“social unity theory”based on the study of its argumentation basis. The argument is that instead of pursuing the ethical ideal of a good life, the theory deals with the basic social rules about how we can live together, a question closely related to the basic demands of law, and concentrates on how we can“expand our consensus and narrow our differences”on the basis of liberal“political conceptions of justice”. Therefore, based upon the transformation from“moral constructivism”to the“political constructivism”, it converts the conception of justice deeply rooted in the Kantian comprehensive doctrines into a freestanding political conception implicit in the“public political culture”of a democratic society, both avoiding the debates around truth and getting its self-sufficient conception of objectivity. With the“well-ordered society”as its ideal social picture, the theory lays out three levels of argumentation to discuss the political ideals it aims to realize and the approaches to their realization. The argument of justice explains how the liberal conceptions of justice can be affirmed by various comprehensive doctrines on account of moral acceptability. The argument of stability explains how a certain liberal conception of justice can be the focus of an“overlapping consensus”among citizens who adhere to different comprehensive doctrines in real social world, and how this process can enforce a stable conception of justice and a stable social order for the right reasons. The argument of legitimacy explains how the citizens can solidify their consensus as legitimate laws so as to legally protect social justice and stability. For the purpose of realizing the abovementioned political ideals, Rawls also constructs legal institutions around the regime, state and citizen which are adapted to the“social unity theory”.Thirdly, this dissertation examines the ultimate authority of the conceptions of justice and the deep roots of social unity and draws the conclusions that differ from some communitarians: Rawls not only regards the democratic society as a society of“social union”with its members taking social cooperation as their inner demand, but also regards it as a society of“social embeddedness”with its members greatly shaped by social forms and social traditions. The ultimate authority of the liberal political conceptions of justice and the deep roots of social unity both take root in the social forms and social traditions which are the results of the collective political and social practice of generations of social members.Finally, this dissertation deals with the contributions of the“social unity theory”. The argument is that, seen from its own development and self-expectation, Rawls’s“social unity theory”not only responds to the problem that A Theory of Justice can not resolve, but also promotes the paradigm shift of liberalism from certain comprehensive liberalisms to political liberalism. In contrast to the“comprehensive theories”which inquire moral truth and the theory of“modus vivendi”which is the successor of Hobbes, the project of“social unity theory”can be seen as a“realistic utopia”. Implanting the practical concerns in theories, the theory claims that political and legal philosophy is supposed to play a practical role and the roles of orientation and reconciliation. Keeping the most proper balance between ideal and reality, it admits that any political or legal solution is bound to be constrained by the conditions of any given time and space, and it designs a certain“reality-ideal structure”for the process of social unity, with various levels of political goals from the bottom to the top. Furthermore, tamping the moral basis of the political, it aims at the maintenance of the equal moral personality of every citizen through political and legal institutions. The“realistic utopian”face of the“social unity theory”is closely related to Rawls’s“ultimate concerns”throughout his theoretical development: whether and to what extent human life is redeemable? How can we model a“realistic utopia”as an ultimate moral goal for our collective life to banish the dangers of resignation and cynicisms and to enhance the value of our lives?However, if we leave Rawls’s own question awareness, theoretical presuppositions and logic of argument, we may find that there are still some spaces for the“social unity theory”to develop, especially its moral and philosophical foundations. In these aspects, the critique from Jürgen Habermas and Michael Sandel, and the advancement of Charles Larmore and George Crowder have offered useful directions for the improvement of Rawls’s“social unity theory”.更多还原