【作者】 孙平；

【导师】 韩冬雪；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 政治学理论， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 以罗尔斯、诺齐克和德沃金为代表的当代美国新自由主义政治哲学的产生,一方面是在批判继承自由主义传统理论基础上,对启蒙政治叙事未竞事业的继续;同时也是面对美国民权运动和西方福利国家的兴衰做出的理论反应。罗尔斯的正义理论,从《正义论》到《政治自由主义》,再到《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,体现了面对理性多元论的事实,从社会正义向政治正义诉求的转变,也体现了基于自由解决现实不平等的理论追求。诺齐克的《无政府、国家与乌托邦》,通过对国家起源、国家功能和理想国家的阐述,以个人权利为道德边际约束,以持有正义来反对一切形式的分配正义,体现对基于个人权利的平等的坚持。德沃金通过抽象平等原则来协调平等与自由的关系,并以资源平等理论作为解决现实不平等的出路。在当代美国新自由主义内部,三人在个人主义理论基础、政治价值选择和政治理想与制度设计方面反映了各自的独特性。而与社群主义、新保守主义之间的争论,则显示了当代美国新自由主义的共同特征。更多还原

【Abstract】 The book A Theory of Justice came out by John Rawls in 1971. It symbolizes that the western political philosophy and the standard ethics revives again after being lashed deeply by the political behaviourism and the logical positivism. Just as the liberalism is the dominant ideology in Western, the core of the contemporary American New Liberalism embodies the western political philosophy reviving again. At first, it is embodied by the divergence and controversy among Rawls, Nozick and Dworkin inside the contemporary American New Liberalism. Their controversy make the liberalism political philosophy gain the richer intension and the fuller development in new history background. Secondly, it is embodied by the dispute among the American New Liberalism, the Communitarianism, the New Conservatism. The dispute reveals the flourishing in the largest degree. That is to say, the study of the contemporary western liberalism political philosophy can’t part from the core and main body of the contemporary American New Liberalism. Just considering this, the papers choose the topic“Study of the contemporary American New Liberalism political philosophy”and try to research the development present situation of the contemporary western political philosophy. Except the foreword and the conclusion, the whole paper consists three sections.The first section is the writings about background. This section analyses the theoretical and social background mainly that the contemporary American New Liberalism political philosophy comes into being. On the one side, As the prominent representative of the contemporary American New Liberalism political philosophy, the political philosophy of Rawls, Nozick and Dworkin embody the new contemporary development of the liberalism political philosophy from different angles. They inherit the basic frame of the liberalism political philosophy and use other theories for reference that criticize, revise or perfect the liberalism political philosophy. On the other side, their theories make the liberalism political philosophy more rational in the contemporary political practice. They put forward different plans to solve the institution and policy problems in the process of the contemporary political practice on the basis of analyses. As far as the former, the whole history development of the liberalism political philosophy provides the main theory resources for the development of the contemporary American New Liberalism. In the course of the liberalism political philosophy, especially contemporary, the critic and supplement from other political theories bring the abundant and beneficial theoretical references for the perfect of the contemporary American New Liberalism. Concerning the latter, the vigorous“civil right movement”lashed the American dominating order and result to shake the American traditional liberalism institution and faith. The practice in large scale and serious crisis resulting from“the welfare state”in western world make the welfare state’s development on the theoretical foundation of the new liberalism political philosophy being the disputing focus and theoretical difficult position. The two sides provide the political practice baffling problem that the contemporary American New Liberalism must face and solve.The second section is the writings about theories. This section grasps the theoretical internal logics about each theory of the three representatives of the contemporary American New Liberalism political philosophy. The books from A Theory of Justice to Political Liberalism and Justice as Fairness ---A Restatement, reflect Rawls’transform facing the fact of reasonable pluralism from the social justice conception to the political justice conception, from the comprehensive moral doctrine to the political doctrine, from the well-ordered society to the property-owning democracy. Rawls tries to solve the realistic society economy inequalities by distributive justice and realize substantive equality in the largest degree on the basis of the liberty principle. This is his persistent stand point. In the book Anarchy State and Utopia, Nozick expounds systematic the state origin, the state function and the ideal state and in the end affirms the minimal state, namely the framework for Utopia. He puts forward justice in holdines on the basis of the moral side constrains by individual rights and criticizes the distributive justice. He emphasizes the formal justice of individual rights and doesn’t attention the realistic society economy inequalities. Of course, Nozick transforms from the single value theory to the agreement for the plural values, from the political philosophy to the political practice lately. Dworkin begins with criticizing the legal positivism, puts forward the theory of equality of resources on the basis of the abstract equality principles. He tries to resolve the realistic society economy inequalities by the starting equality insured by the distributive justice in resources and advances the liberal political community by the ideal market.The third section is the writings about dialogues. It compares Rawls, Nozick and Dworkin in the three sides including the individualism theoretical foundation, the choice in the political values and the design in the political system. Nozick’s theory of rights embodies a kind of reasonable selfish individualism, eliminates the possibility that the collective and state becomes the right main body, incarnates typically a kind of extreme individualism standpoint. Rawls’justice theory and Dworkin’s equality theory show a kind of rational individualism. They recognize the right collision between the individual and state or government and restrict the individual rights in the necessary. They emphasize the equality liberty and distributive right that the self-discipline individual should own. Nozick emphasizes treating correctly the self-ownership that the reasonable individual should possess. Nozick maintains absolute negative freedom and carries formal equality and formal justice in the society and economy territory. He thinks that equality must be the formal equality and formal justice in the politic, society and economy territory. Rawls and Dworkin consider that people must attention and solve the realistic society economy inequalities to the full. They think that people should interest the positive freedom and the substantive equality and justice apart from the negative freedom and political formal equality and justice. Nozick’s ideal state is the minimal state, namely the framework for Utopia. Rawls’political ideal transforms from the well-ordered society to the property-owning democracy. Dworkin’s ideal state is the liberal political community. Nozick objects absolutely to redistribution and emphasizes the minimal state function and neutral state. Rawls and Dworkin advocate absolutely redistribution and emphasize enlarging state function, but persist in neutral state in the field of thought and value. The contemporary American New Liberalism debates with other schools of thought, including the Communitarianism, the New Conservatism and the social critic theory. The Communitarianism criticizes the contemporary American New Liberalism in self-conception, universalism, individualism and neutral principle. Being aimed at criticizing, the contemporary American New Liberalism, especially Rawls provides theoretical reverberate. The New Conservatism’s Hayek debates with Rawls in social injustice, reasonable limitation and farewell state.更多还原