【摘要】 中国制度公正与罗尔斯西方制度正义是两种不同的制度价值话语逻辑。马克思正义批判与价值研究方法论,坚持事实与价值、实质与形式、历史分析与实践确证的方法论整体,罗尔斯则是建构主义反思平衡法。马克思制度价值方法论优于罗尔斯制度价值方法。基于马克思主义方法论分析公正价值范畴的目的性、规范性、具体性,公正是优于正义的价值德性;从中国制度公正(公平正义)与罗尔斯"公平的正义"价值之位阶、强弱、约束与被约束等不同区分,及制度体制事实,制度体制价值基本结构效率,尤其是"马克思效率最优"或"邓小平最优"的实践确证来看,公正是优于正义的制度价值。公正是中国社会治理制度价值话语逻辑,亦当适合全球治理制度价值话语逻辑。由是观止,坚持马克思主义方法论自觉,不仅是厘清制度公正与罗尔斯西方制度正义孰为优先的前提,也是实现哲学社会科学创新性发展的根本路径。更多还原

【Abstract】 China’s institutional fairness and John Rawls’ Western institutional justice are two different institutional value discourse logics,and correct methodology can clarify the issue of superiority.The Marxist methodology of justice criticism and value research insists on facts and values,essence and form,and historical analysis and confirmation methodology in practice as a whole,while Rawls uses a constructivist reflective equilibrium method.The Marxist methodology of institutional value is superior to Rawls’method of institutional value.Analysis of the purpose,normalization,and specificity of the value scope of fairness based on Marxist methodology shows that fairness is a value virtue that is superior to justice.Distinguishing China’s institutional fairness(fairness and justice)and Rawls’ "justice as fairness" in terms of the levels,strengths,and constraints of value and in terms of institutional facts and basic structural efficiency of institutional value,especially the confirmation in practice of "Marxist efficiency optimization" or "Deng Xiaoping optimization," shows that fairness is an institutional value that is superior to justice.Fairness is the institutional value discourse logic of China’s social governance,and it is also suitable for the institutional value discourse logic of global governance.Thus,adhering to the Marxist methodological consciousness is not only aprerequisite for clarifying institutional fairness and Rawls’ Western institutional justice,but also a fundamental approach to realizing the innovative development of philosophy and the social sciences.更多还原