【作者】 邓勇（邓曦泽）；

【导师】 郭齐勇；

【作者基本信息】 武汉大学 ， 中国哲学， 2007， 博士

【副题名】从春秋战争到普遍正义

【摘要】 普遍正义问题本已为古人解决,但由于今人之误解,致使人们认为它是尚未解决的问题。为此,本文承担了两个任务。第一,重新解决普遍正义问题,以确立普遍有效的正义规则。第二,尽量运用历史文化中的正义理论来解决问题,以复活历史文化。在“问题+方法+效用”的思路下,本文采取的基本结构是:以《左传》所记的战争为主要的生活事情,提出正义问题,然后从王霸理论切入,导向正义理论,再以《论语》为主要思想资源,解决问题。导论与第一章首先分析《左传》所记的战争,让历史提交正义问题,以确立问题,并给出基本的方法论。问题一旦确立,就需要寻找有效的解决方法。第二章讨论预设、基本概念与正义的结构。本文的基本预设(即一级预设)是行为者是能动者(预设1),并把由一级预设所派生的行为者在面对正义问题时的可能态度称为二级预设,进而分别把行为者愿意遵守正义规则称为预设2,把行为者不愿意遵守正义规则称为预设3。然后,本文分析了王霸、正义、暴力、利益、意愿、尊重、秩序、整体、天下等几个基本概念。接下来,本文着力分析正义的结构,为解决问题奠定基础理论。正义问题具有双边关涉结构,即正义问题一定是关涉施-应双方。从双边关涉可以派生出三边关涉。在正义问题中,正义判断的对象是施事行为,一件施事行为是否正义是针对应事者而言的,而判断根据则是应事者之意愿或现成的有效规则,施-应双方以及第三方都可以根据应事者之意愿或有效规则进行正义判断。基于对正义的结构的分析,第三章讨论正义律与其蕴含的秩序。本章首先分析了“己所不欲,勿施于人”。此言的含义是“自己不愿意被强迫,就不要强迫他人”。此言由“己所不欲”与“勿施于人”两个同构命题构成,其中涉及的行为者“己”与“人”都是任意的,具有普遍性,因此,从此言可以推出“任意行为者不要强迫任意行为者”。由此,本文指出,“己所不欲,勿施于人”得以成立的根据乃是绝对自明的恒真命题——“没有人愿意被强迫”,此即正义原理。从正义原理可以推出“尊重他人意愿”这条正义原则;从正义原则可以推出“任意行为者不要强迫任意行为者”。这个结论正是“己所不欲,勿施于人”所蕴含的,它就是下达律,亦即普遍正义规则。下达律可以简述为“人所不欲,勿施于人”。从“人所不欲,勿施于人”可以推出不正义律“人所不欲,而施于人”,零正义律之一“人反对而未施于人”,零正义律之二“人不反对,而施于人”,上达律“立人达人,不妨利己”。这几条规则相配合,就可以判断任意施事行为的正义性质。如果行为者遵守由下达律派生的零正义律与上达律,导致的整体秩序不但是和平的,并且不会萧条。所以,下达律既是正义的,也是有效的。下达律蕴含的秩序实际上就是《论语》所言之“和而不同”,并且“和而不同”是唯一正义的秩序,这就进一步验证了下达律的有效性。第四章主要讨论的是,作为施-应事情,具体规则的确立也存在正义问题,有效的具体规则乃是根据下达律而产生的,亦即制定规则的各方都应该相互尊重意愿。具体规则的确立也验证了下达律的有效性。然后,分析了以直报怨是应对首发暴力的通行之则。第五章主要讨论正义的实现问题。施-应双方一旦达成共同意愿,作出承诺,形成具体规则,就应该讲信用,遵守规则。不过,若某方认为既定规则不妥,也可以提出反悔。反悔的可能性是遵守下达律,其规则是任意一方都可以否决反悔。如果强行反悔,则是背信弃义,是不正义的。反悔也验证了下达律的有效性。正义规则只有针对那些愿意遵守规则的行为者(行为者满足预设2)才是有效的,任何规则都不能制约故意不守规则的行为者(行为者满足预设3),是故,正义规则在蛮不讲理者面前常常显得软弱。所以,面对蛮不讲理者,须得王霸杂用,拯救正义。但是,不能制约行为者不是规则的错,因为规则本身并不能制约人,它的任务只是进行正义判断。而不管行为者是否遵守规则,人们都能利用规则进行正义判断。本章还讨论了,以理杀人貌似正义,但实乃破坏和而不同之秩序、阻碍正义之实现的行为。由于古人本已解决了普遍正义规则问题,是故,本文对普遍规则的重新确立,实际上是对道学的正义理论的准确表述、重新组织、系统论证。最后,本文运用下达律分析了一些事情,进一步验证了其有效性,并审视了本文的问题、方法与效用,从而证明了本文的方法对于解决问题的有效性。更多还原

【Abstract】 Universal justice is a problem that had already been settled by ancient thinkers. However, many scholars today still consider it as unsettled. The present dissertation therefore assumes two tasks. Firstly, it tries to once again resolve the problem of universal justice, so as to set up universally effective rules of justice. Secondly, it tries to solve practical problems with the theory of justice that existed in history and cultural tradition, so as to revive to latter.Following the path of problem-plus-method-plus-effect, the structure of the dissertation is: To take the battles recorded in Zuo-zhuan as the major issues, and put forward the problem of justice. Then begin to discourse with the theory of Wang-Ba, and turn to the theory of justice. At last, take Lun-yu as the major resource to solve problem.In introduction and the first chapter, analysis is focused on the battles recorded in Zuo-zhuan. The problem of justice is put forward by history, and the basic methodology is also provided.As the problem is established, an effective solution becomes necessary. The second chapter discusses presupposition, basic concepts and the structure of justice. The basic presupposition (or primary presupposition) of the dissertation is that the doer is an initiator (Presupposition A). The possible attitude, which derive from the primary presupposition, of the doer when he faces the problem of justice is called secondary presupposition, hence we get Presupposition B– the doer will observe the rules of justice, and Presupposition C– the doer will not. Then, the paper analyses a series of basic concepts, such as Wang-Ba, justice, violence, interest, desire, respect, order, wholeness, Tian-xia. Following that, the paper analyses the structure of justice as the basic theory to solve problems. The problem of justice has a bilateral-involvement structure, that is, both the initiator and the responder are involved. From bilateral-involvement there derives trilateral-involvement. In the problem of justice, the object of justice judgment is the initiative action. It is to the responder that we say whether an initiative action is justified, and the judgment is based on the agreed or existing effective rules. Both the initiator and the responder, even the third party, could make his/their justice judgment according to the wish of the responder or effective rules.Based on the analysis on the structure of justice, the third chapter discusses justice rule and the order contained within it. This chapter begins with an analysis on the saying "Do not impose on others what you do not desire yourself." This saying includes two isomorphic propositions, in which "you" and "others" are casually designated. We can infer from it another proposition - "anyone cannot impose on anyone else". Now we get a conclusion that, the truth of the saying is based on a self-evident true proposition– "Nobody is willing to be imposed on." This is the elements of justice. From here, we can deduce the principle of "To respect other people’s desire", hence the conclusion of "anyone cannot impose on anyone else". This conclusion is included in the saying. It is bottom-line rule, also the universal justice rule, which can be described as "Do not impose on others what they do not desire". Furthermore, we get the anti-justice rule–"Do impose on others what they do not desire", and zero-justice rule A– "Not yet impose on others what they reject", and zero-justice rule B– "To impose on others what they have not rejected", and the upper-rule– "Benefit others means benefit yourself." With these rule, we can judge the justice of any actions. If doers follow the zero-justice rule derived from the bottom-line rule and the upper-rule, the overall order will be not only peace, but also prosperous. Therefore, bottom-rule is justified and effective. The order contained in the bottom-line rule is what Confucius said in Analects - "harmoniously co-existence instead of monotonously oneness", which is the only justified order. This is a further proof of the effectiveness of the bottom-line rule.The fourth chapter discusses that during the establishment of practical rules, there still exist the problem of justice. Any effective rule comes from the bottom-line rule, i.e., all the related parties should respect the other’s desire. This also proves the effectiveness of the bottom-line rule. Then, we conclude that "repay harm with Justice" is the best rule to respond initiative violence. The fifth chapter discusses the realization of justice. Once the initiator and the responder agree and promise to reach common rules, both party should be trustworthy and observe the rules. However, if any party feels the established rules improper, he can go back on his word. This is possible only when both observe the bottom-line rule, that is, any party can go back on his word. Any otherwise action should be taken as renege. This also proves the effectiveness of the bottom-line rule. The rule of justice is effective when involved parties are willing to observe the rules (Proposition B is satisfied); no rule can prevent the doers who are unwilling to observe the rules (Proposition C). Therefore, for those unreasonable doers, the only way to save justice is a balanced exercise of Wang-dao and Ba-dao. However, it is not the false of rules not being able to restrict doers, as rules cannot restrict people. Rules are made as a standard to make judgment. Whether the doers observe rules or not, people can make proper judgment with the rules. This chapter also discusses that "to kill by rationality", although appears to be justified, is in fact an action that will break the order of "harmoniously co-existence instead of monotonously oneness", hence obstruce the realization of justice.As ancient thinkers had resolved the problem of universal justice, the reestablishment of universal rules in this paper is in fact a rearrangement and systematic argument of the theory of justice in Dao-xue.At last, the paper analyses some cases with bottom-line rules, and proves its effectiveness. All these tells us that the methodology of the paper is effective in solving practical problems.更多还原