契约论辩护道德原则的两种路径 _ 以高蒂尔和罗尔斯为例.pdfVIP

摘 要 在政治哲学史上，社会契约论具有非同寻常的影响力。传统契约论是一种关 于政治权威正当性的理论，当代的道德哲学家则运用“我们能够同意什么”的观 念来为道德和正义原则提供辩护。 契约论辩护道德原则有两种基本思路，分别继承了霍布斯和康德的传统，大 卫·高蒂尔和约翰·罗尔斯是这两种路向上最重要的推进者。本文主要借助于对 这两种契约论的分析，来说明契约论辩护的困境。 高蒂尔拒绝诉诸道德直觉，他把契约各方刻画成理性地追求自我利益且有能 力向别人提供好处的人。各方缺乏一个考虑“什么是对所有人好的”的道德视角。 他们通过基于各自利益的讨价还价来建立所谓的“道德原则”，不过这里的道德 原则实际上只是反映各方力量对比的互利规则，它无法说明我们深思熟虑的道德 判断，如歧视和伤害弱小者是不对的。 罗尔斯把对原初状态的刻画当作反思平衡的一个环节。无知之幕的设计迫使 契约各方在选择正义原则时不得不考虑社会上所有人的利益。在罗尔斯对正义原 则的整个论证中具有根本意义的是反思的平衡，契约论只有被纳入反思平衡的程 序才能起到辩护的作用。 契约论辩护道德原则的一个困境在于：如果契约论不借助反思平衡的方法， 那么它建立起来的就不是平等地关注所有人利益的道德原则；如果契约论被纳入 反思平衡的程序，它就不构成决定性的论证，我们就不能把原初状态中的人们的 一致同意当作辩护道德原则的主要论据。道德论证的困难由此可见一斑。 关键词：契约论 道德原则 辩护 反思的平衡 V Abstract Social contract theory is very influential in the history of political philosophy. Traditional contract theory is a theory concerning the legitimacy of political authority. Contemporary moral philosophers used the notion of “what people could agree to” in order to justify the principles of morality and justice. There are two paths for contract theory to justify moral principles. At this path David Gauthier and John Rawls are two most important philosophers who inherited the tradition of Hobbes and Kant respectively. My thesis is to illustrate the dilemma of justification by means of an analysis of these two paths of contract theory. Gauthier refused to resort to moral intuition. The parties are assumed to pursue their self-interest rationally and have the ability to provide benefits to others. The parties lack of a moral perspective from which consider “what is good for all”. They create so-called “moral principles” through bargaining based on their own interests. However, the moral principles in Gauthier ’s theory are mutually benefici