跳到主要內容

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

研究生: 陳俊宇
論文名稱: 論Rawls的公共理性之理念:以Rawls與Habermas之對比所展開的三種詮釋探討該理念在Rawls理論中的位置
指導教授: 孫善豪
學位類別: 碩士
Master
系所名稱: 社會科學學院 - 政治學系
Department of Political Science
論文出版年: 2006
畢業學年度: 94
語文別: 中文
論文頁數: 200
中文關鍵詞: 公共理性審議式民主
外文關鍵詞: Rawls, Habermas
相關次數: 點閱:379下載:356
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報
  • 本論文之首要目標在於針對Rawls後期思想體系的核心,亦即「公共理性之理念」的意涵與理論地位,以及他將「整全性的學說」排除於公共論理之外此一作法,透過提出三種詮釋觀點予以逐步釐清,並嘗試為Rawls加以辯護。第一章藉由說明Rawls以六個基本理念建構而成的基本理念體系,在其整體正義理論中將「公共理性之理念」予以初步定位。為了要進一步理解此一理念之主要特徵,以及它在當代政治哲學的中所扮演的角色與可能引發的相關爭議,在第二章中對於Habermas與審議式民主理論略作介紹,以作為理解Rawls的適當脈絡。第二章首先介紹Habermas對於「人權」與「人民主權」之緊張關係的分析,並將他用以解決此一爭議的理論設計,亦視為一種廣義的「公共理性之理念」來略加說明。至於第二章的末兩節,則以審議式民主理論內部的「實質性」與「程序性」之爭議為焦點,並指出「審議的無窮回歸」此一審議式民主理論無法解決的難題,以作為理解Rawls的「公共理性之理念」的線索。餘下的三至五章,依序提出了三種不同的詮釋觀點。第一種詮釋觀點將「公共理性之理念」理解為一種以審議式民主為理想藍圖的民主改革方案;第二種詮釋觀點則將該理念視為Rawls針對「自由憲政民主之理念」所提出的辯護方案:至於在第三種詮釋觀點中,「公共理性之理念」成為針對在TJ中仍有疏漏之證成策略的一種修正方案。


    導論…………………………………………………………………………… - 1 -
    一、Rawls的基本理念體系………………………………………………… - 9 -
    1.1 良序社會:一個可實現的民主烏托邦 ………………………………… - 9 -
    1.1.1 Rawls的根本理念體系………………………………………………… - 9 -
    1.1.2 前三個根本理念構成Rawls的民主烏托邦之基本藍圖……………… - 10 -
    1.2 社會基本結構、原初情境與政治性的正義觀…………………………… - 15 -
    1.2.1 「社會基本結構之理念」與「原初情境之理念」…………………… - 15 -
    1.2.2 政治性的正義觀 …………………………………………………………- 17 -
    1.2.3 公共證成與公共理性之關係…………………………………………… - 22 -
    二、Habermas與審議式民主………………………………………………… - 35 -
    2.1 Habermas的調和工作 ……………………………………………………- 35 -
    2.1.1 自然法與實證法:規範上的有效性與事實上的強制性……………… - 35 -
    2.1.2 兩種民主模式:人權優先或人民主權優先…………………………… - 38 -
    2.2 Habermas的公共理性之理念……………………………………………… - 43 -
    2.2.1 Habermas的溝通理性…………………………………………………… - 43 -
    2.2.2 Habermas的審議式政治………………………………………………… - 45 -
    2.2.3 Habermas的公共理性之理念…………………………………………… - 49 -
    2.3 審議式民主………………………………………………………………… - 54 -
    2.3.1 審議式民主的源起與主要意涵………………………………………… - 54 -
    2.3.2 審議式民主理論的主要難題:如何解決道德衝突…………………… - 59 -
    2.4 Amy Gutmann與Dennis Thompson的審議式民主理論………………… - 62 -
    2.4.1 Gutmann與Thompson的基本立場與作法 ………………………………- 62 -
    2.4.2 審議式民主理論的侷限性:審議的無窮回歸………………………… - 64 -
    三、將「公共理性之理念」詮釋為一種審議式民主的改革方案……………- 71 -
    3.1 將Rawls的公共理性之理念視為一種審議式民主理論的原因……………- 71 -
    3.1.1 將「公共證成」視為一種「規範性審議」…………………………… - 71 -
    3.1.2 在審議式民主中調和實質原則與民主權威的種種作法……………… - 73 -
    3.2 Rawls排除「整全性的學說」之作法與審議式民主之關連性……………- 76 -
    3.2.1 Rawls的公共理性之限制(區分公共理性與非公共理性)……………- 76 -
    3.2.2 「原初情境」是為「正義兩原則」量身訂作的證成方案…………… - 79 -
    3.2.3 「公共政治文化」作為最後的固定點………………………………… - 86 -
    3.3 Rawls式的審議式民主…………………………………………………… - 90 -
    3.3.1 Hegel式的轉向…………………………………………………………… - 90 -
    3.3.2 Rawls式實質性審議式民主的特色…………………………………… - 91 -
    3.3.3 對於排除「整全性的學說」之作法的批評…………………………… - 93 -
    四、將「公共理性之理念」詮釋為對自由憲政民主的一種辯護方案………- 99 -
    4.1 「公共理性之理念」並非審議式民主理論 ………………………………- 99 -
    4.1.1 在「適用人員」上的規定…………………………………………………- 99 -
    4.1.2 公共理性是個人理性反思而非實際審議……………………………….- 104 -
    4.2 公共理性是一種反向回溯的個人理性反思………………………………- 107 -
    4.2.1 「四階段論」不是一種實際的民主政治過程,亦不是一種制憲工程 - 107 -
    4.2.2 反向回溯的四階段論 ……………………………………………………- 110 -
    4.3 對於自由憲政民主之信念的重新理解……………………………………- 114 -
    4.3.1 在自由憲政民主之信念的內部找到一種融貫一致的觀念………………- 114 -
    4.3.2「公共政治文化」與「合理的整全性的學說」之關係…………………- 121 -
    4.3.3 「合理的整全性的學說」就是能夠支持「政治性的價值」的學說……- 127 -
    4.4 合理的民主政治:介於「合法的」與「理性的」之間…………………- 130 -
    五、將「公共理性之理念」詮釋為對「正義兩原則」之證成策略的修正方案 ………………………………………………………………………………- 139 -
    5.1 提出第三種詮釋的必要性…………………………………………………- 139 -
    5.1.1 本章架構…………………………………………………………………- 139 -
    5.1.2前兩種詮釋的缺陷………………………………………………………..- 141 -
    5.2 TJ的證成策略………………………………………………………………- 147 -
    5.2.1 TJ的證成策略無法在內部維持融貫一致…………………………………- 147 -
    5.2.2 無法迴避認識論論證責任是失敗的根本原因 …………………………- 151 -
    5.3 「判斷的負擔」與「交疊性的共識」………………………………………- 158 -
    5.3.1 「有效性宣稱」與「理性共識」…………………………………………- 158 -
    5.3.2 「交疊性的共識」是證成特殊正義原則的最低共識要求………………- 163 -
    5.4 小結 …………………………………………………………………………- 171 -
    5.4.1 對宗教的寬容………………………………………………………………- 171 -
    5.4.2 可實現的民主烏托邦 ……………………………………………………- 172 -
    結論 ………………………………………………………………………………- 177 -
    參考資料 …………………………………………………………………………- 183 -

    (一)縮寫表

    Habermas原典

    BFN Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Trans. By William Rehg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    IO The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. Ed. by Ciaran Cronin and Pablo De Greiff, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Rawls原典
    CP Collected Papers. Ed. By Samuel Freeman, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    HMP Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    JFR Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Ed. by Erin Kelly, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    LP The Law of People, MA: Harvard University Press.
    PL Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

    (二)中文與翻譯書目
    Cassirer, Ernst.
    1984 《啟蒙運動的哲學》,李日章譯。台北:聯經。
    Gray, John.
    2002 《自由主義的兩種面貌》,蔡英文譯。台北:巨流。
    Kant, Immanuel.
    2002 《康德歷史哲學論文集》,李明輝譯。台北:聯經圖書公司。
    Kukathas, Chandran and Philip Pettit.
    1999 《羅爾斯》,姚建宗等譯。哈爾濱:黑龍江人民出版社。
    Kymlicka, Will.
    2003 《近代政治哲學導論》,劉莘譯。台北:聯經圖書公司。
    Madison, James and Alexander Hamilton and John Jay.
    2000 《聯邦論》,謝淑斐譯。台北:貓頭鷹。
    Rorty, Richard.
    1998 《偶然、反諷與團結》。徐文瑞譯。台北:麥田出版。
    Rousseau, Jean-Jacques.
    1986 《社會契約論》。何兆武譯。台北:唐山出版社。
    川本隆史
    2001 《羅爾斯:正義原理》。詹獻斌譯。石家莊:河北教育出版社。
    石元康
    1989 《洛爾斯》,台北:東大。
    江宜樺
    2005 「西方『政治』概念之分析」,《政治與社會哲學評論》,第十二期,頁1至57。
    李俊增
    2004 「多元分歧與正當性:對Habermas程序主義法理論之檢證」,《政治與社會哲學評論》,第十一期,頁83至127。
    何懷宏
    2002 《公平的正義:解讀羅爾斯正義論》,濟南:山東人民出版社。
    林火旺
    1998 《羅爾斯正義論》,台北:台灣書店。
    2004 「公共理性的功能及其限制」,《政治與社會哲學評論》,第八期,頁47至78。
    林遠澤
    2005 「真理為何?――從哈伯瑪斯真理共識理論的實用轉向論真理的規範性意涵」,《歐美研究》,第三十五卷第二期,頁363至404。
    周明泉
    2005 「『啟蒙理性』與『宗教信仰』:哈伯瑪斯與拉慶格關於『自由國家的前政治道德基礎』之論辯」,《當代》,第二一一期,頁4至15。
    陳曉林
    1987 《學術巨人與理性困境》,台北:時報。
    陳瑋鴻
    2004 《理性與重建――哈伯瑪斯的現代性政治哲學》。政治大學政治學研究所碩士論文。
    許國賢
    2001 《財產與政治:政治理論論文集》,台北:桂冠。
    楊深坑
    1995 「哈伯瑪斯的溝通理性、民主理論及其在公民教育上的意義」,張福建、蘇文流主編:《民主理論:古典與現代》,頁199至223。台北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所專書。
    錢永祥
    1995 「社會整合與羅爾斯自由主義的政治性格」,錢永祥、戴華主編:《哲學與公共規範》,頁115至133。台北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所專書。
    2001 《縱欲與虛無之上:現代情境裡的情境倫理》,台北:聯經。
    謝世民
    2002 「邁向務實的烏托邦:《作為公平的正義:正義新論》導讀」,John Rawls著,姚大志譯,《作為公平的正義:正義新論》,頁V至XII。台北,左岸文化。
    戴華
    1995 「羅爾斯與理性直覺主義:對『政治性正義觀』的一項後設研究」,錢永祥、戴華主編:《哲學與公共規範》,頁77至114。台北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所專書。
    2004 「羅爾斯論康德『定言令式程序』」,《政治與社會哲學評論》,第九期,頁79至112。
    應奇
    1999 《羅爾斯》,台北:生智。
    蕭高彥
    2001 「立法家、政治空間與民族文化-盧梭的政治創造論」,《政治科學論叢》,第十四期,頁25至46。

    (三)英文書目
    Ackerman, Bruce.
    1992 The Future of Liberal Revolution. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    1994 “Political Liberalism,” The Journal of Philosophy, Vol.91:7, pp.364-386.
    Baynes, Kenneth.
    1992 The Normative Grounds of Social Criticism. Albany: State University of New York Press.
    Benson, Peter.
    1994 “Rawls, Hegel, and Personhood: A Reply to Sibyl Schwarzenbach,” Political Theory, Vol.22:3, pp.491-500.
    Billings, David.
    2000 “Reason and Democracy: Kant, Arendt, Rawls, and Habermas on the Public Use of Reason,” Chicago, IL: Ph. D. dissertation, Loyola University.
    Boettcher, James.
    2004 “What is reasonableness?” Philosophy & Social Criticism, Vol.30:5-6, pp.597-621.
    Bohman, James.
    1996 Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    Brower, Bruce W.
    1994 “The Limits of Public Reason, ” The Journal of Philosophy, Vol.91:1, pp.5-26.
    Chambers, Simone.
    2003 “Deliberative Democratic Theory,” Annual Review of Political Science. Vol.6, pp.307-326
    Charney, Evan.
    1998 “Political Liberalism, Deliberative Democracy, and the Public Sphere,” The American Political Science Review, Vol.92:1, pp.97-110.
    Cohen, Joshua.
    1996 “Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy,” in Seyla Benhabib ed., Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp.95-119.
    1997a “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy,” in James Bohman and William Rehg eds., Deliberative Democracy: Essay on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, pp.67-92.
    1997b “Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy,” in James Bohman and William Rehg eds., Deliberative Democracy: Essay on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, pp.407-437.
    Cooke, Maeve.
    2000 “Five Arguments for Deliberative Democracy,” Political Studies, Vol.48, pp.947-969.
    Dreben, Burton.
    2003 “On Rawls and Political Liberalism,” in Samuel Freeman ed., The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.347-367.
    Dryzek, John S.
    2000 Deliberative democracy and beyond : liberals, critics, contestations. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Elster, Jon.
    1998 “Introduction,” in Jon Elster ed., Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1-18.
    Farrelly, Colin.
    1999 “Public Reason, Neutrality and Civil Virtues,” Ratio Juris, Vol.12:1, pp.11-25.
    Fearon, James.
    1998 “Deliberation as Discussion,”in Jon Elster ed., Deliberative Democracy. Cambrudge: Cambridge University Press, pp.44-68.
    Ferrara, Alessandro.
    2004 “Public reason and the normatively if the reasonable,” Philosophy & Social Criticism, Vol.30:5-6, pp.579-596.
    Festenstein, Matthew.
    2004 “Deliberative Democracy and Two Models of Pragmatism,” European Journal of Social Theory, Vol.7:3, pp.291-306.
    Freeman, Samuel.
    2003 “Introduction: John Rawls – An Overview,” in Samuel Freeman ed., The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1-61.
    2004 “Public reason and political justifications,” Fordham Law Review, April, pp.2021-2071.
    Gambetta, Diego
    1998 “’Claro!’:An Essay on Discursive Machismo,”in Jon Elster ed., Deliberative Democracy. Cambrudge: Cambridge University Press, pp.19-43.
    Gaus, Gerald F.
    1997 “Reason, Justification, and Consensus: Why Democracy Can’t Have It All,” in James Bohman and William Rehg eds., Deliberative Democracy: Essay on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, pp.205-242.
    2003 Contemporary Theories of Liberalism. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
    George, Robert P.
    1997 “Natural Law and Liberal Public Reason,” American Journal of Jurisprudence, pp.31-49.
    Greenawalt, Kent.
    1994 “On Public Reason,” Chicago-Kent Law Review, pp.669-689.
    1995 “Some Problems with Public Reason in John Rawls's Political Liberalism,” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, June, pp.1303-1317.
    2002 “Natural Law and Public Reasons,” Villanova Law Review, pp.531-552.
    Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson.
    1996 Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    2004 Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton University Press.
    Habermas, Jürgen.
    1995 “Reconciliation Through the Public use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls's Political Liberalism,” The Journal of Philosophy, Vol.92:3, pp.109-131.
    1996 Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Trans. By William Rehgs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    1998 The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory. Ed. by Cianran Cronin and Pablo DeGreiff, Cambridge, MA: Mit Press.
    Horton, John.
    2003 “Rawls, Public Reason and the Limits of Liberal Justification,” Contemporary Political Theory, Vol.2, pp.5-23.
    Knight, Jack and James Johnson.
    1994 “Aggregation and Deliberation: On the Possibility of Democratic Legitimacy,” Political Theory, Vol.22:2, pp.277-96.
    Laden, Anthony Simon.
    2003 “The House That Jack Built: Thirty Years of Reading Rawls,” Ethics, Vol.113:2, pp.367-390.
    Larmore, Charles.
    1990 “Political Liberalism,” Political Theory, Vol.18:3, pp.339-360.
    2003 “Public Reason,” in Samuel Freeman ed., The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.368-393.
    Macedo, Stephen.
    1999 Deliberative Politics: Essay on Democracy and Disagreement.(ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Madigan, James P.
    2002 “The Idea of Public Reason Resuscitated,” William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, pp.719-778.
    McCarthy, Thomas.
    1999 “Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue,” in Paul J. Weithman ed., The Philosophy of Rawls: A Collection of Essays.(Reasonable Pluralism)New York: Garland Publishing, Inc, pp.320-340.
    Michelman, Frank I.
    1997 “How Can the People Ever Make the Laws? A Critique of Deliberation Democracy,” in James Bohman and William Rehg eds., Deliberative Democracy: Essay on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, pp.145-172.
    Moon, J. Donald.
    2003 “Rawls and Habermas on Public Reason: Human Right and Global Justice,” Annual Review, pp.257-274.
    Nagel, Thomas.
    1978 “Rawls on Justice,” in Norman Daniels ed., Reading Rawls: critical studies on Rawls’ A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    Nnodim, Paul.
    2004 “Public Reason as a Form of Normative and Political Justification: A Study on Rawls’s Idea of Public Reason and Kant’s Notion of the Use of Public Reason in What is Enlightenment?” South African Journal of Philosophy, Vol.23:2, pp.148-157.
    O’Neill, Onora
    1997 “Political Liberalism and Public Reason: A Critical Notice of John Rawls, Political Liberalism,” The Philosophical Review, Vol.106:3, pp.411-428.
    2003 “Constructivism in Rawls and Kant,” in Samuel Freeman ed., The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.347-367.
    Rawls, John.
    1971 A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    1996 Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
    1999a The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    1999b Collected Papers. Ed. By Samuel Freeman, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    2000 Lectures On The History of Moral Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    2001 Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Erin Kelly ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    Reidy, David.
    2000 “Rawls’s Wide View of Public Reason: Not Wide Enough,” Res Publica, Vol.6, pp.49-72.
    Saward, Michael.
    2000 “Rawls and Deliberative Democracy,” Paper for the Political Studies Association-UK 50th Annual Conference, pp.1-21.
    Schwartzman, Micah.
    2004 “The Completeness of Public Reason,” politics, philosophy & economics, Vol.3:2, pp.191-220.
    Schwarzenbach, Sibyl A.
    1991 “Rawls, Hegel, and Communitarianism,” Political Theory, Vol.19:4, pp.539-571.
    Simmons, John.
    1999 “Justification and Legitimacy,” Ethics, Vol.109:4, pp.739-771.
    Solum, Lawrence B.
    1993 “Constructing an Ideal of Public Reason,” San Diego Law Review, pp.729-762.
    Stokes, Susan C.
    1998 “Pathologies of Deliberation,”in Jon Elster ed., Deliberative Democracy. Cambrudge: Cambridge University Press, pp.123-139.
    Thompson, Dennis F.
    2004 “Public Reason and Precluded Reasons,” Fordham Law Review, pp.2073-2088.
    Waldron, Jeremy.
    1987 “Theoretical Foundations of Liberalism,” The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol.37:147, pp127-150.
    Wolgast, Elizabeth.
    1994 “The Demands of Public Reason,” Columbia Law Review, October, pp.1936-1949.

    QR CODE
    :::