【摘要】：《萬民法》作為羅爾斯政治正義理論發(fā)展的第三個階段,對國際層面的正義問題進(jìn)行了有益探索。作為一個提倡“公平”的自由主義者,羅爾斯在該著作中討論了國際社會的“分配正義”問題,并得到了包括批評意見在內(nèi)的各方回應(yīng),但目前中國學(xué)界對這方面的關(guān)注不足。 本文首先對羅爾斯國際“分配正義”理論受到的批判進(jìn)行了分類梳理,認(rèn)為批評者主要不滿于羅爾斯對“全球經(jīng)濟(jì)正義”的忽視和認(rèn)為他的理論前后出現(xiàn)矛盾；并對羅氏“分配正義”理論的歷史和理論背景、變化脈絡(luò)、原則的確切含義和邏輯關(guān)系進(jìn)行了重新審視和闡釋分析；通過對一系列觀點(diǎn)和論爭的反思,論文討論了羅爾斯與世界主義者的主要分歧,也闡明了羅爾斯反饋爭論后的一些表述修正和基本堅持。論文在肯定羅爾斯對政治哲學(xué)“分配正義”理論有重大突破、《萬民法》其實(shí)是一個“更加巨大成就”的同時,也試圖認(rèn)知它的理論局限或未盡問題。 本文認(rèn)為,歸根到底,如何將幫助全球最不利人群的“道義”,在國內(nèi)社會和國際社會進(jìn)行有區(qū)別又有聯(lián)系的“分配”,是困擾羅爾斯的主要問題。對“全球經(jīng)濟(jì)正義”的兩種認(rèn)識,構(gòu)成了羅爾斯和世界主義者的主要差別。同時,羅爾斯的分配正義理論在從國內(nèi)擴(kuò)展到國際社會的時候,的確發(fā)生了很大的改變,但這并不意味著羅爾斯的理論邏輯出現(xiàn)漏洞,相反,羅爾斯在“分配正義”問題上的基本觀點(diǎn),是層次分明和體系嚴(yán)密的。雖然羅爾斯的國際“分配正義”理論也存在局限,但問題的關(guān)鍵并不是羅氏政治正義理論前后出現(xiàn)了矛盾,而是當(dāng)代國際社會貧富差距和主權(quán)國家體系決定了其理論創(chuàng)新上一時難以破局的困境。
[Abstract]:As the third stage of the development of Rawls' theory of political justice, the Universal Civil Law explores the issue of justice at the international level. As a liberal advocate of "fair", Rawls discussed the issue of "distributive justice" in the international community, and received responses from all sides, including criticism. However, at present, Chinese scholars pay little attention to this aspect. First of all, this paper classifies Rawls' international theory of "distributive justice" and points out that the critics are mainly dissatisfied with Rawls' neglect of "global economic justice" and that there are contradictions before and after Rawls' theory. It also re-examines and explains the historical and theoretical background of Roche's theory of "distributive justice", the context of change, the exact meaning of the principle and the logical relationship. Through reflection on a series of viewpoints and arguments, the paper discusses the main differences between Rawls and cosmopolitarians, and clarifies some reformulation amendments and basic insistence after Rawls' feedback argument. While affirming that Rawls has made a great breakthrough in the theory of "distributive justice" in political philosophy, "the Civil Law of all" is actually a "greater achievement", it also tries to recognize its theoretical limitations or unfinished problems. This paper argues that, in the final analysis, how to help the "morality" of the most disadvantaged people in the world and how to make different and connected "distribution" between the domestic society and the international community is the main problem that puzzles Rawls. Two perceptions of global economic justice constitute the main difference between Rawls and cosmopolitarians. At the same time, when Rawls's theory of distributive justice extends from home to the international community, great changes have taken place, but this does not mean that there is a loophole in Rawls' theoretical logic, on the contrary, Rawls' basic views on the issue of distributive justice are hierarchical and systematic. Although Rawls' theory of international "distributive justice" also has limitations, the key to the problem is not that there are contradictions before and after Roche's theory of political justice. However, the gap between the rich and the poor in the contemporary international society and the sovereign state system determine the dilemma of its theoretical innovation which is difficult to break for a while.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D09

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 柳文;羅爾斯國際正義理論研究[D];華東師范大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號：2455160