透過您的圖書館登入
IP:44.192.20.240
  • Theses

論羅爾斯「對」的優先性

On Rawls's Claim of the Priority of the Right

Advisor : 林火旺

Abstracts


摘 要 本文旨在闡明羅爾斯「對」的優先性主張。在涉及主要社會制度對於基本權利、義務、以及社會合作利益的分配問題上,羅爾斯反對古典效益主義將「對」定義為「好」的極大化以及「好」優先於「對」的主張。在《正義論》中,羅爾斯主張賦予「對」優先的地位。對羅爾斯而言,「對」在兩個意義下優先於「好」:知識論的意義與道德限制的意義。前者指的是具道德正當性的正義原則,可以在不預設任何特殊價值觀的情況下被推導出來;後者指的則是正義原則為可允釭獄靋

Parallel abstracts


Abstract The purpose of this thesis is to elucidate John Rawls’s claim of the priority of the right. In issue concerning the way in which the major social institutions distribute fundamental rights and duties and determine the division of advantages from social cooperation, Rawls argues against classical utilitarianism that it defines the right as the maximization of the good and that it gives priority to the good over the right. In A theory of Justice, Rawls proposes to view the right as the prior. For Rawls, the right is prior to the good in two senses: the epistemological sense and the moral sense. The former means that the principles of justice can be derived in a way that does not presuppose any particular conceptions of the good, and the latter means that the principles of justice set limits to permissible conceptions of the good and ways of life. In this thesis, I begin by examining how Rawls justifies the priority of the right in terms of the idea of the fairness and his design of the original position. Next, I analyze and assess Michael J. Sandel’s criticisms, which argue that such priority is based upon a defective conception of agency. I point out that, with the methodological clarification in his later theory, Rawls can reply to Sandel’s criticisms effectively. Third, I analyze and assess some criticisms about the desirability and the feasibility of the priority of the right. In conclusion, I point out that, through proper interpretation and modification, Rawls’s claim of the priority of the right is both desirable and feasible; hence can be accepted as the basis of the theory of social justice.

References


Goldman, Holly Smith. “Rawls and Utilitarianism.” John Rawls’ Theory of Social Justice: An Introduction. Edited by H. Gene Blocker and Elizabeth H. Smith. Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1980. Pp. 346-394.
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Practical Reason. Translated by Lewis White Beck. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1956.
Frankena, William K. Ethic. 2nd ed. Edited by Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1973.
Ackerman, Bruce. “Political Liberalism.” Journal of Philosophy. 91, 7 (1994): 364-386.
Alejandro, Roberto. “Rawls's Communitarianism.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 23, 1 (1993): 75-99.

Cited by


江怡臻(2008)。在差異中建立社會整合─論羅爾斯的「重疊共識」〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2008.01653
馮倉寶(2007)。羅爾斯觀點下的釋字第五八0號解釋〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2007.02568
王辰暉(2005)。臺灣地區大專體育教師身體政治之研究〔碩士論文,國立臺灣師範大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0021-2004200717452779
莊偉鎮(2013)。儒家與羅爾斯政治理論的比較〔碩士論文,國立臺灣師範大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0021-0801201418032034

Read-around