契約論、假設性思考與公共道德的規範性

假設契約論面臨標準批評：假設契約不是契約，如此，假設契約論不能證成規範實際政治社會的公共道德原則，也不能對實際的人加上有約束力的公共道德義務。本文論說羅爾斯式的假設契約論的方法－原初處境式的假設性思考的方法能適當且合理地回應前述批評。而且，這種假設性思考的方法在實踐規範性有兩面：一是公共道德原則的規範性是客觀的，另一是規範現實的人對於公共道德議題的實踐思慮。如此，假設契約論的方法論也合理說明現實中的人有理由與動機採納這種假設性思考的方法來思考、處理公共道德的困惑與爭論。

關鍵字

假設契約論；羅爾斯；假設性思考；公共道德之實踐規範性的兩面；低限度的客觀性觀念

並列摘要

Hypothetical contract theory commonly faces the standard objection that because hypothetical contracts are not contracts at all, the theory is both unable to justify the fundamental principles of public morality for actual political societies. Also, it is arguably incapable of imposing obligations of public morality on real people. I shall argue that a Rawlsian type of hypothetical contract theory is capable of providing adequate and reasonable responses to the standard objection, and that the original-position type of hypothetical thinking has two important normative functions for our practical matters. One: it explains how this method of hypothetical thinking produces objective principles of public morality. Two: it provides guidance by giving reasons and motives to comply with the principles of public morality produced by the hypothetical approach.

並列關鍵字

hypothetical contract theory ； Rawls ； hypothetical thinking ； two respects of practical normativity of public morality ； a minimal conception of objectivity

參考文獻

吳澤玫 (2020)。〈從同婚爭議論公共理性的完備性〉，《歐美研究》，50, 3: 523-569。(Wu, T.-M. [2020]. On the completeness of public reason in the same-sex marriage debate. EurAmerica, 50, 3: 523-569.) https://doi.org/10.7015/JEAS.202009_50(3).0002

周保松 (2015)。《自由人的平等政治》。香港中文大學。(Chow, B.-C. [2015]. Politics of liberal equality. The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press.) https://doi.org/10.978.962996/6799

許漢 (2021)。〈政治爭議與公共理性自由主義的方案〉，《人文及社會科學集刊》，33, 3: 529-565。(Hsu, H. [2021]. Political disagreements and a proposal of public reason liberalism. Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy, 33, 3: 529-565.) https://doi.org/10.53106/1018189X2021093303005

Blackburn, S. (1993). Moral realism. In Essays in quasi-realism (pp. 111-129). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195080414.003.0011

Cohen, G. A. (2008). Rescuing justice and equality. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674029651

延伸閱讀

全文下載

主題瀏覽