「全球正義」或是「萬民法」？－羅爾斯和博格對全球正義的理解差異

"Global Justice" or "the Law of Peoples"? The Intellectual Differences between Rawls and Pogge on Global Justice

李國維(Kuo-Wei Lee)

《政治與社會哲學評論》 35期 (2010/12) Pp. 53-102

https://doi.org/10.6523/168451532010120035002

摘要

本文嘗試從理論背景思考一個引發許多爭議的微小但卻核心的問題：為什麼羅爾斯不認同博格將差異原則應用在全球正義中？
本文將論述，首先，博格對羅爾斯的「民族」的理解是有根本錯誤的。這導致博格誤認為羅爾斯的萬民法社會是一種以「國家」(state)為主體的國際正義社會，而加以批判；其次，原初狀態之設計不可以直接應用在國際社會中，而是必須間接的應用，博格的全球原初狀態之原型構想只能是一種更加難以實現的烏托邦；第三，雖然博格和羅爾斯都表明受到《論永久和平》(Zum ewigen Frieden)的啟發，但是，他們兩人卻得出了完全不同的論證結果。本文將指出，博格是過度應用了康德的理念；最後，也是最重要的，在博格的全球正義理論中佔據最核心地位的分配正義觀（也是其人權內容的最要項），其基本想法，其實是一項現實基礎薄弱的經濟烏托邦，而羅爾斯的援助義務觀則具有較高的實現可能性。
本文因此認為，博格的全球正義理論徹徹底底是一種以自由主義個人權利為基礎的分配正義觀，或許可以促使自由主義國家對窮國進行某種程度的補償，但是，對於全球和平來說，卻不會是一種被非自由主義社會所樂於接受的正義觀。

關鍵字

全球正義 ； 永久和平 ； 康德 ； 瑪莎•納斯邦 ； 民族 ； 萬民法 ； 國家

並列摘要

This paper considers a vital question that causes lots of controversy: Why doesn't Rawls approve Pogge's application of the difference principle to global justice? Four topics are addressed. First, Pogge's understanding of Rawls's idea of ”nation” is ultimately wrong, which leads Pogge to mistake Rawls's ”society of the law of peoples” for a society of international justice and criticize it accordingly. Second, the original position is designed to be applied indirectly rather than directly to the international society, so Pogge's design of the global original position is only a Utopia that's even more difficult to realize. Third, while they both claim to be inspired by Perpetual Peace, Pogge and Rawls deduce completely different arguments. We pointed out Pogge's argument is an over-application of Kant's idea. Last, but not least, as the core of Pogge's theory of global justice as well as the first and foremost topic in his content of human rights, the conception of distributive justice is basically a hardly realizable economic Utopia. On the other hand, Rawls's conception of the duty of assistance has more practical potential. Therefore, Pogge's theory of global justice is a conception of distributive justice that's founded on the individual rights of liberalism. Such a theory could perhaps make the liberal states compensate the poor states to a certain extent. However, in terms of global peace, Pogge's conception of justice is not what the non-liberal states would accept.

並列關鍵字

global justice ； perpetual peace ； Kant ； Martha Nussbaum ； people ； law of peoples ； transaction cost

參考文獻

Kan, Immanuel李明輝譯()。

Rawls, John李國維譯、珂洛緹譯、汪慶華譯(1999)。萬民法。台北:聯經。

Pogge, Thomas謝世民譯、許漢譯(1999)。理解人權。二十一世紀。56，61-75。

Pogge, Thomas謝世民譯、吳瑞媛譯(2004)。論羅爾斯的兩種正義論之間的不融貫。政治與社會哲學評論。9，15-179。

Pogge, Thomas李小科譯(2004)。何謂全球正義？。世界哲學。2，3-11。