同情共感、安全與公共輿論法庭：邊沁的效益自由論

長期以來，人們普遍認為邊沁的效益主義忽略了自由這一重要的政治價值，甚至被當做一個反自由的理論體系。本文從邊沁對自由和安全這兩個概念的討論出發，在他的文本中尋找到三項重要的元素：同情共感、安全與公共輿論法庭。並且以這三項為基礎，重建邊沁的效益主義的自由觀。首先，邊沁對人性的理解並不是理性自利的「經濟人」，而是自利與利他兼有。並且邊沁不僅沒有排除道德情感的作用，相反非常重視同情共感與效益原則的深度聯結。效益原則的基礎是對痛苦與快樂的感受，而同情共感正是對他人的苦樂之感受。在這個意義上，同情共感是效益主義中不可或缺的一項道德價值。其次，邊沁在批判天賦權利論的過程中注意到概念的虛構性問題，而由此發展出的「釋義法」也成為理解他批判「自由」等虛構概念的關鍵點。邊沁用安全替代自由，不僅是為了在概念上釐清價值的邊界，而且也是為了在政治生活中更好地保有自由的實質。因此，邊沁不僅沒有混淆各種多元的價值，並且提出用效益作為一套公共理性來調和不同的價值之間的衝突。其三，公共輿論法庭作為承載自由價值的政治制度，對言論自由的證成不同於其他政治理論。公共輿論法庭所具有的包容性，也體現了世界主義的特徵。並且通過國際公共輿論法庭的制度，國際的自由和安全也可以得到一定程度的確保。

關鍵字

效益主義；同情共感；安全；自由；公共輿論法庭

並列摘要

For a long time, it has been widely believed that Bentham’s utilitarianism ignores liberty, an important political value, and was even treated as an anti-liberty theoretical system. This article draws on Bentham’s discussion of the conceptions of liberty and security to identify three significant elements in his texts: sympathy, security, and Public Opinion Tribunal. On the basis of these three elements, Bentham’s utilitarian conception of liberty is reconstructed. Firstly, Bentham’s understanding of human nature is not that of a rational self-interested “economic man”, but that of both self-regard and social-regard, or say sympathetic-regard. And rather than excluding the role of sympathy, he attaches great importance to the deep connection between sympathy and utility principle. The principle of utility is based on the feeling of pain and pleasure, and sympathy is the feeling of the suffering and happiness of others. In this sense, sympathy is an essential moral value in utilitarianism. Secondly, in his critique of natural rights theory, Bentham noticed the fictitious nature of the conception, and the “paraphrasis” that he develops from this becomes a key point in understanding his critique of other fictitious conceptions such as “liberty”. By replacing liberty with security, Bentham not only sought to clarify the boundaries of values, but also embodies a more substantial commitment to liberty. Thus, rather than confusing the plurality of values, Bentham proposes the utility as a set of public reason to reconcile the conflicts between different values. Thirdly, as a political institution that bearing the value of liberty, the Public Opinion Tribunal offers a different approach to justify the value of free speech which is different from other political theories. The inclusiveness of the Public Opinion Tribunal also reflects the characteristics of cosmopolitanism. And through the system of International Public Opinion Tribunal, international liberty and security can be ensured to a certain extent.