歷史不正義、族群導向積極賦權行動政策與原住民族—一個初步研究

在關於積極賦權行動政策的哲學討論中，某些哲學家可能從應對歷史不正義進行補償此一角度，賦予該類政策道德正當性，但反對者則從下列三個論點質疑歷史補償論證：一、無法正確評估若無歷史錯誤發生時受害族群所應有的可能表現；二、正常能力標準的原初性；三、現今時空下被要求為歷史不正義負責之受惠者的無辜性。本文認為，如果積極賦權行動的適用者為具有維持族群自主發展意願的原住民族，則該類質疑並不成立。此一論斷之主要理由在於，某些當代多元文化論者已指出，個人所屬文化社群之健全與否對於個人自主性及其自我認同之維持而言極為重要，因而對於本已具備某種程度的社會性文化的原住民族而言，以民族自治之類的族群權利，讓其重新拾回歷史上被迫喪失的自主性，尊重其自我決定族群未來發展的意願，會是較適當的制度設計。但如果原住民族想要進行自治，或在既有國家體系內展現其自主性，適當且足夠的專業人才培養勢屬必要。在此族群整體發展需求下，積極賦權行動不再只是對於受害族群個別成員不利處境的補償，它更是對於原住民族整體在歷史上所喪失機會的矯正，蘊涵此一意義的族群導向積極賦權行動政策，應能讓前述三項質疑論點失效。

關鍵字

族群導向積極賦權行動；優惠待遇；歷史補償；多元文化論；原住民族

並列摘要

In the philosophical debate about affirmative action, some philosophers advocate this policy from compensating for historical injustice. Some opponents challenge the compensation argument for three reasons: (1) we have no way of knowing how many people of any given group would have achieved some given level of competence had the world been different; (2) the normal criterion of competence is a strong prima facie consideration; (3) those who benefit from past injustice are innocent. In this paper I claim that the counter argument will not stand if what we talk about is indigenous people, especially the one which want to keep hold on group autonomy. As many multiculturalists maintain, one's autonomy and self identity will be trapped into a disadvantage if the cultural community he belonged function unstably. Thus, for indigenous people, the societal culture of which has ever been injured in the past, self-government or other related autonomy rights will be the appropriate policy. In this situation, in order to sustain group autonomy, we must educate or employ lots of indigenous professionals for this end. In the other words, the purpose of affirmative action policy is not only correcting individual disadvantage caused by historical wrong, but also improving the ability of group collective autonomy shaken or even destructed in the process of historical oppression.