我是如何研究罗尔斯的？

学术活动应该包含两方面内容,一是有价值的、有一定原创性的最新研究成果,二是取得这种成果的研究心得、经验和方法。罗尔斯的正义论和平等观在当代西方政治哲学中是一个重要话题。作者以此为例,谈了他研究罗尔斯的学术训练背号和方法（理性建构）,分析了罗尔斯的正义论和平等观中不为人注意的难点．指出了罗尔斯论证的缺陷,并且在若干问题上对罗尔斯作了补充论证。作者还通过将罗尔斯与右边的诺齐克、左边的柯亨相比较,界定了罗尔斯的正义论和平等观的性质和复杂性．从而评价了罗尔斯理论与中国现实的相关性。关键是,通过对研究罗尔斯过程的自我分析。作者现身说法了在研究西方哲学的过程中,如何在别人的传统中．别人的语境中,提出自已的新见解。     

罗尔斯的正义论与中国和谐社会的构建

罗尔斯强调正义是社会制度的基础,是社会制度的首要美德和价值。他的正义论虽然产生干资本主义市场经济的美国,但在一定意义上也是人类社会发展过程中诸种矛盾的反映和解决矛盾的期望。因为正义是人类社会永恒的主题,折射出人类对公共生活的美好向往和追求。在我国构建和谐社会的今天,罗尔斯的正义论作为人类文明和智慧的成果,对于我国在社会主义市场经济条件下如何公平分配社会财富。缩小个人之间的经济差距,保护贫困社会群体的基本利益,构建稳定的和谐的社会结构和社会关系,无疑有积极的借鉴意义。     

充分抑或必要:正义的边界问题

沃尔泽主张任何事物的正确的规范原则都取决于那种事物的性质,分配正义预设了一个有边界的世界,不同的边界会以不同的方式产生作用,应该根据相关于不同情境的不同边界来讨论多重正义。这是对罗尔斯主义的一种适当终结。设定正义边界的三种代表性观点:合作实践、政治强制与普遍认同,都没有给出分配正义原则适用的充分必要条件。社会正义是一个复合型的概念,理想类型的民族国家是其最有效的整合者,可以实现这三种观点的有效整合,也是正义最强的边界形式;但在全球化背景下,民族国家的这种整合作用正在受到挑战,新的正义边界形式正在形成,我们需要发展新的全球正义理论。     

Towards a philosophy of equity in educational effectiveness research: moving from utilitarianism to a Rawlsian paradigm

ABSTRACT

The uses to which educational effectiveness research (EER) is put by policymakers cannot be blamed on the field, but it is apparent that it has become aligned with the utilitarianism of Western government policy and transnational bodies like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). This alignment was not consciously adopted – it is more the case that in the absence of its own asserted philosophy, EER simply defaulted to that world view – but as the field shifts to a “dynamic” model and meta-syntheses, the need to reconsider the current paradigm becomes urgent. This paper attempts to reclaim the field philosophically for the academics who work in it and for the policymakers who rely on its science. It is beyond the scope of the paper to present a full comprehensive philosophy, but it describes, as a first step towards one, a new manifesto based on John Rawls’s work on justice as fairness.     

论罗尔斯对自由与平等的调和——对罗尔斯的两个正义原则的解读

自由而平等的社会是人类所梦寐以求的理想社会,然而,由于在某些领域里面自由与平等有着深层次上的矛盾,近现代社会可以说是以发展了“自由”而牺牲了“平等”,因而如何调和自由与平等之间的紧张,在当代社会依然是个有待解决的问题。以寻求正义为其基本理论旨趣的罗尔斯必然要把这一问题纳入其理论视域,而这一关注是由其两个正义原则来给予的,罗尔斯对自由与平等的调和是比较成功的,以自由和平等的调和这一视角对罗尔斯的两个正义原则进行解读。     

分配正义的两种当代模式——罗尔斯的公平论与诺齐克的权利论

本分析了分配正义的两个名理论——罗尔斯的公平论与诺齐克的权利论，分别说明了他们的内容、主旨、问题所在，强调罗尔斯两个正义原则是无条件的完全平等和有条件的不完全平等的统一，论述了诺齐克的持有正义是进行分配和行使国家职能的前提，并且对它们进行了多角度的对比。最后，简要指出它们对于我国实现分配正义的参考价值。     

试论罗尔斯《正义论》与当代政治哲学主题的转换

罗尔斯作为公平的正义理论以原初状态为正义原则选择的环境,以社会最少受惠者的生活前景为正义选择的参照点,批判了功利主义,超越了古典自由主义,突出地解决了平等问题,让自由主义的主题从自由转向平等,从而让政治哲学的主题也发生了相应的转换。     

Ethical pluralism and global information ethics

A global information ethics that seeks to avoid imperialistic homogenization must conjoin shared norms while simultaneously preserving the irreducible differences between cultures and peoples. I argue that a global information ethics may fulfill these requirements by taking up an ethical pluralism – specifically Aristotle’s pros hen [“towards one”] or “focal” equivocals. These ethical pluralisms figure centrally in both classical and contemporary Western ethics: they further offer important connections with the major Eastern ethical tradition of Confucian thought. Both traditions understand ethical judgment to lead to and thus require ethical pluralism – i.e., an acceptance of more than one judgment regarding the interpretation and application of a shared ethical norm. Both traditions invoke notions of resonance and harmony to articulate pluralistic structures of connection alongside irreducible differences. Specific examples within Western computer and information ethics demonstrate these pluralisms in fact working in praxis. After reviewing further resonances and radical differences between Western and Eastern views, I then argue that emerging conceptions of privacy and data privacy protection laws in China, Hong Kong, Japan, and Thailand in fact constitute a robust, pros hen pluralism with Western conceptions. In both theory and in praxis, then, this pluralism thus fulfills the requirement for a global information ethics that holds shared norms alongside the irreducible differences between cultures and peoples.     

平等还是公正？——试论罗尔斯的教育哲学观

罗尔斯主张,社会中凡是具有相似动机和禀赋的人都应得到大致相等的教育机会和成就前景。社会应该通过差别原则对社会利益进行调节和再分配,解决社会不平等问题,为人们获得平等的教育机会创造条件。同时,教育可以通过培养人才、调适社会心理、代际储备和加强社会成员的自律意识等促进社会的平等和公正。在教育问题上,罗尔斯追求公正,兼顾平等,他主张的教育是一定平等基础上的公正的教育。     

A Politically Liberal Conception of Formal Education in a Developing Democracy

As discussed by John Rawls, in a well-ordered society, a public political culture’s wide educational role bears the primary responsibility for developing reasonable individuals for the stability of a politically liberal society. Rawlsian scholars have also focused on the stability and enhancement of developed liberal democratic societies by means of those societies’ education systems. In this sense, one thing that is common to Rawlsian scholars’ and Rawls’s own understanding of the role of education appears to be a concern over the stability of a politically liberal society since it is highly dependent on the character of its citizens. Also, it is usually believed that a politically liberal account of education can be implemented in a developed politically liberal society. In contrast, this study discusses the possibility of implementing a politically liberal account of education in a developing liberal society that may become a developed liberal democracy under an overlapping consensus.