哈贝马斯“道德证立”逻辑研究
|
摘要
本研究论文旨在探析法兰克福学派重要代表人物尤尔根·哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学之道德论证逻辑,阐释其在现代道德危机语境下突破危机困局所采用的论证策略在何种意义上具有合理性,又在何种意义上存在尚需进一步澄清之处。商谈伦理学自诞生之日起,研究者对其的讨论所形成的一个基本共识是,商谈伦理学是现代多元主义价值理念之下依然追求道德普遍性与知识性的一种乌托邦理论。对于哈贝马斯商谈伦理学在何种意义具有乌托邦倾向,研究者大都模糊断论,明察不足。这种研究取向直接导致大部分研究者没能注意到哈贝马斯商谈伦理学真正关心的问题,即商谈伦理学如何能够证成自己的核心诉求。商谈伦理学自其构建伊始便明确地赋予自身以揭明日常生活中基本道德实践之论证任务(至于商谈伦理学诉求什么则是证成之后自然而然显示出来的一种学术关怀,它在商谈伦理学中并不占据核心和根本的位置),并以此诠证潜藏在我们日常生活中时刻发挥作用的那些基本道德直觉,从而最终达至颂扬启蒙精神、超克现代道德危机的基本目标。在这一问题意识规制下,哈贝马斯采用了语言学转向论域下的元伦理学进路,籍由这种路径并结合欧陆哲学的论证方式来揭示道德规范推理过程之基本逻辑结构。因此,对商谈伦理学的研究不能大而化之地将其贬损为没有现实可能性的理想性构思,而应该在还原其综合性视野诸论据前提下批判分析商谈伦理学的核心问题意识及其论证逻辑,并进而理解商谈伦理学理想性诉求的题中之义以通达哈贝马斯道德哲学的核心意涵。
本研究论文的基本观点是,商谈伦理学是一种以阐明规范命题之“证立”过程为核心,以道德的普遍性与知识性为诉求,并以此应对启蒙之后出现的道德危机为基本问题意识的伦理学理论建构。这种建构策略有其纵向的承继因素与横向的批判因素,因而我们不能简单地从谈论商谈伦理学建基于何种基础、引用了哪些论据、得出了什么样的结论此种流行模式中对之加以探讨,而必须赋予其一个一以贯之的核心并在对诸多道德论证策略的分析与批判中透显其论证合理性。这种论证合理性本身而不是其诉求才是我们谈论商谈伦理学乌托邦理念之具体所指。
本研究所认为的“一以贯之的核心”即对“道德证立”概念蕴含的推理模式之逻辑结构形式之剖析,其简单地体现在对如下基本道德命题进行论证所暗含的逻辑结构之形式分析中：
待证立命题：“A的做法是错误的”(C)。
证成这一规范性命题需要援引特定理由并分为两个步骤,分别是：
步骤一：其理由是“A撒了谎”(D)；
这一理由必须借助相应的规则,
步骤二：“撒谎是错误的”(W)。
基于这个基本观点,本研究的整体结构可以划分为四个论题相对独立的部分：
第一章和第二章构成了本研究的第一部分。主要是在一种危机与证立的辩证关系中设定商谈伦理学面对并想要解决的基本问题。现代道德是一种继承了启蒙的断裂意识,并以启蒙所阐扬的自我抉择、自我发展与自我完善等以人类自主性诉求为核心的启蒙精神来进行自我论证的道德。在这种自我意识下,现代道德裂变出危机倾向,该危机我们可以通过分析康德的《回答这个问题——什么是启蒙?》对启蒙的阐释将之分离出两种基本危机形态：一种是证立危机,一种是现实危机。康德为人类进入启蒙状态规定的基本方法是自由地公开运用自己的理性,而与之相对的则是理性的私人运用。两种理性运用方式,被现代道德哲学家及普通大众进行了错误理解,自由的公开运用方式被理解为个体性的自由,非自由的私人运用方式则被理解为工具目的理性,并因此分别产生了证立危机与现实危机。商谈伦理学的证立核心,正是面对这样的危机背景而给出的论证策略,当然其所指向的主要是证立危机这个危机侧度。哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学基于对现实危机的反思转向对“道德证立”的逻辑分析,依据这种分析,现代道德要想克服其所陷入的危机必须首先从证立角度阐明道德规范的推理结构。这种推理基于后形而上学的语言性、程序性、以及可错性的认知,从而认定“道德证立”过程必须从元伦理的角度阐明其逻辑推理结构,这个结构也就是我们所说的“一以贯之的核心”中W、D、C之间的逻辑推衍关系。
第三章到第五章构成了第二部分。主要是阐明“道德证立”的逻辑结构,并对之做一种重构性建构工作。这一部分主要而向三个逐次推进的基本问题：规则证立、内部证立与外部证立。规则证立主要从语言在日常应用中所暗含的基本规则出发来证成一种意向性的规则意识。这样,“道德证立”中规则W就会获得某种蕴含于语言应用中的必然性。在此证立过程中,通过对交往行动的语言学分析我们首先将交往行动看作是以意义理解为取向并遵守一定规则的社会交往模式,这一模式的理想化形态就是人类生活世界中的道德行动。同时,该道德行动指向了语言沟通过程中必然指向的有效性要求,这些有效性要求决定了现代道德的形式取向及其所要证成的正确性目标。就内部证立而言,其所要面向的问题是本研究最为核心的部分,通过内部证立这个步骤,“道德证立”的逻辑结构得到重构,即我们并不是简单地就可以籍由规则W而从D推论出C,它还需要接受普遍化原则(U)的调控与过滤,只有如此W才能获得正当性。U原则在“道德证立”推理逻辑中发挥的桥接作用成为一个重要问题,我们将表明其桥接的正是休谟难题中难以得到沟通的“是”与“应当”。最后,就外部证立而言,U原则虽然通过普遍语用学的交往规则分析,以及推理逻辑结构的重新建构工作已经获得了基于语言与逻辑的证立,但是就道德的社会属性而言,其面向的仍然还是社会化的行动者在社会世界中的人际关系。因此之故,我们必须从社会角度出发为其寻求合理性基础,这一点哈贝马斯借助的是社会心理学与认知发展心理学的相关理论,由此商谈伦理学的U原则获得了外在于逻辑内部的外部合理性。以上的三个步骤构成了一个逻辑圆满的关于“道德证立”逻辑结构的论证程序。
第六章和第七章构成了第二部分。主要是说明证立与应用之间存在着一种张力关系。这种张力关系的表现是,证立性商谈说明的是道德规范如何具有逻辑上的有效性,它抽象掉了一切经验性以及语境性因素,回答的是“我应该做什么?这样一个道德知识问题。但是,道德作为行动系统的语境性特征证立性商谈却并未给于解答,我们用时需要回答“我应该做出什么样的行动?”。当行动者的道德行动被限定在一定的语境中时,其所要做的是认知到该语境中哪一个规范适用于该语境,也即是说哪一个规范具有适当性,而不是去回答哪一个规范具有普遍性。哈贝马斯接受了这种区分,但却未意识到其理论如何界定证立与应用之间的关系。通过分析我们可以认读出其坚持的是证立在逻辑上优先于应用,应用在本质上依然还是一种证立而不是平行关系。这就出现了一个进一步的问题,即应用向度的引入并未解决“我应该做出什么样的行动?”这个问题,因为即使通过应用性商谈确立了特定语境下的特定道德规范适用于该语境,但仍然不能保证行动者必然会按照这个规范去行动,即道德知识与道德行动之间是存在分离的。为了弥合证立与应用之间的张力关系,必须借助于建制化的现代法律之强制性力量,以此为道德作为知识系统的软弱性提供外部保障。法律之所以可以充任这个角色,是因为现代法律与现代道德具有一种基于商谈逻辑的同源互补关系。现代法律具有道德所不具有的可操作化、具体化以及强制性等特征,通过这些特征现代法律一方面保证由知识转换为行动的基于外在惩罚的推动力,一方面又为道德所无力涉及的领域提供了补充和援助。
余论的内容构成了本研究的第四部分。主要是在批判性视域下对哈贝马斯的“道德证立”逻辑提出批评性意见,并由此质疑商谈伦理学将道德行动还原为论证活动之合理性。商谈伦理学的“道德证立”有一个基本论点,即事实性命题的真实性与规范性命题的正确性具有一种相似的逻辑结构。哈贝马斯论证这一结构是从两个命题处在相同的谓项形式出发判定其具有相似性的,但是“道德证立”却并未在这一简单命题视域下进行逻辑讨论,它面向的是由不同命题所组成的推理逻辑。如此便存在一个问题,即命题内部的主谓逻辑关系无法合法过渡到推理逻辑结构中。当我们为其设定特定的情境以研判道德命题的推理结构时,这种非对称性会变得更为明显。因为事实性命题可以小受情境因素限制,但规范性命题却必须受其限制,可以说情境性因素构成了规范命题的基本前件,这样事实性命题与规范性命题便不再具有相似性程序。另外,“道德证立”的逻辑图式并不包含D原则,而哈贝马斯马斯却将D原则勘定为一个高于U原则的根本原则。从其语用学作为整个理论之基础这个视角分析,D原则应该更接近于勾划一个交往的理想性商谈前提,因而应该具有普遍性并在逻辑上适用于所有人。但是从哈贝马斯对其内容的表述来看,D原则却是一个可以用条件句加以改造的原则,并且该原则并不是具体道德规范的充分必要条件,而只是一个充分条件。最后,哈贝马斯马斯从“道德证立”的元层而理解现代道德也造成了一个重要后果,即道德被还原为基于语言的语用论证过程,因为道德就其作用而言发挥的是调节人与人之间基本冲突关系之作用,而不是一个简单的理性论证过程。日常语言交往使用中潜含的有效性要求与道德的行动力之间并不能直接等同,一个长于用理性论证来获得相互间共识的人并不必然是一个在道德决断和道德践行上总是正确的人,反之亦是如此。
This paper is intended to analyze the relevant ideas about discourse ethics proposed by Jurgen Habermas, an important representative figure of Frankfurt School, and to further expound under what circumstances its argument strategy which is used to break through crisis and dilemma in the context of modern moral crisis exists rationality, as well as under what circumstances it still needs further clarification. Since the birth of discourse ethics, the discussion conducted by various researchers has already formed a basic consensus that discourse ethics is a utopian theory adhering to moral universality and intellectual in the modern pluralism value. However, it is not clear to tell under what circumstances Habermas believes his discourse ethics has a tendency to utopia. When it is dismissed as a utopian dream by the researchers unanimously, few people noticed such a more fundamental problem, namely, how can discourse ethics justify its core appeal, rather than what is its appeal. Since the beginning of its creation, discourse ethics has clearly endowed itself with argument task, which reveals the basic moral practice in daily life, then explained and justified the basic moral intuition which plays a role constantly in our daily life. And eventually achieve the basic goal of extolling the enlightenment spirit and conquering modern moral crisis. Under this issue of consciousness regulation, Habermas uses linguistics turning to the domain of meta-ethics approach, which combined with the way of continental philosophy to reveal the basic logical structure of ethical reasoning process. Therefore, the study of discourse ethics cannot be regarded as Utopia without realistic possibility. Instead, the core of the argument which is concealed should be recognized on the premise of restoring its comprehensive view of various arguments, in order to understand the meaning of its utopian orientation and the core implication of discourse ethics.
The basic point of this research paper is that discourse ethics is a kind of ethics theoretical construction, setting the justification process of clarifying normative proposition as the core, moral universality and intellectual as appeals, and thus responding the moral crisis emerged after enlightenment as basic issue of consciousness. That construction strategy has longitudinal inherited factors and transverse critical factors, so we cannot simply talk about discourse ethics in the popular mode, such as what basis is on account of, what argument is cited, and what conclusions are drawn. Instead, we should endow it with a consistent core and reveal argument rationality from analysis and criticism of many moral argument strategies. This argument rationality itself rather than its appeal is the specific subject of discourse ethics utopia's concept we are talking about.
In the research, the author proposes "the core of consistent", which means the logical structure analysis of inferential model that "moral justification" concept contains. It simply reflects in the following implied logical structure of form analysis, and the basic moral propositions for argument are shown below.
To be justified proposition:"A's practice is wrong"(C).
Justifying this normative propositions needs to be quoted by a specific reason and divided into two steps, namely:
Step1:the reason is "A lied"(D);
The reason must follow the corresponding rules.
Step2:"lying is wrong"(W).
Based on the basic idea, the overall structure of this study can be divided into four themes, which are relatively independent parts:
The first part of the research consists of Chapter1and Chapter2, which mainly sets the basic problems that discourse ethics has to face and wants to solve in a dialectical relationship with crisis and justification. Modern morality is an inherited enlightenment discontinued consciousness, and a self-argument moral, with self-choice, self-development and self-improvement which espoused by enlightenment and other human autonomy appeals as the core spirit of enlightenment. With this self-consciousness, the modern moral disintegrates crisis tendency. By analysis of the interpretation of the enlightenment from Kant's essay "Answering the Question:What is Enlightenment?", we can separate the crisis into two basic forms:justificatory crisis and factual crisis. The basic method of being a state of enlightenment set by Kant is to freely public use one's own reason, however, in contrast is rational private use. Two ways of rational use are misunderstood by modern moral philosophers and the general public. Freely public use is seen as individual freedom, and non-freely private use is regarded as tool purpose reason, which results in justificatory crisis and factual crisis respectively. Faced with such crisis background, justification core of discourse ethics gives the argument strategy, which, of course, mainly refers to justificatory crisis. Habermas' discourse ethics based on the reflection of reality crisis turns to "moral justification" logic analysis. According to this analysis, if the modern ethics wants to overcome its crisis, it must first expound inference structure of ethics from justification perspective. This reasoning bases on metaphysics of linguistic, procedural, as well as fallible cognition. Therefore, the logical inference structure has to be expounded from meta-ethics perspective, if you want to identify the process of "moral justification". The structure is the logical inferring relationships among W, D. and C in "the core of consistent" we are talking about.
The second part of the research consists of Chapter3, Chapter4and Chapter5, which mainly expounds logical structure of "moral justification", and does reconstruction work towards it. This part is mainly for three successive advance basic issues:rule justification, internal justification and external justification. Rule justification is to justify the intentional rules of consciousness, which mainly from language implied basic rules in daily application. Thus, Rule W from the "moral justification" will get some inevitability which contained in language application. In the process of the justification, through a linguistic analysis of communicative action, first, we regard the communicative action as meaning-oriented and rule-following social communication model, and the idealized form of this model is moral action in the world of human life. In the meanwhile, the moral action refers to the validity requirement which necessarily refers to in the process of verbal communication, thus, the validity requirement determines the form and orientation of the modern moral, as well as its validity target to justify. In terms of internal justification, the problems it has to face are the core part of this study. Through the step of internal justification, the logic structure of "moral justification" has been reconstructed, that is, we cannot easily get C inferred from D, by using Rule W, because it also needs to accept regulation and filtration of the principle of universality (U). Only in this way can W get justification. The bridging role which played by Principle U in "moral justification" reasoning logic has become an important issue, and we will show that the bridging is "Be" and "ought to Be" of Hume's problem which is hard to communicate. Finally, in terms of external justification, although Principle U has obtained the justification based on language and logic, by interaction rules analysis of universal pragmatics and reconstruction of reasoning logical structure, in terms of moral social attribute, its objects are still human relations of social actors in the social world. Therefore, we must seek rationality basis from the social perspective, which Habermas using some related theories of social psychology and cognitive development psychology, thus, the Principle U of discourse ethics gains outside internal logic external rationality. The above three steps constitute a successful logic of argumentation procedures which are about "moral justification" logical structure.
The third part of the research consists of Chapter6and Chapter7, which mainly explains there is the tension relationship between justification and application. The expression of this tension relationship is that justificatory discourse expounds how dose ethics have validity logically, which abstracts away all the empirical and contextual factors, answering such a moral knowledge issue as "what should I do". However, justificatory discourse doesn't explain morality, a contextual characteristic in action system, in the meanwhile, we need to answer "What action should I make" as well. When actors'moral action is limited to a certain situation, they have to recognize which specification is applicable to the context, that's to say, which specification is appropriate, not to answer which specification is universal. Habermas accepts this distinction, but he fails to realize how to use the theory to define the relationship between justification and application. Through analysis we can recognize that, in terms of logic, justification which he insists is superior to application. In essence, it is still a kind of justification rather than parallel relation, which results in a further issue, namely, the introduction of the application dimension does not resolve the issue "What action should I make", because even if setting specific ethics which is appropriate for the specific context through applicable discourse, we still cannot guarantee the actors are bound to act in accordance with the specification, which means there is existence of separation between the moral knowledge and moral action. In order to bridge the tension relationship between justification and application, we must use the coercive power of the modern legal institution to provide external protection for moral weakness of knowledge systems. The reason why law can play this role is modern law and modern ethics is a kind of homologous complementary relation based on discourse logic. Modern law has characteristics of operational, concrete and mandatory which moral doesn't have. Through these characteristics, on one hand, modern law ensures the impetus of transformation from knowledge to action based on extrinsic punishments, on the other hand, it provides complementary and assistance for areas which moral cannot involve
The fourth part of the research is the Conclusion, which mainly proposes criticism about Habermas's "moral justification" logic in the sight of the critical, and questions reasonableness of argument activities restored from moral actions by discourse ethics. As for discourse ethics "moral justification", there is a basic argument that authenticity of factual proposition and validity of normative propositions own a similar logical structure. Habermas demonstrates the structure by determining the similarities from two propositions with the same predicates form. However, the "moral justification" is not a logical discussion at the sight of this simple proposition. Instead, it oriented reasoning logic composed by different propositions. Then there is another issue, namely, the internal subject-predicate logical relation of the proposition cannot be legally transited to reasoning logic structure. When we set a specific situation to study the reasoning structure of moral proposition, this kind of asymmetry will become more obvious, because the factual propositions can not be limited by situational factors, on the contrary, normative propositions have to be limited by them. Therefore, there is no similar procedure between factual propositions and normative propositions. In addition, the logical schema of "moral justification" does not contain Principle D, while, Habermas regards Principle D as a fundamental principle, which is superior to Principle U. From the perspective of pragmatics as the whole theoretical basis, Principle D should be closer to outline the premise of communicative idealism discourse, which should be universal and logically applied to all the people. But in terms of Habermas' expression of the content, principle D is a principle which can be modified by conditional clauses, and the principle is not a necessary and sufficient condition for specific ethics, but only a sufficient condition. Finally, a significant consequence is caused by Habermas' understanding of modern ethics from "moral justification" meta-level perspective, that is, ethics is restored to be a pragmatic argument process based on language. In terms of its role, ethics adjusts the basic conflicts among people. Therefore, it is not a simple rational argument process. Validity requirements contained in the use of daily language communication can't be directly equaled with moral actions. The person who is good at using rational argument to get a consensus among people is not necessarily a moral person, and vice versa.
本研究论文的基本观点是,商谈伦理学是一种以阐明规范命题之“证立”过程为核心,以道德的普遍性与知识性为诉求,并以此应对启蒙之后出现的道德危机为基本问题意识的伦理学理论建构。这种建构策略有其纵向的承继因素与横向的批判因素,因而我们不能简单地从谈论商谈伦理学建基于何种基础、引用了哪些论据、得出了什么样的结论此种流行模式中对之加以探讨,而必须赋予其一个一以贯之的核心并在对诸多道德论证策略的分析与批判中透显其论证合理性。这种论证合理性本身而不是其诉求才是我们谈论商谈伦理学乌托邦理念之具体所指。
本研究所认为的“一以贯之的核心”即对“道德证立”概念蕴含的推理模式之逻辑结构形式之剖析,其简单地体现在对如下基本道德命题进行论证所暗含的逻辑结构之形式分析中：
待证立命题：“A的做法是错误的”(C)。
证成这一规范性命题需要援引特定理由并分为两个步骤,分别是：
步骤一：其理由是“A撒了谎”(D)；
这一理由必须借助相应的规则,
步骤二：“撒谎是错误的”(W)。
基于这个基本观点,本研究的整体结构可以划分为四个论题相对独立的部分：
第一章和第二章构成了本研究的第一部分。主要是在一种危机与证立的辩证关系中设定商谈伦理学面对并想要解决的基本问题。现代道德是一种继承了启蒙的断裂意识,并以启蒙所阐扬的自我抉择、自我发展与自我完善等以人类自主性诉求为核心的启蒙精神来进行自我论证的道德。在这种自我意识下,现代道德裂变出危机倾向,该危机我们可以通过分析康德的《回答这个问题——什么是启蒙?》对启蒙的阐释将之分离出两种基本危机形态：一种是证立危机,一种是现实危机。康德为人类进入启蒙状态规定的基本方法是自由地公开运用自己的理性,而与之相对的则是理性的私人运用。两种理性运用方式,被现代道德哲学家及普通大众进行了错误理解,自由的公开运用方式被理解为个体性的自由,非自由的私人运用方式则被理解为工具目的理性,并因此分别产生了证立危机与现实危机。商谈伦理学的证立核心,正是面对这样的危机背景而给出的论证策略,当然其所指向的主要是证立危机这个危机侧度。哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学基于对现实危机的反思转向对“道德证立”的逻辑分析,依据这种分析,现代道德要想克服其所陷入的危机必须首先从证立角度阐明道德规范的推理结构。这种推理基于后形而上学的语言性、程序性、以及可错性的认知,从而认定“道德证立”过程必须从元伦理的角度阐明其逻辑推理结构,这个结构也就是我们所说的“一以贯之的核心”中W、D、C之间的逻辑推衍关系。
第三章到第五章构成了第二部分。主要是阐明“道德证立”的逻辑结构,并对之做一种重构性建构工作。这一部分主要而向三个逐次推进的基本问题：规则证立、内部证立与外部证立。规则证立主要从语言在日常应用中所暗含的基本规则出发来证成一种意向性的规则意识。这样,“道德证立”中规则W就会获得某种蕴含于语言应用中的必然性。在此证立过程中,通过对交往行动的语言学分析我们首先将交往行动看作是以意义理解为取向并遵守一定规则的社会交往模式,这一模式的理想化形态就是人类生活世界中的道德行动。同时,该道德行动指向了语言沟通过程中必然指向的有效性要求,这些有效性要求决定了现代道德的形式取向及其所要证成的正确性目标。就内部证立而言,其所要面向的问题是本研究最为核心的部分,通过内部证立这个步骤,“道德证立”的逻辑结构得到重构,即我们并不是简单地就可以籍由规则W而从D推论出C,它还需要接受普遍化原则(U)的调控与过滤,只有如此W才能获得正当性。U原则在“道德证立”推理逻辑中发挥的桥接作用成为一个重要问题,我们将表明其桥接的正是休谟难题中难以得到沟通的“是”与“应当”。最后,就外部证立而言,U原则虽然通过普遍语用学的交往规则分析,以及推理逻辑结构的重新建构工作已经获得了基于语言与逻辑的证立,但是就道德的社会属性而言,其面向的仍然还是社会化的行动者在社会世界中的人际关系。因此之故,我们必须从社会角度出发为其寻求合理性基础,这一点哈贝马斯借助的是社会心理学与认知发展心理学的相关理论,由此商谈伦理学的U原则获得了外在于逻辑内部的外部合理性。以上的三个步骤构成了一个逻辑圆满的关于“道德证立”逻辑结构的论证程序。
第六章和第七章构成了第二部分。主要是说明证立与应用之间存在着一种张力关系。这种张力关系的表现是,证立性商谈说明的是道德规范如何具有逻辑上的有效性,它抽象掉了一切经验性以及语境性因素,回答的是“我应该做什么?这样一个道德知识问题。但是,道德作为行动系统的语境性特征证立性商谈却并未给于解答,我们用时需要回答“我应该做出什么样的行动?”。当行动者的道德行动被限定在一定的语境中时,其所要做的是认知到该语境中哪一个规范适用于该语境,也即是说哪一个规范具有适当性,而不是去回答哪一个规范具有普遍性。哈贝马斯接受了这种区分,但却未意识到其理论如何界定证立与应用之间的关系。通过分析我们可以认读出其坚持的是证立在逻辑上优先于应用,应用在本质上依然还是一种证立而不是平行关系。这就出现了一个进一步的问题,即应用向度的引入并未解决“我应该做出什么样的行动?”这个问题,因为即使通过应用性商谈确立了特定语境下的特定道德规范适用于该语境,但仍然不能保证行动者必然会按照这个规范去行动,即道德知识与道德行动之间是存在分离的。为了弥合证立与应用之间的张力关系,必须借助于建制化的现代法律之强制性力量,以此为道德作为知识系统的软弱性提供外部保障。法律之所以可以充任这个角色,是因为现代法律与现代道德具有一种基于商谈逻辑的同源互补关系。现代法律具有道德所不具有的可操作化、具体化以及强制性等特征,通过这些特征现代法律一方面保证由知识转换为行动的基于外在惩罚的推动力,一方面又为道德所无力涉及的领域提供了补充和援助。
余论的内容构成了本研究的第四部分。主要是在批判性视域下对哈贝马斯的“道德证立”逻辑提出批评性意见,并由此质疑商谈伦理学将道德行动还原为论证活动之合理性。商谈伦理学的“道德证立”有一个基本论点,即事实性命题的真实性与规范性命题的正确性具有一种相似的逻辑结构。哈贝马斯论证这一结构是从两个命题处在相同的谓项形式出发判定其具有相似性的,但是“道德证立”却并未在这一简单命题视域下进行逻辑讨论,它面向的是由不同命题所组成的推理逻辑。如此便存在一个问题,即命题内部的主谓逻辑关系无法合法过渡到推理逻辑结构中。当我们为其设定特定的情境以研判道德命题的推理结构时,这种非对称性会变得更为明显。因为事实性命题可以小受情境因素限制,但规范性命题却必须受其限制,可以说情境性因素构成了规范命题的基本前件,这样事实性命题与规范性命题便不再具有相似性程序。另外,“道德证立”的逻辑图式并不包含D原则,而哈贝马斯马斯却将D原则勘定为一个高于U原则的根本原则。从其语用学作为整个理论之基础这个视角分析,D原则应该更接近于勾划一个交往的理想性商谈前提,因而应该具有普遍性并在逻辑上适用于所有人。但是从哈贝马斯对其内容的表述来看,D原则却是一个可以用条件句加以改造的原则,并且该原则并不是具体道德规范的充分必要条件,而只是一个充分条件。最后,哈贝马斯马斯从“道德证立”的元层而理解现代道德也造成了一个重要后果,即道德被还原为基于语言的语用论证过程,因为道德就其作用而言发挥的是调节人与人之间基本冲突关系之作用,而不是一个简单的理性论证过程。日常语言交往使用中潜含的有效性要求与道德的行动力之间并不能直接等同,一个长于用理性论证来获得相互间共识的人并不必然是一个在道德决断和道德践行上总是正确的人,反之亦是如此。
This paper is intended to analyze the relevant ideas about discourse ethics proposed by Jurgen Habermas, an important representative figure of Frankfurt School, and to further expound under what circumstances its argument strategy which is used to break through crisis and dilemma in the context of modern moral crisis exists rationality, as well as under what circumstances it still needs further clarification. Since the birth of discourse ethics, the discussion conducted by various researchers has already formed a basic consensus that discourse ethics is a utopian theory adhering to moral universality and intellectual in the modern pluralism value. However, it is not clear to tell under what circumstances Habermas believes his discourse ethics has a tendency to utopia. When it is dismissed as a utopian dream by the researchers unanimously, few people noticed such a more fundamental problem, namely, how can discourse ethics justify its core appeal, rather than what is its appeal. Since the beginning of its creation, discourse ethics has clearly endowed itself with argument task, which reveals the basic moral practice in daily life, then explained and justified the basic moral intuition which plays a role constantly in our daily life. And eventually achieve the basic goal of extolling the enlightenment spirit and conquering modern moral crisis. Under this issue of consciousness regulation, Habermas uses linguistics turning to the domain of meta-ethics approach, which combined with the way of continental philosophy to reveal the basic logical structure of ethical reasoning process. Therefore, the study of discourse ethics cannot be regarded as Utopia without realistic possibility. Instead, the core of the argument which is concealed should be recognized on the premise of restoring its comprehensive view of various arguments, in order to understand the meaning of its utopian orientation and the core implication of discourse ethics.
The basic point of this research paper is that discourse ethics is a kind of ethics theoretical construction, setting the justification process of clarifying normative proposition as the core, moral universality and intellectual as appeals, and thus responding the moral crisis emerged after enlightenment as basic issue of consciousness. That construction strategy has longitudinal inherited factors and transverse critical factors, so we cannot simply talk about discourse ethics in the popular mode, such as what basis is on account of, what argument is cited, and what conclusions are drawn. Instead, we should endow it with a consistent core and reveal argument rationality from analysis and criticism of many moral argument strategies. This argument rationality itself rather than its appeal is the specific subject of discourse ethics utopia's concept we are talking about.
In the research, the author proposes "the core of consistent", which means the logical structure analysis of inferential model that "moral justification" concept contains. It simply reflects in the following implied logical structure of form analysis, and the basic moral propositions for argument are shown below.
To be justified proposition:"A's practice is wrong"(C).
Justifying this normative propositions needs to be quoted by a specific reason and divided into two steps, namely:
Step1:the reason is "A lied"(D);
The reason must follow the corresponding rules.
Step2:"lying is wrong"(W).
Based on the basic idea, the overall structure of this study can be divided into four themes, which are relatively independent parts:
The first part of the research consists of Chapter1and Chapter2, which mainly sets the basic problems that discourse ethics has to face and wants to solve in a dialectical relationship with crisis and justification. Modern morality is an inherited enlightenment discontinued consciousness, and a self-argument moral, with self-choice, self-development and self-improvement which espoused by enlightenment and other human autonomy appeals as the core spirit of enlightenment. With this self-consciousness, the modern moral disintegrates crisis tendency. By analysis of the interpretation of the enlightenment from Kant's essay "Answering the Question:What is Enlightenment?", we can separate the crisis into two basic forms:justificatory crisis and factual crisis. The basic method of being a state of enlightenment set by Kant is to freely public use one's own reason, however, in contrast is rational private use. Two ways of rational use are misunderstood by modern moral philosophers and the general public. Freely public use is seen as individual freedom, and non-freely private use is regarded as tool purpose reason, which results in justificatory crisis and factual crisis respectively. Faced with such crisis background, justification core of discourse ethics gives the argument strategy, which, of course, mainly refers to justificatory crisis. Habermas' discourse ethics based on the reflection of reality crisis turns to "moral justification" logic analysis. According to this analysis, if the modern ethics wants to overcome its crisis, it must first expound inference structure of ethics from justification perspective. This reasoning bases on metaphysics of linguistic, procedural, as well as fallible cognition. Therefore, the logical inference structure has to be expounded from meta-ethics perspective, if you want to identify the process of "moral justification". The structure is the logical inferring relationships among W, D. and C in "the core of consistent" we are talking about.
The second part of the research consists of Chapter3, Chapter4and Chapter5, which mainly expounds logical structure of "moral justification", and does reconstruction work towards it. This part is mainly for three successive advance basic issues:rule justification, internal justification and external justification. Rule justification is to justify the intentional rules of consciousness, which mainly from language implied basic rules in daily application. Thus, Rule W from the "moral justification" will get some inevitability which contained in language application. In the process of the justification, through a linguistic analysis of communicative action, first, we regard the communicative action as meaning-oriented and rule-following social communication model, and the idealized form of this model is moral action in the world of human life. In the meanwhile, the moral action refers to the validity requirement which necessarily refers to in the process of verbal communication, thus, the validity requirement determines the form and orientation of the modern moral, as well as its validity target to justify. In terms of internal justification, the problems it has to face are the core part of this study. Through the step of internal justification, the logic structure of "moral justification" has been reconstructed, that is, we cannot easily get C inferred from D, by using Rule W, because it also needs to accept regulation and filtration of the principle of universality (U). Only in this way can W get justification. The bridging role which played by Principle U in "moral justification" reasoning logic has become an important issue, and we will show that the bridging is "Be" and "ought to Be" of Hume's problem which is hard to communicate. Finally, in terms of external justification, although Principle U has obtained the justification based on language and logic, by interaction rules analysis of universal pragmatics and reconstruction of reasoning logical structure, in terms of moral social attribute, its objects are still human relations of social actors in the social world. Therefore, we must seek rationality basis from the social perspective, which Habermas using some related theories of social psychology and cognitive development psychology, thus, the Principle U of discourse ethics gains outside internal logic external rationality. The above three steps constitute a successful logic of argumentation procedures which are about "moral justification" logical structure.
The third part of the research consists of Chapter6and Chapter7, which mainly explains there is the tension relationship between justification and application. The expression of this tension relationship is that justificatory discourse expounds how dose ethics have validity logically, which abstracts away all the empirical and contextual factors, answering such a moral knowledge issue as "what should I do". However, justificatory discourse doesn't explain morality, a contextual characteristic in action system, in the meanwhile, we need to answer "What action should I make" as well. When actors'moral action is limited to a certain situation, they have to recognize which specification is applicable to the context, that's to say, which specification is appropriate, not to answer which specification is universal. Habermas accepts this distinction, but he fails to realize how to use the theory to define the relationship between justification and application. Through analysis we can recognize that, in terms of logic, justification which he insists is superior to application. In essence, it is still a kind of justification rather than parallel relation, which results in a further issue, namely, the introduction of the application dimension does not resolve the issue "What action should I make", because even if setting specific ethics which is appropriate for the specific context through applicable discourse, we still cannot guarantee the actors are bound to act in accordance with the specification, which means there is existence of separation between the moral knowledge and moral action. In order to bridge the tension relationship between justification and application, we must use the coercive power of the modern legal institution to provide external protection for moral weakness of knowledge systems. The reason why law can play this role is modern law and modern ethics is a kind of homologous complementary relation based on discourse logic. Modern law has characteristics of operational, concrete and mandatory which moral doesn't have. Through these characteristics, on one hand, modern law ensures the impetus of transformation from knowledge to action based on extrinsic punishments, on the other hand, it provides complementary and assistance for areas which moral cannot involve
The fourth part of the research is the Conclusion, which mainly proposes criticism about Habermas's "moral justification" logic in the sight of the critical, and questions reasonableness of argument activities restored from moral actions by discourse ethics. As for discourse ethics "moral justification", there is a basic argument that authenticity of factual proposition and validity of normative propositions own a similar logical structure. Habermas demonstrates the structure by determining the similarities from two propositions with the same predicates form. However, the "moral justification" is not a logical discussion at the sight of this simple proposition. Instead, it oriented reasoning logic composed by different propositions. Then there is another issue, namely, the internal subject-predicate logical relation of the proposition cannot be legally transited to reasoning logic structure. When we set a specific situation to study the reasoning structure of moral proposition, this kind of asymmetry will become more obvious, because the factual propositions can not be limited by situational factors, on the contrary, normative propositions have to be limited by them. Therefore, there is no similar procedure between factual propositions and normative propositions. In addition, the logical schema of "moral justification" does not contain Principle D, while, Habermas regards Principle D as a fundamental principle, which is superior to Principle U. From the perspective of pragmatics as the whole theoretical basis, Principle D should be closer to outline the premise of communicative idealism discourse, which should be universal and logically applied to all the people. But in terms of Habermas' expression of the content, principle D is a principle which can be modified by conditional clauses, and the principle is not a necessary and sufficient condition for specific ethics, but only a sufficient condition. Finally, a significant consequence is caused by Habermas' understanding of modern ethics from "moral justification" meta-level perspective, that is, ethics is restored to be a pragmatic argument process based on language. In terms of its role, ethics adjusts the basic conflicts among people. Therefore, it is not a simple rational argument process. Validity requirements contained in the use of daily language communication can't be directly equaled with moral actions. The person who is good at using rational argument to get a consensus among people is not necessarily a moral person, and vice versa.
引文
① [美]A.麦金太尔：《追寻美德》,宋继杰译,上海：译林出版社,2008年版,第2页
① Anthony Giddens. "Reason Without Revolution? Habermas's Theorie des kommmunikativen Handelns", in Richard J.Bernstein (cd.), Habermas and Modernity. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1985. pp.95-121. p.96.
① Habermas. Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans.. Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994.
② I labermas,Truth and Justification, trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,2003.
① John Mingers and Geoff Walsham. "Toward Ethical Information Systems:The Contribution of Discourse Ethics". MIS Quarterly,2010(4), Vol.34. pp.833-854,p.834作者在这里明确将哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学看作一种规范伦理学,他认为：“商谈伦理学可以被看作是一种规范伦理学,在这里,它提供了一种判定道德规范的程序。”当然,以规范伦理学去完全划定商谈伦理学在类型学上的归属并不能确切表达其地位,大卫·英格拉姆(David Ingram)就认为哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学既是规范伦理学也是元伦理学, “元伦理学的方面构建了当我们用‘应当’与‘正确’时我们本能地指向什么。(David Ingram. Habermas:Introduction and Analysis. Ithaca, London:Cornell University Press,2010, p.115.)我在此无异于在类型学上划分哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学之确切归属,因为这一划分本身就没有明确的界限,只是从最核心的意义上,我将从“证立”角度重建哈贝马斯的道德论证逻辑石作是一种元伦理学路径,同时我也一直坚持这一路径的认识论取向,而不是乌托邦意义上的存在论取向。
② 龚群：《道德鸟托邦的重构——河北马斯交往伦理思想研究》,北京：商务印书馆,2005年版。
③ 胡军良：《哈贝马斯对话伦理学研究》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2010年版。
① Ricardo Blaug,"Citizenship and Political Judgment:Between Discourse Ethics and Phronesis". Res Publica. 2000(6), pp.179-198.
② William Rehg, "The Critical Potential of Discourse Ethics:Reply to Meehan and Chambers". Human Studies. 2002(25). pp.407-412.
① [英]约瑟夫·拉兹：《实践理性与规范》(导言),朱学平译,北京：中国法制出版社,2011年版,第3页。
① Habermas. Truth and Justification, trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2003, p.238.
② Habermas. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.51.
① Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, trans., Jeremy J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press, 1971.
② Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction: Preliminary; Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action. trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2001.
③ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.: The MIT Press, 1996.
④ Habermas, The Future of Human Nature, trans., William Rehg, Max Pcnsky, et al. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003.
⑤ [德]哈贝马斯：《哈贝马斯在华演讲集》,中国社会科学院哲学研究所编,北京：人民出版社,2002年版,第141页。
⑥ See Luca Corchia, Jurgen Habermas a Bibliography: Works and Studies(1952-2010). Pisa: Arnus Univcrsity (接上注)Books2010在这本由Arnus大学出版的有关河北马斯的研究文献目录中列举了自1964年到2010年研究哈贝马斯的德文、英文与法文文献总共4823种,这其中很大一部分涉及到其伦理学研究。
① James Gordon Finlayson. Habermas: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
② Edgar Andre, Habermas, The Key Concepts, New York: Routledge,2006.
③ ①Thomas McCarthy, The Critical Thoery of Jurgen Habermas, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1985.②J.M. Bernstein, Recovering Ethical Life: Jurgen Habermas and the Future of Critical Theory. London, New York: Routledge,1995.③Erik Oddvar Eriksen and Jarle Weigard, Understanding Habermas: Commmunicative Action and Deliberative Democracy, New York: Continuum. 2003.
④ 这方面的著作还有①Seyla Benhabib, Critique, Norm, and Utopia: A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory, New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.②David M.Rasmussen, Reading Habermas, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1990.③David S.Owen. Between Reason and History, New Nork: State University of New York Press, 2002.④Omid A. Pavrow, Democracy, Power and Legitimacy: The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas, London: University of Toronto Press,2003.⑤Joseph Health, Communicative Action and Rational Choice, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2003⑥Uwe Steinhoff, The philosoplry of Jurgen Habermas,Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.⑦Darrow Schectcr, The Critique of Instrumental Reason from Weber to Habermas. New York: Continuum,2010.
⑤ Thomas McCarthy, The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1985, pp.278-279.
① J. M. Bernstein. Recovering Ethical Life:Jurgen Habermas and the Future of Critical Theory. London, New York: Routledge,1995,p.209.
① Erik Oddvar Eriksen and Jarle Weigard. Understanding Habermas:Communicative Action and Deliberative Democracy, New York:Continuum, p.82.
② Wellmer, "Kthics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer. The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1991,pp.113-231.
③ Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell, New York:State University of New York Press.1993.
④ William Rehg, Congent Scicence in Context:The Science Wars, Argumentation Theory, and Habermas, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2009.
① Klaus Gunther. The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell, New York:State University of New York Press,1993.,p.203.
① William Rehg. Congent Scicence in Context:The Science Wars, Argumentation Theory, and Habermas, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,2009. p.163.
② Erin Kelly,"Habermas on Moral Justification". Social Theoiy and Practice,2000. Vol.26. No.2. pp.223-249.
③ Eva Erman, "Conflict and Universal Moral Theory:From Reasonableness to Reason-Giving". Political Theory, 2007. Vol.35. No.5, pp.223-249.
④ Erin Kelly, "Habermas on Moral Justification". Social Theory and Practice,2000, Vol.26, No.2, pp.223-249, p.223.
⑤ Eva Erman, "Conflict and Universal Moral Theory:From Reasonableness to Reason-Giving". Political Theory. 2007, Vol.35. No.5. pp.598-623. p.598.
① Janna Thompson, Discourse and Knowledge:Defence of a collectivist ethics, New York:Routledge,1998.
② Logi Gunnarsson, Making Moral Sense:Beyond Habermas and Gauthier. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003.
① Janna Thompson, Discourse and Knowledge:Defence of a collectivist ethics, New York:Rout ledge,1998, p.1.
② Janna Thompson, Discourse and Knowledge:Defence of a collectivist ethics, New York:Rout ledge,1998, p.15.
③ 这方面的著作还有：①章国锋：《关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦”构想——解读哈贝马斯<交往行为理论>》,济南：山东人民出版社,2001年版。②阮新邦、林端主编：《解读<沟通行动理论>》,上海：上海人民出版社,2003年版。③童世骏：《批判与实践——论哈贝马斯的批判理论》,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2007年版。
④ 薛华：《哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学》,沈阳：辽宁教育出版社,1988年版。
① 龚群：《道德乌托邦的重构》,北京：商务印书馆,2005年版。
② 胡军良：《哈贝马斯对话伦理学研究》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2010年版。
③ 李志成：《哈伯玛斯商谈伦理学的证成与应用》,台北：台湾大学博士论文,2006年。
④ 同属这一模式的还有宫瑜：《交往理性与道德共识——哈贝马斯话语伦理学研究》,长春：吉林大学博士论文,2011年。
① 章国锋：《话语·权力·真理——社会正义与话语的伦理》,《社会科学》,2006年第2期。
② 章国锋：《话语·权力·真理——社会正义与话语的伦理》,《社会科学》,2006年第2期。
① 胡军良：《哈贝马斯对阿佩尔对话伦理思想的继承与超越》,《云南社会科学》,2010年第1期。
② 胡军良：《哈贝马斯对阿佩尔对话伦理思想的继承与超越》,《云南社会科学》,2010年第1期。
③ 胡绍嘉：《话语的意义、行动与伦理：在哈伯马斯与皮尔斯间寻索》,载黄瑞琪主编：《沟通、批判和实践：哈伯马斯八十论集》,台北：允晨文化实业股份有限公司,2010年版。
④ Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.17.
⑤ 胡绍嘉：《话语的意义、行动与伦理：在哈伯马斯与皮尔斯间寻索》,载黄瑞琪主编：《沟通、批判和实践：哈伯马斯八十论集》,台北：允晨文化实业股份有限公司,2010年版。
① 王晓升：《评哈贝马斯的道德普遍主义和伦理多元主义》,《中共浙江省委党校学报》,2010年第3期。
② Jari Ilmari Niemi, "The Foundations of Jiirgen Habermas's Discourse Ethics", The Journal of Value Inquiry,2008. Vol.42. pp.255-268. p.258.
① 李志成：《哈伯玛斯商谈伦理学的证成与应用》,台北：台湾大学博士论文,2006年,第9页。
① 张少动：《研究方法》,台中：沧海书局,2002年版,第26页。
① [德]汉斯-格奥尔格·伽达默尔：《真理与方法》(上卷),洪汉鼎译,上海：上海译文出版社,2004年版,第420-421页。
① [法]萨德：《贞洁的厄运》,张章译,北京：九州出版社,2000年版,第3页。
② [法]茨维坦·托多罗夫：《启蒙的精神》,马利红译,上海：华东师范大学出版社,2012年版,第55页。
③ [德]哈贝马斯：《现代性的哲学话语》,曹卫东译,上海：译林出版社,2004年版,第134页。
① See Milan Zafirovski,The Enlightement and Its Effects on Modern Society, New York:Springer Science+Business Media, LLC,2011, p.107.
② “证立危机(justificatory crisis)是我借用自Logi Gunnarsson的概念,它指的是现代道德所遭遇到的证明困境。(See Logi Gunnarsson. Making Moral Sense:Beyond Habermas and Gauthier,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003.p.31.)同时,按照哈贝马斯的理解,危机概念亦有着特殊含义,它不仅仅是一个可观察到的客观过程,而必须从参与者视角予以界定,只有危机中的主体意识到自己在危机中,并努力克服危机才是真正的危机概念。这一过程首先是一个解放的过程,“我们把一个过程说成是危机,这就心照不宣地赋予其一种规范意义,即危机的解除代表处于危机中的主体的解放。(Habermas,Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy, London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980, p.1)从这一意义限定出发,我这样理解以上两种危机概念：“证立危机”指的是启蒙之后的众多道德理论在论证人类道德时所陷入的不可调和的矛盾,诸如元伦理学的道德情感主义把道德看作感情的表达与抒发,以及社群主义这将其看作特定社会中美德的培育等等。它们有一个共同之处,都继承了启蒙精神,但却得出了不可通约的结论；而我用“现实危机”指的是现实生活中种种道德缺位的情况,现代社会在物质进步与有效管理上无疑取得了长足进步,但是我们却随处可见人与人之间的冷漠与无情。这些表现同样有一个共同之处,即都将动物的自私基因发展到了极致,而悬置道德规范的规约作用,并最终放弃了参与者的规范主义视角。
① [德]康德：《问答这个问题——什么是启蒙?》,载《康德著作全集》(第8卷),李秋零主编,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版,第40页。
② [德]康德：《判断力批判》,邓明芒译,北京：人民出版社,2002年版,第136页。康德在该书的同一页为启蒙概念加了一段注释,按照他的说法,“启蒙虽然在论题上很容易,在假设上却是一件必须艰难而缓慢地施行的事业：因为以自己的理性不是被动地、而是永远自己为自己立法,这对于那只想适合于自己的根本目的而不要求知道那超出自己知性之上的东西的人来说,虽然是极为容易的事；但由于努力去追求后者几乎是不可防止的,而这种事在其他那些用许多希望来许诺能满足这种求知欲的人那里是永远也不缺少的,所以要在思维方式中(尤其在公众的思维方式中)保持和确立这种单纯否定的东西(它构成真正的启蒙)是很难的。”([德]康德：《判断力批判》,邓晓芒译,北京：人民出版社,2002年版,第136页。)从康德的这段解释中可以看出,康德虽然在不同的文本中从不太相同的角度切入对启蒙的理解,但是就其核心而言,启蒙意味着一种破旧扬新的双重而向,启蒙一方而将人从蒙昧与迷信状态中解放出来,另一方面则用理性力量开启人类自我立法的全新道路。
① Michel Foucault. "What is Enlightenment?", in Paul Rabinow(ed.), Ethics:Subjectivity and Truth:The Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984,volume one, trans.. Robert and Others. New York:The New Press,1997. pp.303-320. pp.303-304.
② [德]康德：《问答这个问题——什么是启蒙?》,载《康德著作全集》(第8卷),李秋零主编,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版,第40页。
③ Michel Foucault,"What is Enlightenment? ", in Paul Rabinow(ed.). Ethics:Subjectivity and Truth:The Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984, volume one, trans., Robert and Others, New York:The New Press,1997, pp.303-320. p.306.
④ [德]康德：《问答这个问题——什么是启蒙?》,载《康德著作全集》(第8卷),李秋零主编,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版,第41页。
① [德]康德：《问答这个问题——什么是启蒙?》,载《康德著作全集》(第8卷),李秋零主编,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版,第45页。
② [德]马克斯·韦伯：《学术与政治》,钱永祥译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2010年版,第189页。
③ Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998,p.7.
① [德]哈贝马斯：《现代性的哲学话语》,曹卫东译,上海：译林出版社,2004年版,第96页。
② Charles Taylor,Modern Social Imaginaries,Durham:Duke University Press,2004, p64.
① [德]康德：《回答这个问题——什么是启蒙?》,载《康德著作全集》(第8卷),李秋零主编,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版,第42页。
② Michel Foucault. "What is Enlightenment? ". in Paul Rabinow(ed.), Ethics:Subjectivity and Truth:The Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954-1084. volume one, trans., Robert and Others, New York:The New Press,1997. pp.303-320, p.307.
③ Ciaran Cronin,"Kant's Politics of Enlightenment", Journal of the History of Philosophy,2003. Vol.41. No.1. pp.51-80. p.59.
① [德]马克斯·霍克海默、西奥多·阿道尔诺：《启蒙辩证法》,渠敬东、曹卫东译,上海：上海人民出版社,2006年版,第1页。
② [德]哈贝马斯：《现代性的哲学话语》,曹卫东译,上海：译林出版社,2004年版,第123页。
⑧ [德]马克斯·霍克海默、西奥多·阿道尔诺：《启蒙辩证法》,渠敬东、曹卫东译,上海：上海人民出版社,2006年版,第8页。
① [英]艾伦·斯温伍德：《现代性与文化》,载周宪主编：《文化现代性》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版,第64-65页。
② 黄瑞棋：《现代与后现代》,台北：巨流图书公司,2000年版,第46页。
③ [德]哈贝马斯：《现代性的哲学话语》,曹卫东译,上海：译林出版社,2004年版,第127页。
④ [德]哈贝马斯：《现代性的哲学话语》,曹卫东译,上海：译林出版社,2004年版,第127页。
⑤ [德]哈贝马斯：《现代性的哲学话语》,曹卫东译,上海：译林出版社,2004年版,第127页。
⑥ [德]T.W.阿多诺：《道德哲学的问题》,谢地坤、王彤译,北京：人民出版社,2007年版,第164页。
① [加]查尔斯·泰勒：《本真性的伦理》,程炼译,上海：上海三联书店,2012年版,第6页。
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds.. Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.5.
③ Hillary Putnam. Ethics without Ontology, Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press,2004, p.109.
① Martin Morris. Rethinking the Communicative Turn:Adorno, Habermas and the Problem of Communicative Freedom. NewYork:State University of New York,2001, p.55.
② Habermas,"Taking Aim at the Heart of the Present:On Foucault's Lecture on Kant's What is Englightenment?". in Habermas. The New Conservatism:Cultural Criticism and the Historian's Debate, ed. and trans., Shierry Weber Nicholsen,Cambridge,Mass.:The MIT Press,1989, pp.173-185,p.176.
① See Katerina Deligiorgi. Kant and the Culture of Enlightenment. New York:State University of New York Press. 2005. p.4.
② Thomas McCarthy. "Reflection on Rationalization in The Theory of Communicative Action", in Richard J. Bernstein (ed.),Habermas and Modernity. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Ptess,1985. pp.176-191,p.176.
① [德]哈贝马斯：《现代性的地平线——哈贝马斯访谈录》,李安东、段怀清译,上海：上海人民出版社,1997年版,第137页。
① Alfred Jules Ayer,Language, Truth and Logic, New York:Dover Publications. Inc,1952, pp.103-105.
② [澳大利亚]约翰·L·麦凯：《伦理学——发明对与错》,丁三东泽,上海：上海译文出版社,2006年,第15-16页。
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.187.
① Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, cds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. pp.8-9.
② 英文版将这一术语翻译为"metaphysical justification按照字而意思当译为“形而上学证立”,但是哈贝马斯所用德语词汇是"ontotheologish Bcgrundung"。因而,从哈贝马斯运用该词的语境来说,这里翻译成“神学本体论的证立”应该更为符合哈贝马斯所要说明的问题。当然,形而上学论证的意义更为宽泛,它本身就包括了神学本体论论证方式,但在哲学与神学相对而言的意义上则突出其哲学意涵。
① Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.9.
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.9.
③ Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.7.
④ Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.79.
① Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998,p.10.
② [古希腊]柏拉图：《柏拉图全集》(第一卷),王晓朝译,北京：人民出版社,2002年版,第81页。
① [德]哈贝马斯：《作为“意识形态”的技术与科学》,李黎、郭官义译,上海：学林出版社,1999年版,第119页。
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.10.
③ Wellmer."Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer. The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans.. David Midgley. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.113-231,p.113.
① [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》,苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第8页。
② [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》,苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第16页。
③ [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》,苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第39页。
① [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》,苗力田泽,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第48页。
② 这里所说的“认知的有效性”,意味着康德的道德法则可以得到理性的辩护,为有理性者普遍接受。当然这种认知的有效性在道德法则与道德行动之间建立的必然性联系,不是一种自然的因果性关系,而是一种自由的因果性联系,是一种理性的事实。
③ John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, ed., Colin Heydt, Toronto:Broadview Press,2010, p.37.
④ John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, ed., Colin Heydt, Toronto:Broadview Press,2010, p.43.
⑤ John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, ed., Colin Heydt, Toronto:Broadview Press,2010, p.47.
① John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, ed., Colin Heydt, Toronto:Broadview Press,2010, p.43-44.
② [英]亨利·西季威克：《伦理学史纲》,熊敏译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2008年版,第206页。
③ John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, ed., Colin Heydt, Toronto:Broadview Press,2010, p.38.
① Habermas⑧ The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, pp.11-12.
② [英]摩尔：《伦理学原理》,长河译,上海：上海人民出版社,2005年版,第3页。
③ [英]摩尔：《伦理学原理》,长河译,上海：上海人民出版社,2005年版,第6页。
④ [英]摩尔：《伦理学原理》,长河译,上海：上海人民出版社,2005年版,第11页。
① [美]A.麦金太尔：《追寻美德》,宋继杰译,上海：译林出版社,2008年版,筇16-17页。
① Hillary Putnam, Ethics without Ontology, Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press,2004, p.17.
② Hillary Putnam, Ethics without Ontology, Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press,2004,pp.24-25需要注意的是,普特南从传统本体论角度来理解这些不同的证立策略,所以其对康德的伦理学普特南给予了双重评价：一方面肯定其以“绝对命令”的普遍性以及对人个体自由的尊重为基础的道德内涵；另一方面他认为康德并未摆脱形而上学的论证方式,康德关于理性能力之先于形而上学的论断仍然充斥着形而上学,因而在这曾意义上康德的证立模式仍然都有其所说的膨胀性质。后一点评价与哈贝马斯对康德的评价某种程度上是相同的,哈贝马斯也认为康德并未走出传统意识哲学的形而上学范式。
③ [美]A.麦金太尔：《追寻美德》,宋继杰译,上海：译林出版社,2008年版,第6页。
① Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greitf, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.11.
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greitf, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.23.
① 陈泽环：《论西方伦理学的道德论证》,《哲学动态》,2006年第7期。
② Andrew Bowie,Introduction to German Philosopliy:From Kant to Habermas, Cambridge:Polity Press,2003. p.258.
③ Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion:Philosophical Essays, trans.. Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge:Polity Press,2008, p.87.
④ Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds.. Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.79.
① [德]哈贝马斯：《后民族结构》,曹卫东译,上海：上海人民出版社,2002年版,第251页。
② [美]A.麦金太尔：《追寻美德》,宋继杰译,上海：译林出版社,2008年版,第2页。
③ [美]A.麦金太尔：《追寻美德》,宋继杰译,上海：译林出版社,2008年版,第2页。
① [美]A.麦金太尔：《追寻美德》,宋继杰译,上海：译林出版社,2008年版,第5页。
② [美]A.麦金太尔：《追寻美德》,宋继杰译,上海：译林出版社,2008年版,第26页。
③ Stephen Carden, Vitue Ethics:Dewey and MacIntyre, New York:Continuum,2006, p.8.
④ Charles Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries, Durham:Duke University Press,2004, p.64.
① Charles Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries, Durham:Duke University Press,2004, p.11.
② Charles Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries, Durham:Duke University Press,2004, p.12.
③ Charles Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries, Durham:Duke University Press,2004, p.12.
① [加]查尔斯·泰勒：《本真性的伦理》,程炼译,上海：上海三联书店,2012年版,第13页。
② Stephen Carden, Vitue Ethics:Dewev and Maclntyre, New York:Continuum,2006, p.123.
③ John M. Rist, Real Ethics:Rethinking the Foundations of Morality, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2002, p.24.
① 万俊人：《现代社会道德合理性基础论证——兼及中国现代化运作中的道德问题》,《北京大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),1996年第2期。
② Habermas. "Modernily:An Unfinished Project", in Maurizio Passerin d'Entreves and Seyla Benhabib(eds.). Hahermas and Tje Unfinished Project of Modernily,Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1997, pp.39-55.
③ Seonghwa Lee. "Transversal-Universals in Discourse Ethics:Towards a Reconcilable Ethics between Universalism and Communitarianism", Human Studies,2001(24). pp.45-56. p.48.
① [瑞士]汉斯·昆、库舍尔编：《全球伦理——世界宗教议会宣言》,何光沪译,成都：四川人民出版社,1997年版,第12页。
② [瑞士]汉斯·昆：《世界伦理构想》,周艺译,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店2002年版,第36页。
① See Paul F. Buller, John J. Kohls, Kenneth S. Anderson, "The Challenge of Global Ethics",Journal of Business 10,1991. pp.767-775. p.775.
② [瑞士]汉斯·昆：《世界伦理构想》,周艺译,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店2002年版,第76页。
③ Hans Kung, "Global Ethics:A Response to My Critics". International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 2000. Vol.14, No.2, pp.420-428, p.422.
① [瑞士]汉斯·昆：《世界伦理构想》,周艺译,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店2002年版,第7页。
② [瑞士]汉斯·昆：《世界伦理构想》,周艺译,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店2002年版,第76页。
③ http://cn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goden Rule. [2013-5-6].
① 邓晓芒：《全球伦理的可能性：“金规则”的三种模式》,《江苏社会科学》,2002年第4期。
② [德]T.W.阿多诺：《道德哲学的问题》,谢地坤、王彤译,北京：人民出版社,2007年版,第11-12页。
① Lasse Thomassen, "The Inclusion of the Other? Habermas and the Paradox of Tolerance". Political Theory. 2006. Vol.34. No.4. pp.439-462, p.442.
① Hans Kung. Global Ethics:"A Response to My Critics", International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 2000, Vol.14, No.2, pp.420-428, p,423.
② Hans Kung. Global Ethics:"A Response to My Critics", International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 2000, Vol.14, No.2, pp.420-428, p.423.
③ Hans Kung. Global Responsibility:In Search of a New World Ethics, Michigan:Crossroad Publishing Company, 1996, p.37.
④ 傅水军：《全球伦理与孔子的德性之思——<全球伦理宣言>再省思》,《云南大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),2012年第4期。
① Karl-Otto Apel,"Globalization and the Need for Universal Ethics", European Journal of Social Theory 3(2).2000. pp.137-155, p.141.
② 参见翟振明：《为何全球伦理不是普遍伦理》,冯平译,《世界哲学》,2003年第3期。
① [美]A.麦金太尔：《追寻美德》,宋继杰译,上海：译林出版社,2008年版,第58页。
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.162.
① [英]理查德·卖尔文·黑尔：《道德语言》,万俊人译,北京：商务印书馆,2005年版,第5页。
① Karl-Otto Apel, Towards a Transformation of Philosophy, trans.. Glyn Adey and David Fisby, Milwaukee: Marquette University Press,1998, p.226.
② G. E. M. Anscombe. "Modern Moral Philosophy", in Roger Crisp and Michael Slote(eds.), Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1997, pp.26-44, p.42.
① [德]哈贝马斯：《现代性的哲学话语》,曹卫东译,上海：译林出版社,2004年版,第7贝。
② [英]齐格蒙特·鲍曼：《对秩序的追求》,载周宪主编：《文化现代性》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版,第97页。
① Habermas, "Modernity:An Unfinished Project", in Maurizio Passerin d'Entreves and Seyla Benhabib(eds.). Habermas and The Unfinished Project of Modernity, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press.1997, pp.39-55. p.39.
② [英]安东尼·吉登斯：《现代性的后果》,田禾译,上海：译林出版社,2011年版,第18页。
③ [德]哈贝马斯：《现代性的哲学话语》,曹卫东译,上海：译林出版社,2004年版,第8页。
④ [法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔：《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年版,第87页。
① Habermas, "Modernity. An Unfinished Project", in Maurizio Passerin d'Entreves and Seyla Benhabib(eds.), Habermas and The Unfinished Project of Modernity, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1997, pp.39-55. p.45.
② Giovanna Borradori, Philosophy in a Time of Terror:Dialogues With Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida, Chicago, London:The University of Chicago Press,2003. p.14.
⑤ [德] 马克斯·霍克海默、西奥多·阿道尔诺：《启蒙辩证法》,渠敬东、曹卫东译,上海：上海人民出版社,2006年版,第72页。
① [英]安东尼·吉登斯：《现代性的后果》,田禾译,上海：译林出版社,2011年版,第4页。
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds.. Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.42.
① Maeve Cooke. Language and Reason:A Study of Habermas's Pragmatics, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press, 1997,p.38.
② [德]哈贝马斯：《后形而上学思想》,曹卫东、付德根译,上海：译林出版社,2001年版,第27页。
① Gillespie, Michael Allen. Theological Origins of Modernity. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2008, p.261.
② Karl-Otto Apel, Towards a Transformation of Philosophy, trans.. Glyn Adey and David Fisby. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press,1998. p.226.
③ Karl-Otto Apel, Towards a Transformation of Philosopliy, trans.. Glyn Adey and David Fisby, Milwaukee: Marquette University Press,1998. p.228.
④ Karl-Otto Apel, Towards a Transformation of Philosophy, trans., Glyn Adey and David Fisby, Milwaukee: Marquette University Press,1998, p.228.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.56.
① Habermas, "Questions and Counterquestions". in Richard J.Bernstein (ed.). Habermas and Modernity. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1985, pp.192-216, p.193.
② Habermas, Truth and Justification, trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2003, p.239.
① Erin Kelly,“Habermas on Moral Justification", Social Theory and Practice,2000. Vol.26, No.2. pp.223-249, p.223.
② Habermas. Truth and Justification, trans.. Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2003. p.237.
① 陈泽环：《论西方伦理学的道德论证》,《哲学动态》,2006年第7期,第54页。
② Erin Kelly. "Habermas and Moral Justification", Society and Practice,2000. Vol.26. No.2, pp.223-249. p.223.
③ Albrecht Welllmer, "Practical Philosophy and the Theory of Society: On the Problem of the Normative Foundations of a Critical Social Science", in Seyla Benhabib and Fred Dallmayr(eds.). The Communicative Ethics Controversy, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. pp.293-329, p.293.
① [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法、理性、商谈——法哲学研究》,朱光、雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,2011年版,第6页。
② [德]米夏埃尔·哈勒：《作为未来的过去——与著名哲学家哈贝马斯对话》,章国峰译,杭州：浙江人民出版社,2001年版,第112-113页。
① [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法、理性、商谈——法哲学研究》,朱光、雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,2011年版,第7页。
① Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds.. Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.4.
① Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.3.
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory:, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.3.
③ Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. pp.7-8.
④ Andrew Edgar, Hahermas:The Key Concepts. New York:Routledge,2006, p.45.
⑤ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.9.
① Erin Kelly, "Habermas and Moral Justification". Social and Practice,2000, Vol.26, No.2, pp.223-249, pp.223-24.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.163.
① [德]哈贝马斯：《后形而上学思想》,曹卫东、付德根译,上海：译林出版社,2001年版,第27页。
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.,:The MIT Press,1995, p.129.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.,:The MIT Press,1995, p.130.
④ [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法、理性、商谈--法哲学研究》,朱光、雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,2011年版,第7页。
① Habermas. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.120.
① Habermas, Truth and Justification, trans., Barbara Fultner. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,2003. p.1.
① 高宣扬教授把商谈伦理学看作哈贝马斯交往理论的伦理学基础,他认为,“交往行为的伦理学原则同时也应看作是交往行为理论的内在构成部分,是交往行为理论中同语言行为理论相平行的又一个构成环节”。(高宣扬：《哈伯玛斯论》,台北：远流出版公司,1991年版,第399—400页。)高宣扬教授这里有不严谨之处,商谈伦理学构成交往理论基础并没有什么需要商讨的地方,但是将其看作与其语言学理论平行的理论则有待商榷,因为包括商谈伦理在内的所有理论都是建基于其语言学思想之上。
① Sce Ingram David, Hahermas:Introduction and Analysis. New York:Cornell University Press,2010, p.67.
② 童世骏：《批判与实践——论哈贝马斯的批判理论》,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2007年版,第53-59页。
① 该部分的词源学意义对网上资料偶有借鉴,详见http://www.zdic.net/c/c/13c/302371.him,[2013-7-8].
① 欧少亭主编：《新编现代汉语词典》,延吉：延边人民出版社,2002年版,第1003页
② 欧少亭主编：《新编现代汉语词典》,延吉：延边人民出版社,2002年版,第1004页
③ Habermas. On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action. trans., Barbara Fultner. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,2001, p.4.
① Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.275.
② Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.275.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.10.
② Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action, trans.. Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2001, p.4.
① Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action. trans., Barbara Fultner. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2001. p.72.
② Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action. trans., Barbara Fultner. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2001. p.72.
③ Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action. trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2001. p.4.
④ Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action. trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,2001. p.4.
① Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action. trans., Barbara Fultner. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,2001. p.5.
② Habermas,On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action. trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,2001. p.5.
③ Habermas,The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.97.
④ Habermas, On the Logic of the Social Sciences, trans.. Shierry Weber Nicholsen and Jerry A. Stark. Cambridge: Polity Press,1988. p.53.
① Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans,, Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.97.
② [德]马克斯·韦伯《社会学的基本概念》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2010年版,第21页。
① [德]马克斯·韦伯：《社会学的基本概念》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2010年版,第20页。
② 韦伯认为,诠释方式来研究意义要达到一种理解的确证,它有两种特质：一种是理性的,如逻辑学和数学,这种类型的确证必须是知性可以清楚把握的,对此他举了一个2x2=4的例子,在他看来,这个命题可以为知性直接而清楚地对其意义进行理解；另一种是拟情式的再体验,我们完全可以理解一个人的愤怒与悲伤,因为可以以自己在同样情感下的表现来确证对方所经历的情感关联。但是,有一种情况在韦伯看来是无法达到他所要求的确证,那就是对终极目标与价值的理解。
③ [德]马克思·韦伯：《社会学的基本概念》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2010年版,第20页。
④ Habermas. On the Logic of the Social Sciences, trans., Shierry Weber Nicholsen and Jerry A. Stark. Cambridge: Polity Press,1988, pp.53-54.
⑤ Habermas. On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action, trans., Barbara Fultner. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2001. pp.3-4.
① 阮新邦、林端主编：《解读<沟通行动论>》,上海：上海人民出版社,203年版,第82页。
② [美]塔尔科特·帕森斯：《社会行动的结构》,张明德等译,上海：译林出版社,2012年版,第49-50页。
③ [美]塔尔科特·帕森斯：《社会行动的结构》,张明德等译,上海：译林出版社,2012年版,第52页
④ [美]塔尔科特·帕森斯：《社会行动的结构》,张明德等译,上海：译林出版社,2012年版,第50页
① Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action. trans.. Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2001,p.5.
② 高宣扬：《哈伯玛斯论》,台北：远流出版公司,1991年版,第172页。
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy, Boston:Beason Press,1987, p.205.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans.. Thomas MaCarthy. Boston:Beason Press.1987. pp.206-207.
③ Edgar Andre, Habermas:The Key Concepts, London. New York:Routlcdge,2006, p.3.
④ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.12.
① [英]K.R.波普尔：《没有认识主体的认识论》,邱仁宗译,《世界科学译刊》,1980年第2期。
② [英]K.R.波普尔：《没有认识主体的认识论》,邱仁宗译,《世界科学译刊》,1980年第2期。
③ [英]K.R.波普尔：《没有认识主体的认识论》,邱仁宗译,《世界科学译刊》,1980年第2期。
① Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one: Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.， Thomas McCarthy, Boston: Beacon Press. 1984, p.76.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one: Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press. 1984. p.82.更详尽的论证体现在哈贝马斯2005年用德语发表，并于2008年被译成英文的著作《在自然主义与宗教之间》中,其中,哈贝马斯对之进行了更为明确的说明,他明确把自己从语言学角度证成的世界概念认定为是将康德的先验世界概念进行去先验化处理的结果,这样一来商谈伦理学所指涉的世界观念就“不是康德意义上的范导性(regulative)观念,而是对所有人在指涉事实时都是建构性的(constructive)。" (Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion: Philosophical Essays. trans.,. Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008, p.31.)
③ [德]马克斯·韦伯：《社会学的基本概念》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2010年版,第51页。
① 傅永军：《法兰克福学派的现代性理论》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2007年版,第47页。
② [德]马克斯·韦伯：《社会学的基本概念》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2010年版,第53页。
③ [德]马克斯·韦伯：《社会学的基本概念》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2010年版,第53-54页。
④ [德]马克斯·韦伯：《社会学的基本概念》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2010年版,第51页。
① 傅永军：《法兰克福学派的现代性理论》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2007年版,第48-49页。
② J. M. Bernstein. Recovering Ethical Life:Jurgen llabermas and The Future of Critical Theory. London. New York:Routlcdge,1995. p.97.
③ Habcrmas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press.1984, p.281.
④ Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.. Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984. pp.85-95.
① Habermas. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.h Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.58.
② Habermas, On the Logic of the Social Sciences, trans., Shierry Weber Nicholsen and Jerry A. Stark. Cambridge: Polity Press,1988. p.54.
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.86.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one: Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.90.
③ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.91.
④ Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion:Philosophical Essays, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge:Polity Press,2008, p.47.
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.. Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.91.
② Joseph Heath, Communicative Action and Rational Choice. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2003, p.13.
③ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.94.
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.95.
② Omid A. Payrow Shabani, Democracy, Power, and Legitimacy:The Critical Theory of Jiirgen Habermas, Toronto: University of Toronto Press,2003, p.38.
③ Joseph Heath, Communicative Action and Rational Choice, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2003. p.39.
④ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.. William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.17.
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.249.
② Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.250.
③ 哈贝马斯曾将对“合理性”问题的论证划分为三个层次：元伦理层面、方法论层面与经验层面。这三个层面分别指向行动中的合理性内涵、语言为代表的符号代表的意义与有效性的内在关联和社会现代化如何能够从文化合理化和社会合理化层面予以描述。沿用哈贝马斯的思路,我将日常生活中的道德实践(作为一种交往行动)也划分为这三个层面,道德的元伦理层面来源于交往行动的合理性,而其方法论则源于在诠释学意义上对意义与有效性要求的解释,相应地,其经验层面则关联于其在现代化进程中对启蒙概念的维护而导向一个有合理道德基础的理性社会。关于哈贝马斯对这三个层面的论述详见Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.6.
④ Habcrmas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.87.
① Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.. Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.1.
② 参见傅永军：《法兰克福学派的现代性理论》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2007年版,第43页。
③ John Ayto. Word Origins. London:A&C Black Publishers Ltd,2005. pp.413-414.
④ [美]约翰·罗尔斯：《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2011年版,第102页。
⑤ [美]约翰·罗尔斯：《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2011年版,第102-103页。
⑥ 参见傅永军：《法兰克福学派的现代性理论》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2007年版,第43页。
① 哈贝马斯在其后来回应赫伯特·施耐德巴赫(Herbert Schnadellbach)对于其合理性概念的质疑时,曾明确将言说合理性的几个向度予以分类:论证合理性discursive rationality);认识合理(epistemic rationality);目的论合理性(teleological rationality)交往合理性(communicative rationality)更为详细的论论参见Habermas, "Some Futher Clariflcation of the Communicative Rationality", in Maeve Cooke(ed.). On the Pragmatic of Communication. Cambridge:Polity Press,1999, pp.310-317.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.1.
③ Habermas. "An Awareness of What is Missing", in Jurgen Habermas et al. An Awareness of What is Missing: Faith and Reason in a Post-Secular Age. trans.. Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge:Polity Press,2010. pp.15-23. p.16.
① Habermas, "Some Futher Clarification of the Communicative Rationality", in Maeve Cooke(ed.). On the Pragmatic of Communication. Cambridge:Polity Press.1999. pp.310-317, p.311.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.2.
③ John F. Sitton, Habermas and Contemporary Society, New York:PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.2003. p.41.
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.7.
② [德]韦伯：《新教伦理与资本主义精神》,康乐、简惠美译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2010年版,第11页。
③ [德]韦伯：《新教伦理与资本主义精神》,康乐、简惠美译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2010年版,第31页,
④ [德]施路赫特：《理性化与官僚化：对韦伯之研究与诠释》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2004年版,第49页。
⑤ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.16.
① Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.. Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.16.
② Erik Oddvar and Jarle Weigard. Understanding Habermas:Communicative Action and Deliberative Democracy. New York:Continuum, p.17.
③ Ingram David, Habermas:Introduction and Analysis. New York:Cornell University Press,2010, p.85.
① Habermas. "Some Futher Clarification of the Communicative Rationality", in Maevc Cooke(ed), On the Pragmatic of Communication, Cambridge:Polity Press,1999, p.315.
② Albrecht Wellmer,"Reason, Utopia, and the Dialectic of Enlightenment", in Richard J. Bernstein(ed.), Hahermas and Modernity, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1994, pp.35-66, p.52.
③ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.8.
④ Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.10.
⑤ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.28.
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.10.
② Darrow Schecter, The Critique of Instrumental Reason from Weber to Habermas, New York:Continuum,2010. p.187.
③ David Ingram. Habermas and the Dialetic of Reason, New Haven, London:Yale University Press,1987. p.ⅹⅱ.
④ 徐闻：《哈贝马斯论实践理性与交往理性》,《东岳论丛》,2011年第4期,第67页。
⑤ [德]哈贝马斯：《对话伦理学与真理的问题》,沈清楷译,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005年版,第61页。
① Albrecht Wellmer. "Reason. Utopia, and the Dialeetie of Enlightenment", in Richard J. Bernstein(ed.), Hahermas and Modernity. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1994:pp.35-66. p.53.
② Marie Fleming, Emancipation and Illusion:Rationality and Gender in Hakermas's Theory of Modernity. Pennsylvania:The Pennsylvania State University Press,1997, pp.68-69.
③ 参见傅永军：《哈贝马斯交往合理性述评》,《山东大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),2003年第3期。
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason.trans.. Thomas MaCarthy, Boston:Beason Press,1987, p.119.
② Habermas. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.. William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, pp.21-22.
③ Habermas. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.135.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.136.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, pp.134-35.
③ 值得注意的是,在哈贝马斯那里,社会整合概念之外还有一个与之相似却完全不同的概念——社会性整合(societal integration)。社会整合单指以生活世界为资源进行的整合,而社会性整合却包含了社会包含了社会整合与系统整合。换言之,整个社会的良序发展被哈贝马斯看作是一个社会性整合过程,这一过程则由社会整合与系统整合共同完成。在山阿克塞尔·霍奈特(Axel Honneth)与汉斯·乔阿斯(Hans Joas)主编的《交往行动：哈贝马斯交往行动理论论集》一书中哈贝马斯在回答麦卡锡的批评时对这一概念进行了澄清： “我首先将社会整合与系统整合(social and system integration)看作社会性整合(societal integration)的两个方而,这两个概念在分析的意义上是不同的。”详见Jiirgen Habermas. "A Reply", in Axel Honneth and Hans Joas(eds.). Communicative Action:Essays on Hahermas's The Theory of Communicative Action, trans., Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991. pp.214-264. p.252.
① Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy, London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980, p.4.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy, Boston:Beason Press,1987, pp.119-120.
③ 汪行福：《走出的困境——哈贝马斯对现代性的反思》,上海：上海科学院出版社,2000年版,第247页。
④ Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy, London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980, p.5.
⑤ Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy, London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980, p.3.
① Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans.. Thomas McCarthy, London:Heiiiemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980. p.4.
② Jurgen Habermas. "A Reply", in Axel Honneth and Hans Joas(eds.), Communicative Action:Essays on Habermas's The Theory of Communicative Action, trans., Jeremy Gaincs and Doris L. Jones, Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1991. pp.214-264, p.252.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.188.
④ [德]哈贝马斯：《后形而上学思想》,曹卫东、付德根译,上海：译林出版社,2001年版,第79页。
⑤ See Hugh Baxter, Hahermas:The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Stanbford. California:Stanford University Press,2011, pp.151-152.
① See James Swindal, Reflection Revisited:Jurgen Ilabermas's Discursive Theory of Truth, New York:Fordham University Press,1999, p.173温戴尔的看法是有依据的,哈贝马斯在《在事实与规范》一书中从两个方面分析了生活世界概念,在他看来胡塞尔意义上的生活世界概念指的就是作为背景知识的生活世界,而一旦我们从社会建制化角度来理解生活世界,“它就不再能从参与者的形式语用学角度被描述为背景知识,而是从社会学观察者角度被客观化。(Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.23.)
② [德]哈贝马斯：《后形而上学思想》,曹卫东、付德根译,上海：译林出版社,2001年版,第79页。
③ Habermas. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.22.
④ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.138.
① [德]哈贝马斯：《后形而上学思想》,曹卫东、付德根译,上海：译林出版社,2001年版,第79页。
② [德]哈贝马斯：《后形而上学思想》,曹卫东、付德根译,上海：译林出版社,2001年版,第79页。
③ [德]哈贝马斯：《后形而上学思想》,曹卫东、付德根译,上海：译林出版社,2001年版,第80页。
④ 所谓“主题化”简单来说就是可以成为讨论中心的那些因素。譬如在一群同时具有物理知识又拥有丰富的数学知识和哲学知识的交往者间进行一场有关“哲学对人类生存意义”的讨论,那么在这里被主题化的只有哲学知识。主题是与行动者的兴趣与目的先关联的, “一个主题产生于行动者的兴趣与目的的关联中,它规定了相关要素的范围并且能够成为其中的话题焦点(Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995,p.135.)
⑤ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.138.
① John Sitton, Hahermas and Contemporary Society, New York:PALGRAVE MACMILLAN,2003, p.62.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy, Boston:Beason Press,1987, p.116.
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy. Boston:Beason Press,1987. p.138.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy. Boston:Beason Press,1987. p.137.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.136.
④ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.135.
⑤ Habermas. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.26.
① John F. Sitton. Habermas and Contemporary Society, New York:PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.2003, p.77.
② Habermas. Knowledge and Human Interests. trans., Jeremy J. Shapiro, Boston:Beacon Press, p.38.
③ Michael Pusey. Jurgen Hahermas, London. New York:Tavistoek Publications,1987, p.106.
④ Charles Taylor, "Language and Society", in Axel Honneth and Hans Joas(eds.), Communicative Action:Essays on Jurgen Habermas's the Theory of Communicative Action, trans.. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1991. pp.23-35. p.23.
① Habermas, Truth and Justification, trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,2003, p.36.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans, Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.96.
① 傅永军：《接受与拒斥——批判理论在中国大陆的命运》,载[德]阿梅龙等主编：《法兰克福学派在中国》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2011年版,第37页。
② [加]查尔斯·泰勒：《坚定不移的激情：为什么说哈贝乌斯的声誉和影响是名至实归的》,郁喆隽译,载《当代国外马克思主义评论》,2009年辑,第4页。
③ 参见洪镰德：《西方马克思主义》,台北：扬智文化事业股份有限公司,2004年版,第228-229页。
① Ian Craib. Modern Social Theory:From Parsons to Habermas, Brighton:Wheatsheaf Ltd..1994, p.128.
② Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, trans., Jeremy J. Shapiro, Boston:Beacon Press,1971, p.134.
③ Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, trans., Jeremy J. Shapiro, Boston:Beacon Press,1971,pp.134-135.
④ Jacent Um Imana. Reason as a Basis for Consensus in Interaction:A Study Based on the Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas, Diss., Rome,2001, p.156.
① Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press.1979, p.1.
② Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, trans., Jeremy J. Shapiro, Boston:Beacon Press,1971, p.314.
③ Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion:Philosophical Essays, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge:Polity Press,2008, p.13.
④ Emilia Steuerman, The Bounds of Reason:Habermas, Lyotard and Melanie Klein on Rationality, New York: Routledge,2000, p.22.
① Martin in Morris, Rethinking the Communicative Turn:Adorno, Habermas and the Problem of Communicative Freedom. NewYork:State University of New York Press,2001. p.96.
② [德]伽达默尔：《真理与方法》(下卷),洪汉鼎译,上海：上海译文出版社2004年版,第615页。
② Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, trans., Jeremy J. Shapiro. Boston:Beacon Press,1971, p.314.
④ [德]伽达默尔：《真理与方法》(下卷),洪汉鼎译,上海：上海译文出版社2004年版,第345页。
① [德]伽达默尔：《真理与方法》(下卷),洪汉鼎译,上海：上海译文出版社2004年版,第465页。
② [德]伽达默尔：《真理与方法》(下卷),洪汉鼎译,上海：上海译文出版社2004年版,第387页
③ [德]哈贝马斯：《评伽达默尔的<真理与方法>一书》,郭官义译,《世界哲学》,1986年第3期。
① Habermas. Theory and Practice, trans.. John Viertel. Boston:Beacon Press,1974, p.22.
② [德]哈贝马斯：《解释学要求普遍适用》,高地、鲁旭东、孟庆时译,《世界哲学》,1986年第3期,第20贝。
① Alan How, The Habermas-Gadamer Debate and the Nature of the Social. Aldershot:Avcbury Ashgate Publishing Ltd.,1995,p.48.
② [奥]维特根斯坦：《蓝皮鼠与褐皮书》,涂纪亮泽,北京：北京大学出版社,2012年版,第7页
③ [奥]维特根斯坦：《哲学研究》,李步楼译,北京：商务印书馆,1996年版,第7页
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy, Boston:Beason Press,1987. p.6.
② A. C. Grayling, Wittgenstein:A Very Short Introduction, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1996, p.89.
① Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion:Philosophical Essays, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge:Polity Press,2008. pp.15-16.
② Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979, p.6.
③ Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979, p.9.
④ Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979,
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.14.
② Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1979, p.8.
① Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans.,Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979. p.3.
② Habermas, On the Logic of the Social Sciences, trans., Shierry Weber Nicholsen and Jerry A. Stark, Cambridge: Polity Press,1988.pp.167-168.
③ Habermas, On the Logic of the Social Sciences, trans., Shierry Weber Nicholsen and Jerry A. Stark, Cambridge: Polity Press,1988. p.144.
④ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.. Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.131.
① Habermas, On the Logic of the Social Sciences, trans., Shicrry Weber Nicholsen and Jerry A. Stark. Cambridge: Polity Press,1988. p.106.
② Jacent Um'Imana, Reason as a Basis for Consensus in Interaction:A Study Based on the Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas, Diss., Romae,2001,p.147.
③ Habermas. Truth and Justification, trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2003,p.52.
① Brian K. Powell, "Discourse Ethics and Moral Rationalism". Dialogue,2009(7), pp.373-386. p.377.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lcnhardt and Shicrry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.211.
① Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979. p.7.
② Habermas. Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979. p.7.
① J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1975, p.1.
② J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1975, p.5.
③ J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1975, p.94.
① 正如此前已经讨论过哈贝马斯对“行为”与“行动”概念的区分一样,奥斯汀的"speech act'翻译为“言语行动”更加确切。这里统一将奥斯汀分离出的三种活动译为“行为”,是因为发音这种活动,并不是严格意义上的人类行动,而是一种动物行为：而发语这种活动同样不是严格的人类行动概念,比如“鹦鹉学舌”这种发语行为；真正意义上属于行动的,只有发言这种活动。故而,为了行文流畅,在此不作具体区分,统一译为“行为”。同时,引文中涉及到此概念之处,将不再作特别说明。
② J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1975,p.95.
① J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1975, p.121.
② J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1975, pp.98-99.
③ J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1975, p.100.
① J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1975, p.109.
② J. L. Austin. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1975, p.121.
③ 杨玉成：《奥斯汀论言和行》,《哲学研究》,2004年第1期,第70页
④ Jenny Thomas. Meaning in Interaction:An Introduction to Pragmatics, London:Longman,1995,p.35.
① J. L. Austin. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1975. p.94.
② Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979. pp.41-42.
③ J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1975, p.6.
④ J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1975,p.13.
① 杨玉成：《奥斯汀论言和行》,《哲学研究》,2004年第1期。
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.294.
③ Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action. trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2001, p.73.
④ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.293.
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.295.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Voume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.278.
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.297.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.297. trans.. Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2001,p.68.
② Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979. p.1.
③ Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979. p.3.
④ Habermas. Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979. p.2.
① Habermas. Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979. pp.2-3.
① Emilia Steuerman, The Bounds of Reason:Habermas, Lvotard and Melanie Klein on Rationality, New York: Routledge,2000. p.28.
② 盛晓明：《话语规则与知识基础——语用学维度》,上海:学林出版社,2000年版,第138页。
③ Austin Harrington, Hermeneutic Dialogue and Social Science:A critique of Gadamer and Habermas, London: Routledge,2001.p.34.
④ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.105.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.21.
② Edgar Andre. Habermas:The Key Concepts, London. New York:Routledge,2006. p.65.
① Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.22.
② Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994、p.56.哈贝马斯并不能算一个严谨的哲学家,在讨论到理想言语情境的条件时,他经常会变换不同的说法,如其在《在自然主义与宗教之间》中对这四个条件就做了如下的表述(我们可以将其看作对这四个条件的进一步说明)：“(a)公共性与包容性(publicity and inclusiveness)没有一个能对存在争议的有效性要求作出相关贡献的人可以被排除在外：(b)参与交往的平等权利(equal rights to engage in communication):每个人必须有同等的机会对某事发表意见：(c)摒除欺骗与幻想(exclusion of deception and illusion)参与者必须心口如一：以及(d)无强制(absence of coercion)交往必须是不受限制的,从而保障以更好的论据决定讨论结果。(Habermas. Between Naturalism and Religion:Philosophical Essays, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge:Polity Press,2008, p.50.)
① Seylia Benhabib, Critique, Norm, and Utopia:A Study of the Foundations of Critical Throry, New York: Columbia University Press,1986. p.285.
② Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy. London:Ileinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980. p.110.
③ Carlos Pereda. "Assertions. Truth, and Argumentation", in Lewis Edwin Hahn(ed.), Perspectives on Habermas, London:Open Court Publishing Company,2000, pp.51-70. p.52.
① 高宣扬：《实用主义和语用论》,台北：远流出版事业股份有限公司,1994年版,第460页。
② Emilia Steuerman, The Bounds of Reason:Habermas, Lyotard and Melanie Klein on Rationalily, New York: Routledge,2000. p.29.
③ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.105.
① [德]哈贝马斯：《重建历史唯物主义》,郭官义译,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2000年版,第77页。
① Maevc Cooke, Language and Reason:A Study of Habermas's Pragmatics. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press, 1997, p.29.
② 阮新邦：《迈向崭新的社会知识观》,北京：北京大学出版社,2005年版,第13页。
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.3.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.. Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.1.
① [德]哈贝马斯：《后形而上学思想》,曹卫东、付德根译,上海：译林出版社,2001年版,第32页。
② [德]哈贝马斯：《后形而上学思想》,曹卫东、付德根译,上海：译林出版社,2001年版,第32-33页。
⑧ [古希腊]亚里士多德：《尼各马可伦理学》,廖申白译,北京：商务印书馆,2005年版,第35页。
④ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995,p.1.
① Habermas,Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, pp.2-3.
① Habermas, The Future of Human Nature, trans., William Rehg, Max Pensky, et al, Cambridge:Polity Press.2003, pp.1-15.
② [德]哈贝马斯：《后形而上学思想》,曹卫东、付德根译,上海：译林出版社,2001年版,第33页。
③ [德]哈贝马斯：《后形而上学思想》,曹卫东、付德根译,上海：译林出版社,2001年版,第36-37页
① [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第33-35页。
② Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.2.
③ Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994. p.2.
④ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, pp.49.
⑤ Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.4.
① Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994. p.6.
② [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第39页
③ Janna Thompson, Discourse and Knowledge:Defence of a Collectivist Ethics, London:Routledge,1998. p.13.
④ Janna Thompson, Discourse and Knowledge:Defence of a Collectivist Ethics. London:Routledge,1998. p.14.
⑤ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy,trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.1.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p. 1.
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.4.
③ Habermas, Between Facts and Norm:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.3.
④ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.4.
① Habermas,Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.4.
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.5.
③ Habermas, The Future of Human Nature, trans., William Rehg, Max Pensky, et al, Cambridge:Polity Press,2003. p.2.
④ Habermas. The Future of Human Nature, Trans., William Rchg, Max Pensky, et al, Cambridge:Polity Press,2003. p.10.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.14.
② George Snedeker, "Defending the Enlightenment:Jiirgen Habermas and the Theory of Communicative Reason". Dialectical Anthropology,2000(25), pp.239-253, p.246.
③ Habermas. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.27.
① Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass. The MIT Press,1994, pp.31-32.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge:The MIT Press,1995, p.138.
① Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge, Mass, The MIT Press,1994. p.20.
① Habemas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.45.
② Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge, Mass, The MIT Press,1994, p.20.
① [美]奎迈·安东尼·阿皮亚：《世界主义：陌生人世界里的道德规范》,苗华健译,北京：中央编译出版社,2012年版,第67页。
② Janna Thompson, Discourse and Knowledge:Defence of a Collectivist Ethics. London:Routledge,1998, p.11.
① 要否定事实与价值的尖锐分立,无非有两种方式：一种是断然否认二者存在分立,也即否认这种划分本身的合理性,普特南是这一路径的代表,我们将其称作消解论者；一种是承认二者的分立,但强调二者之间在沟通的可能,哈贝马斯是这一路径的代表,我们将其称作弥合论者。
② [英]休谟：《人性论》,关文运译,北京：商务印书馆,1980年版,第509页。
③ Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy, London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980, p.102.
④ [英]休谟：《道德原则研究》,曾晓平译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年版,第22页。
⑤ [英]休谟：《人性论》,关文运译,北京：商务印书馆,1980年版,第497页。
① [英]休谟：《道德原则研究》,曾晓平译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年版,第23页。
② Albrecht Welllmer, "Practical Philosophy and the Theory of Society:On the Problem of the Normative Foundations of a Critical Social Science", in Seyla Benhabib and Fred Dallmayr(eds.), The Communicative Ethics Controversy, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, pp.293-329. p.293.
③ Habermas. Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.22.
④ Omid A. Payrow Shabani, Democracy, Power, and Legitimacy:The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.2003, p.95.
① [美]希拉里·普特南：《事实与价值二分法的崩溃》,应奇译,北京：东方出版社2006年版,第16页。
② [美]希拉里·普特南：《事实与价值二分法的崩溃》,应奇译,北京：东方出版社2006年版,第43页。
① [美]希拉里·普特南：《事实与价值二分法的崩溃》,应奇译,北京：东方出版社2006年版,第148页。
② Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy. London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980. p.102.
③ Habermas, Truth and Justification, trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2003, p.231.
④ Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy, London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980. p.104.
① 文兵：《普特南论事实与价值之分离之谬》,《南京社会科学》,2009年第10期。
② Habermas, Truth and Justification, trans., Barbara Fultner. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,2003, p.214.
③ Habermas, Truth and Justification, trans., Barbara Fultner. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,2003, p.229.
① Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion: Philosopliical Essays, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008, p.46.
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. 1998, p.55.
③ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigdc, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1996, p.255.
④ Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1998, p.55.
⑤ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.. William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1996, p.255.
① Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds.. Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.55.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.76; Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.38; Habermas. Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press.1994. p.29.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.52.
② 胡军良：《哈贝马斯对话伦理学研究》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2010年版,第187页
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.57.
④ 傅永军：《法兰克福学派的批判理论》,北京：社会科学出版社,2007年版,第270页
① [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第4页
① 参见邓晓芒：《康德<道德形而上学奠基>句读》,北京：人民出版社,2012年版,第55页。
② [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第4页。
③ Habermas,Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.,Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.179.
① Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy, London: Hcincmann Educational Books Ltd., 1980, p.88.
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1996. p.255.
③ 对于原则(principle)与规则(rule)之间J的区别,罗伯特·诺齐克(Robert Nozick)曾在其《合理性的本质》一书中有过详细论述,他认为：“原则这一术语通常用来指向比规则更深和更一般的东西。”([美]罗伯特·诺齐克：《合理性的本质》,葛四友、陈昉译,上海：上海译文出版社,2012年版,第65页。)另外,罗纳德·德沃金(Ronald Dworkin)也曾对原则与规则之间的重要区别有独到之见,在他看来规则是一个要么有效要么无效的单向概念,而原则则有权重上的差别,它可以衡量规则。(详见[美]罗纳德·德沃金：《认真对待权利》,信春鹰、吴玉章译,上海：上海三联书店,2008年版,第44-50页。)原则与规则在道德哲学上是两个并不等同的概念,原则更多类似于数学上的原理,而规则则更多指向一个规范系统,譬如交通规则。我们可以说我们秉持着尊重行人安全的原则,制定了“车让行人”的交通规则,却不可以相反;同样,我们可以说我们秉持着“不能把人当做工具而应当做目的”的原则,产生出了“不能歧视弱势群体”的基本规则,却不能相反。但是,哈贝马斯并未就这两个概念之间的差异作刻意的区分,似这不代表哈贝马斯在实际上未对有所区分,譬如我们后文将要讨论的普遍化原则,哈贝马斯也同时将之看作一种论证规则。但是为了方便起见,当我运用“道德规范”这一术语时涉及的是所有可普遍化的道德陈述与道德判断,它包括了道德规则(譬如“伤害别人是错误的”)以及道德原则(譬如功利主义的功利原则与康德的绝对命令)。
① Martin Morris. Rethinking the Communicative Turn:Adorno, Habermas, and the Problem of Communicative Freedom, New York:State University of New York,2001, p.103.
② 哈贝马斯的事实性与有效性概念成为其《在事实与规范之间》的主题,哈贝马斯遵循其一贯思路,从语言的意义问题引出对这一对概念的分析。对于一个判断而言,它一方面以语义学的方式指向了语义规则,方面以语用学的方式指向了理想化的有效性要求。但是,不管是语义规则还是语用上的有效性要求,实际上都是一种理想化的诉求。因而在这里便存在着一个事实性与有效性张力的问题,事实性通常为显示给我们的从观察者角度看到的事实或表达在语言中的事态,而有效性则是事实性的理想化。同样,在道德领域这一社会世界的对象中,也存在着这样一层关系,一方面我们确实可以看到一些制约着人们之间的规范现象,也可以从这些现象中推得道德事实上的存在,而另一方面这些现存的道德规范却并一定具有有效性,也就不一定是经过理性论证或合理同意的,这是其有效性层面。(Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg. Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, pp.9-17.)我们在这里引入哈贝马斯的这一对概念,意在表明商谈伦理学所要证成对象的深层次内涵。
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p45.
② P.F. Strawson, Freedom and Resentment and Oher Essays, New York:Routledge,2008, p.7.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.45.
① P.F. Strawson, Freedom and Resentment and Oher Essays, New York:Routledge,2008, p.7.
② P.F. Strawson, Freedom and Resentment and Oher Essays, New York:Routledge,2008, p.7.
③ 关于责任能力在道德行动中的作用,哈贝马斯曾有过明确论述,在他看来,责任能力与法律上对被告人责仟能力的界定是相同的,对于道德而言,同样需要行动者有为其行动负责的能力,如其所论：“一个人如果不能为他的行动以及他向他者说出的话语负责(account for),那么这个人就会被怀疑为并没有合理且负责地行动。即使法官要做一个有罪判决,那么他首先必须确定被告人是否能够为其罪行负责。而且,法官必须审查是否存在可以申明其无罪的理由(exculpatory ground)。为了公平判定其罪行,我们必须搞清楚这一罪行是归咎于·外部环境还是行动者自身。申明其无罪的理由证明了合理性的假设,不仅在法庭审判上,在日常生活中我们都要对其他行动者持有该假设。(Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion: Philosophical Essays, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge:Polity Press,2008, p.37.)因而,当哈贝马斯从商谈角度谈论道德规范的生成程序时,实际上已经假定了行动者具有的这种自我负责能力
④ P.F. Strawson. Freedom and Resentment and Oher Essays, New York:Routledge,2008,p.8.
① P.F. Strawson, Freedom and Resentment and Oher Essays, New York:Routledge,2008. pp.7-8.
② P.F. Strawson, Freedom and Resentment and Oher Essays, New York:Routlcdge, 2008, p.10.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.46.
④ P. F. Strawson, Freedom and Resentment and Oher Essays, New York:Routledge,2008. pp.10-11
⑤ P. F. Strawson, Freedom and Resentment and Oher Essays, New York:Routledge,2008. p.9.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.46.
② Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994. p.40.
③ “间接证据”一词,我们在这里指的是哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学并不是以道德情感为证成道德普遍性的直接根据,也无意于揭示行动者因道德上的恶而引发的内疚感与道德上的善而引发的责仟感。哈贝马斯关注的只是道德现象学背后所隐藏的交往太多,这与斯特劳森揭示出的非道德的客观态度形成互相对立的立场,而与其揭示的道德的反应性态度则是立场一致的,但这种一致性只是在交往结构的主体间性意义上讲的。
① P.F. Strawson. Freedom and Resentment and Oher Essays. New York:Routledge,2008, p.27.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.46.
③ Habermas. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.48.
④ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.47.
⑤ P.F. Strawson, Freedom and Resentment and Oher Essays. New York:Routledge,2008, p.24.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.47.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.48.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.49.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.50.
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.2.
③ Habermas. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.56.
① Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994,p.32.
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.39.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.51.
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds.. Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.25.
③ Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.25.
① Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff,Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.25.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nieholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.51.
③ Thomas McCarthy, The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1985, p.311.
④ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nieholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.52.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, pp.52-53.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.53.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995,p.53.
② Mabermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995,p.54.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.55.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.59.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995,p.137.
④ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.59.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shicrry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995,p.60.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shicrry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995,p.60.
① Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.38.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.61.
③ Habermas. Between Naturalism and Religion:Philosophical Essays, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge:Polity Press,2008, p.36.
① [德]哈贝马斯：《对话伦理学与真理的问题》,沈清楷译,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005年版,第55-56页。
② Habermas,Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995.p.61.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.257.
② Habermas. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.119这三个特点实际上并非由哈贝马斯提出,而是在研究道德认知发展理论过程中从科尔们格那里借用而来。从这一点来看,这也是我们一直强调要运用综合性视野进行研究的原因,因为哈贝马斯的一些观点并未明确表明其理论来源。在后面的论述中,这种视野的运用对于我们澄清一些关键性的,而不是简单地从“哈贝马斯认为”去说明的一些观点将发挥更为重要的作用。
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.120.
④ William Rehg, Congent Scicence in Context:The Science Wars, Argumentation Theory, and Habermas, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2009, p.106.
⑤ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.22.
① Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff,Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.2.
② Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion:Philosophical Essays, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge:Polity Press,2008. pp.37.
③ [德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯：《论理由的象征性体现》,鲍水玲译,《哲学分析》,2013年第1期。
④ Eva Erman, "Conflict and Universal Moral Theory:From Reasonableness to Reason-Giving", Political Theory, 2007. Vol.35, No.5, pp.598-623. p.604.
① [德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯：《论理由的象征性体现》,鲍永玲译,《哲学分析》,2013年第1期。
② [德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯：《论理由的象征性体现》,鲍永玲译,《哲学分析》,2013年第1期。
③ T. W. Scanlon, What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, Mass.:The Bel knap Press of Harvard University,1998, pp.18-19.
① T. W. Scanlon, What We Owe to Each Other, Cambridge, Mass.:The Bel knap Press of Harvard University,1998. p.19.
② T. W. Scanlon, What We Owe to Each Other, Cambridge. Mass.:The Belknap Press of Harvard University,1998, p.19.
③ T. W. Scanlon, What We Owe to Each Other, Cambridge, Mass.:The Belknap Press of Harvard University,1998, p.18.
④ Marin Seel, "The Two Meaning of 'Communicative' Rationality:Remarks on Habermas's Critique of a Plural Concept of Reason", in Axel Honneth and Hans Joas(eds.), Communicative Action:Essavs on Jurgen Hahermas's The Theory of Communicative Action, trans., Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991,pp.36-48,p.41.
⑤ Eva Erman. "Conflict and Universal Moral Theory:From Reasonableness to Reason-Giving", Political Theory, 2007, Vol.35. No.5, pp.598-623,p.605.
① [英]约瑟夫·拉兹：《实践理性与规范》,朱学平译,北京：中国法制出版社,2011年版,第1页。
② Erin Kelly, "Habermas on Moral Justification". Social Theory and Practice,2000. Vol.26. No.2, pp.223-249. p.227.
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.22.
② [德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯：《论理由的象征性体现》,鲍水玲译,《哲学分析》,2013年第1期。
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995,p.70.
④ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.22.
⑤ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.18.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nieholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.79“闽西豪森三重困境”来源于18世纪德国汉诺威的乡绅闽西豪森出版的一本故事集《闽西森男爵的奇遇》。其中有一则故事讲述其有一次不慎落入泥潭,四周没有任何可以抓扶之物,于是他用用力抓住自己的头发把自己从泥潭中解救了出来。这个故事后来被汉斯·阿尔伯特(Hans Albert)予以引申来批判启蒙时期的理性主义与经验主义对根源的无穷追问,从而导致了无穷倒退、循环论证以及武断确立前提这样的三种困境。(详见[德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法律论证理论：作为法律证立理论的理性论辩理论》(译者序),舒国滢译,北京：中国法制出版社,2002年版,第1-2页。)关于这一困境的具体说明亦可参见Erik Oddvar Eriksen and Jarle Weigard, Understanding Habermas:Commmunicative Action and Deliberative Democracy, New York:Continuum,1984, p.70.
① Stephen Toulmin. An Exmination of the Place of Reason in Ethics, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1950. p.129.
① Stephen Toulmin. An Exmination of the Place of Reason in Ethics, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1950, p.28.
② Stephen Toulmin. An Exmination of the Place of Reason in Ethics, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1950. p.5.
③ 万俊人：《现代西方伦理学史》(上卷),北京：中国人民出版社,2011年版,第366页。
④ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, pp.50-55.
① William Rehg, Congent Scicence in Context:The Science Wars, Argumentation Theory, and Habermas, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2009. p.106.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.68.
③ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.24.
① See Edgar Andre, Habermas:The Key Concepts, London. New York:Routledge,2006, p.158.
② 需要注意的是在黑尔的规定主义伦理学中实际上也隐含着对这样一个隐含的道德论证三段论的分析,区别之处在于,黑尔认为对于大前提也即道德原则之性质我们不是通过论证而是一种“选择(choice)。这样,道德原则也就沦为与艾耶尔与斯蒂文森一样的价值判断。(黑尔对此问题的论述详见[英]理查德·卖尔文·黑尔：《道德语言》,万俊人译,北京：商务印书馆,2005年版,第56-57页。)对于黑尔与情感主义关系,高宣扬教授曾如此评价：“不管是情感主义还是规定主义的伦理学,都和法国的存在主义者沙特那样,当他们用感情、喜爱、选择等语词去说明价值的评判的时候,并没有在道德发展的历史中去探索他们所说的选择的必要性的根源。他们把选择归结为道德概念的本质本身。……实际上试图使他们自己的个人的道德性绝对化。”(高宣扬：《哈伯玛斯论》,台北：远流出版公司,1991年版,第399-421页。)
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.68.
① Stephen Toulmin, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003, p.97.
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.31.
② 关于此论证结构章国锋教授亦有论及,我不明白的是章先生为何会将(D)(Data)解读为“结论”,(D)实际上只是众多可供选择的数据或事实,这明显是对图尔敏与哈贝马斯的一种误读。(章国峰：《关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦构想”——解读哈贝马斯<交往行动理论>》,北京：2001年版,第147-148页。)
③ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.25.
① Stephen Toulmin. The Uses of Argument, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003, p.104.
② Stephen Toulmin. The Uses of Argument, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003, p.162.
⑧ 杨宁芳：《图尔敏论证逻辑思想研究》,北京：人民出版社,2012年版,第106页。
④ William Rehg, Congent Scicence in Context:The Science Wars, Argumentation Theory, and Habermas, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,2009, p.107.
① Habermas, Truth and Justification, trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2003. p37.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.25.
③ Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.25.
④ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984. pp.32-33.
① Habcrmas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.35.
② 这里之所以说B是事实性的,是将B作现实存在诸种选择的复数形式来对待的,因为B就其作为支撑而言存在着多种可能的情况而道德论证图式的仟务是结合各个要素之间的关系从B的众多情况中选择一个适合于为W提供支撑的那个要素。这个要素受多种情况的限定,而这些限定里最重要的是我们对于现代道德之时代语境之判定。如果说,我们将时代精神判定为未获启蒙的蒙昧状态的话,那么这里的B则必然与神圣他者或权力他者相关联,而如果我们将其判定为继承了启蒙精神的现代性之断裂时代的话,这里的B则必然遵循我们在启蒙与危机关系之辩证分析中揭示的奠基于人的自我谋划之诉求。
③ [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法律论证理论：作为法律证立理论的理性论辩理论》(译者序),舒国滢译,北京：中国法制出版社,2002年版,笫142页。
④ Seyla Benhabib. Critique, Norm, and Utopia:A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory, New York: Columbia University Press,1986. p.301.
① Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.39.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.116.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.120.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholson, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.71.
① Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans.. Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994. p.22.
② Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy, London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd..1980. p.107.
③ See J. Donald Moon, "Practical Discourse and Communicative Ethics", in Stephen K. White(ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Habermas, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.1995. pp.143-166. p.143.
④ Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds.. Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, pp.3-4.
⑤ See Joseph Heath, Communicative Action and Rational Choice, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2003. p.227.
⑥ Habermas. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.63.
① [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法 理性商谈：法哲学研究》,朱光、雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,2011年版,第7页。
② David M. Rasmussen, Reading Hahermas, Cambridge. Mass.:Basil Blackwell Ltd,1990, p.60.
① Habermas,Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.66.
② 对于道德规范或者有效性要求的合理可接受性之深入讨论请参阅Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion:Philosophical Essays, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge:Polity Press2008,pp.48-49.哈贝马斯在此明确将道德有效性要求的合理可接受性奠基于基于更好论证的说服力上,可接受性概念由此也是与基于客观世界的真理性概念相比较而言的,真理不需要可接受性或者说对于接受主体依赖不大,因为它本质上来说是独立于主体的,但是道德规范则需要在理性讨论的基础上询问“我为什么要接受此规范?”而这就不得不涉及到实际论证过程中参与者的各项利益、需求、价值。就这一点来说,哈贝马斯在这里的观点已经与j《在事实与规范之间》发生了细微的变化,当然这种变化并不是本质性的。在《在事实与规范之间》中,哈贝马斯从皮尔斯的观点出发,将合理的可接受性首先诠释为对“真实性”观念的界定,但是皮尔斯毕竟
① 哈贝马斯对其所谓的“日常道德直觉”这一概念,并未深入讨论,也没有给出带有定义性质的界定,按照本研究的分析理路,我们可以尝试给其下一个定义：所谓日常道德直觉,指的是生活于现实社会关系中的个体存在者,在道德规则制约下所自然形成的对道德规范制约性的一种惯常共识。这一定义包含着两个层面,一方面道德乃是现实性地存在于人与人之间的一种实存规范,行动者在行动过程中必然受到其制约；另一方面道德乃是理性行动者在语言沟通基础上建构起来的规则系统,它是普遍的但并非不变的。另外,还有一点需要补充,实存规范是指具体的道德规范,而规则系统则特指受原则指导建构起的行为约束系统。所有这两个方面皆遵循我们此前所揭示的规范、规则与原则之关系,这里面起基础作用的是原则。
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy, Boston:Beason Press,1987, p.2.
③ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy, Boston:Beason Press,1987, p.93.
① [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第330页。
② Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion:Philosophical Essays, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge:Polity Press,2008, p.15.
① [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第328页。
② [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第328页。
③ Albert J. Bergesen,"Chomsky versus Mead", Sociological Theory,2004, Vol.22, No.3,pp.357-370, p.360.这一图式是我参照Bergesen在该文章中讨论乔姆斯基与米德区别时所列图式而来。
④ George H. Mead, "Scientific Method and The Moral Sciences", The International Journal of Ethics,1923, Vol.33. No.3. pp.229-247, pp.229-230.
① Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans.. Thomas MaCarthy. Boston:Beason Press,1987. p.92.
② [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,1992年版,第120页。
③ See Gregg Daniel Miller, Mimesis in Communicative Action:Habermas and the Affective Bond of Understanding. Diss., University of Washington,2005, p.37.
④ George H. Mead, "Scientific Method and The Moral Sciences", The International Journal of Ethics,1923. Vol.33. No.3. pp.229-247, p.232.
① [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第134页。
② 王晓升：《哈贝马斯的现代性社会理论》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2006年版,第52页。
③ [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第135页。
① [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第137页
② [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第137页。
③ [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第140页.
① [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第155页。
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy. Boston:Beason Press,1987. p.97.
③ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy, Boston:Beason Press,1987. p.2.
④ [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第126页。
① [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第328页。
② George H. Mead, "The Philosophical Basis of Ethics", International Journal of Ethics,1908, Vol.18. No.3. pp.311-323.p.316.
③ 米德在这里之所以用冲动来表示道德动机,是因为他希望与康德的动机概念区分开来,因为康德对道德动机的表述最后落脚于对道德规则的理性尊重上。康德的动机概念本身不是一个经验概念,而米德运用冲动来代替动机概念则试图将康德纯形式的尊重,转化为同时涉及到目的与动机之间关联的概念。因而,在米德这里,动机与目的始终是不能分离开来使用的,具体到道德规范的制定上,则表现为内容与形式的合这一观点与其说是反对功利主义或义务论这两种学说,毋宁说是对这两者的一种调和策略。
④ [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第331页
① [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第334页。
② Albert J. Bergesen. "Chomsky versus Mead", Sociological Theory,2004, Vol.22. No.3. pp.357-370. p.360.
③ Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Iblume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy, Boston:Beason Press,1987. p.92.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, pp.144-145.
① Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994. p.114.
② Habermas. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.117.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.117.
② Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.127.
⑧ [美]L·科尔们格：《道德发展心理学——道德阶段的本质与确证》,郭本禹、何谨等译,上海：华东师范大学出版社2004年版,第203页。科尔伯格为其论证思路设定的基本假设实际上并不限于这三点,依据他的基本分析,从认知发展心理学角度来论证道德发展必须包含一些元伦理与规范伦理学的基本假设,这些假设除了我们正义中提到的三个之外另外还包含了其它的六个：(1)价值相干性假设(value relevanee);(2)现象主义假设(phenomenalism);(3)规定主义假设(preseriptivism);(4)原则性假设(principledness);(5)建构主义假设(constructivism)(6)公正主义(justice)假设。(参见[美]L·科尔伯格：《道德发展心理学——道德阶段的本质与确证》,郭本禹、何谨等译,上海：华东师范大学出版社2004年版,第203-204页。)可以说,哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学的基本特征完全符合科尔伯格所指出的这些基本假设,但是就其论证的着重点来看,哈贝马斯将我们引文中的三个假设单独列出来加以论证,这一点我们此前已经提及。
① [美]L·科尔伯格：《道德发展心理学——道德阶段的本质与确证》,郭本禹、何谨等译,上海：华东师范大学出版社2004年版,第204页。
① [美]L·科尔伯格：《道德发展心理学——道德阶段的本质与确证》,郭本禹、何谨等译,上海：华东师范大学出版社2004年版,第174-176页；亦可参见Habermas,Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. trans.. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, pp.123-125.
② [美]L·科尔伯格：《道德发展心理学——道德阶段的本质与确证》,郭本禹、何谨等译,上海：华东师范大学出版社2004年版,第176页。
③ L.Kohlberg. "From Is to Ought", in T. Miahel(ed.), Cognitive Development and Epislemology, New York: Aeademic Press.1971, p.236, qtd., Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Societv, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979, p.80.
① Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979, pp.70-94.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.125.
③ Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.115.
① Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans.,Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979, p.76.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.117.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.118.
④ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.118.
⑤ Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass The MIT Press,1994, p.115.
⑥ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.129.
① Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1979. p.83.
② Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans.,Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979. p.82.
① Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1979. p.86.
② Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans.. Ciaran Cronin,Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.116.
① Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979. p.70.
② Habermas, The Future of Human Nature, trans., William Rehg, Max Pensky, et al. Cambridge:Polity Press,2003. p.7.
③ Habermas. Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1979. p.87.
④ Habermas. Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979, p.88.
① [美]L·科尔伯格：《道德发展心理学——道德阶段的本质与确证》,郭本禹、何谨等译,上海：华东师范大学出版社2004年版,第359页。
② Habermas. Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979. p.88.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shicrry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.163.
① 对于哈贝马斯为科尔伯格道德判断阶段加入的这一阶段,科尔伯格与其同事曾作出回应。在科尔伯格等人看来,其第6阶段实际上已经包含了哈贝马斯从完全交往互动角度加入的阶段7。“我们已经发现了道德发展唯一的最适切的阶段——阶段6的观点的弱化。虽然理性重构的思想的确需要我们假设一个第六或更高的阶段,但是我们还不能说我们已经在经验上证实了它。”([美]L·科尔伯格：《道德发展心理学—道德阶段的本质与确证》,郭本禹、何谨等译,上海：华东师范大学出版社2004年版,第212页。)科尔们格同意哈贝马斯的批评,但是,在他看来,阶段7并不是那种乌托邦性质个体利益普遍化为全球公民利益。而是“关于成人试图解决形而上学和宗教任务的描述,即把那种公正、爱、真理的理想与个人对终极现实的解释整合于一体的仟务。”([美]L·科尔伯格：《道德发展心理学——道德阶段的本质与确证》,郭本禹、何谨等译,上海：华东师范大学出版社2004年版,第234页。)因而,科尔伯格把阶段7称作“伦理与宗教思维的软阶段”。科尔们格在此似乎又回到了对形而上学的反思,这显然与道德的后形而上学观念相悖。
② Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979, p.88.
③ Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1979, p.90.
④ Mabermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press.1979. p.78.
⑤ See Uwe Steinhoff, The Philosophy of Jurgen Habermas:a Critical Introduction, trans., Karsten Schollner. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2009. p.183.
① Habermas. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.119.
② Joseph Health. Communicative Action and Rational Choice, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,2003, p.229.
① [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法律论证理论：作为法律证立理论的理论辩理论》,舒国滢译,北京：中国法制出版社,2002年版,第144页。
② [德]哈贝马斯：《重建历史唯物主义》,郭官义译,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2012年版,第6页。
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.120.
① 这里之所以用“第三种形式”这种表述,我们是在康德的绝对命令与米德建构的绝对命令之外意义上说的,因为从此前对U原则分析来看,哈贝马斯虽然一直强调自己遵循康德的路线,但是就其对U原则的表述而言,却明显借重了米德构建的绝对命令之形式。而米德构建这一命令的目的是突破康德在形式与目的之间造成的分离,这也是哈贝乌斯的取向。所以说,我们需要对哈贝马斯为其道德原则所规定的形式主义之意涵进行说明,这涉及到的首先是U原则作为一种形式化的表述其与实质性的内容(利益)之间存在什么样的关系,或者说去阐明U原则在何种意义上仍然是形式主义的。而且必须阐明哈贝乌斯在何种意义上界定其证成的道德原则(这里涉及到另一个原则即D原则)与康德绝对命令之间具有直接承继关系。
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.63.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.66.
④ Martin Morris,"Social Justice and Communication:Mill. Marx, and Habermas", Soc Just Res 2009(22), pp.134-155,p.150.
① [美]汉娜·阿伦特等：《耶路撒冷的艾希曼》,孙传钊编译,长春：吉林人民出版社,2003年版,第27-28页。
① Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.120.
① J. M. Bernstein, Recovering Ethical Life:Jurgen Habermas and the future of Critical Theory, New York: Routlcdge,1995, p.159.
② [美]恩格尔哈特：《生命伦理学的基础》(第二版),范瑞平译,长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1996年版,第1页。
③ Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.116.
① Erik Oddvar Eriksen and Jarle Weigard, Understanding Habermas, London,New York:Continuum,2003, p.62.
② [美]恩格尔哈特：《生命伦理学的基础》(第二版),范瑞平译,长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1996年版,第2页。
① Gunter Dux, "Communicative Reason and Interest:On the Reconstruction of the Normative Order in Societies Structured by Egalitarianism or Domination", in Axel Honneth and Hans Joas(eds.), Communicative Action: Essays on Jurgen Habermas's The Theory of Communicative Action, trans., Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.74-96, p.76.
② [美]恩格尔哈特：《生命伦理学的基础》(第二版),范瑞平译,长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1996年版,第2页。
③ [美]恩格尔哈特：《生命伦理学的基础》(第二版),范瑞平译,长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1996年版,第8页。
① Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998,p.40.
② Simone Chambers, Reasonable Democracy:Jurgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse, New York:Cornell University Press,1996. p.17.
③ 钱伯斯并未用“一阶道德规范(英语翻译为first-order norm)与“二阶道德原则(英语翻译为second-order principle)这样的术语,而是统一用的“原则”这一语词,即“一阶道德原则(first-order principle)与“二阶道德原则(second-order principle)"。鉴于本研究已经论证哈贝马斯在规范与原则所作出的区分,我们对钱伯斯的用语进行了在本研究看来符合哈贝马斯意涵的更改。
① 恩格尔哈特的生命伦理学立基于后现代语境,也即哈贝马斯的后形而上学语境(当然,哈贝马斯的后形而上学不能与后现代划等号,两者只是表述了共同的思想背景),基于这一理论倾向,恩格尔哈特将自己的伦理学定位为世俗世界的程序主义伦理学,并且为其制定了基本的道德原则——允许原则。这一原则的内容是：“一个人只有在得到别人同意之后才能利用别人。”([荚]恩格尔哈特：《生命伦理学的基础》(第二版),范瑞平译,长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1996年版,第92-93页。)
② Simone Chambers, Reasonable Democracy:Jurgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. New York:Cornell University Press,1996, p.17.
③ Mark Timmons, Morality without Foundations:A Defense of Ethical Contextualism, New York, Oxford:Oxford University,1999, p.11.
④ [澳]约翰·L·麦凯：《伦理学：发明对与错》,丁三东译,上海：上海人民出版社,2007年版,第4页。
① 公(impartiality)这里指的是道德的基本特征,这一词也经常被翻译为“不偏不倚性”,它与“正义”(justice)并能等同,在哈贝马斯的术语里,正义是现代道德的基本对象,它与习俗所追求的伦理上的“善”形成一个基本的对子,而公正我们可以将之视为现代道德所诉求的正义之特征,它要求平等对待每一个人,不管其处于何种阶层、何种社会地位、甚或民族与性别等等。一言以蔽之,正义所追求的公正排除了一切我们经验客观查到的个体差异作为道德考量标准。
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalisl Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy, Boston:Beason Press,1987. p.222.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.68.
④ Habermas, Truth and Justification, trans., Barbara Fultner. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2003. p.86.
⑤ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry, The MIT Press,1995, p.103.
① Habermas,Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.56.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.63.
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.42.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nieholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.67.
① Mabermas,Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nieholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.67.
② Simone Chambers, Reasonable Democracy:Jurgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse, New York:Cornell University Press,1996, p.19.
③ Simone Chambers, Reasonable Democracy:Jurgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. New York:Cornell University Press,1996, p.19
④ Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.19.
① Erik Oddvar Eriksen and Jarle Weigard, Understanding Habermas, London. New York:Continuum,2003, p.67.
② [德]康德：《实践理性批判》,邓晓芒译,北京：人民出版社,2003年版,第21页
③ [德]康德：《实践理性批判》,邓晓芒译,北京：人民出版社,2003年版,第39页。
④ [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第38页。
⑤ [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第25页。
① [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第13页。
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.50.
③ [德]康德：《实践理性批判》,邓晓芒译,北京：人民出版社,2003年版,第39页。
④ [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第39页。
① [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第53页。
② John M. Rist. Real Ethics:Rethinking the Foundations of Morality, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2002, p.164.
③ Seyla Benhabib, "Communicative Ethics and Current Controversies in Practical Philosophy", in Seyla Benhabib and Fred Dallmayr(eds.), The Communicative Ethics Controversy, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. pp.330-370, p.336.
④ See Seyla Benhabib,Critique, Norm and Utopia:A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory, New York: Columbia University Press,1986. pp.74-75.
① Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff; Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.41.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.66.1哈贝马斯对于这一原则有不同的表述,在《包容他者》(Habermas, Habermas, Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.41.)中延续了这一表述,但是在《在事实与规范之间》(Haberma:Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse of Law and Democracy, Cambridge:The MIT Press,1996. p.107.)中却发生了改变,他的表述是'Action norms are valid if and only ifall possibly affected people could assent to them as participants in rational discourse."抛开那些无关紧要的不同,这里有一个需要特别说明的地方,即在前期的讨论中哈贝马斯一直用的是“实践商谈(practical discourse)而后来却使用的“合理商谈(rational discourse)这个术语。马提亚·科特那(Matthias Kettner)在其一篇有重要启发意义的文章《哈贝马斯<在事实与规范之间>一书中商谈伦理的失位》(Matthias Kettner.The Disappearance of Discourse Ethics in Habermas's Between Facts and Norms, in Rene von Schomberg and Kenneth Baynes(eds.). Discourse and Democracy:Essays on Hahermas's between Facts and Norms, Albany: State University of New York Press,2002,pp.201-218.)中敏锐地发现了这一问题,作者据此认为哈贝马斯思想存在混淆与表述不清之处。但实际上在哈贝马斯这里,“合理商谈”与“实践商谈”并不是一个相对而言的概念, “合理商谈”对应的是“非合理商谈(irrational discourse)实践商谈”对应的是“理论商谈(theoretical discourse)“理论商谈指的是它被断言和证成仅仅看其是否是真实的：实践商谈指 (接上注)的是它被断言和证成仅仅看其是否能有效地成为行动的理由”(详见Martin Seel, "The two Meanings of'Communicative'Rationarity:Remarks on Habermas's Critique of a Plural Concept of Reason", in Axel Honneth and Hans Joas(eds.), Communicative Action:Essays on Habermas's The Theory of Communicative Action, trans., Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.36-48.p.41.),但是两者都属于“合理商谈”
① Habcrmas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. pp.108-109.
② David Ingram, Habermas:Introduction and Analysis, Ithaca. London:Cornell University Press,2010, p.132.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.93.
④ Habermas, Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.42.
⑤ Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion:Philosophical Essays, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge:Polity Press,2008, p.88.
① Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.39.
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.42.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.92.
④ Logi Gunnarsson, Making Moral Sense:Beyond Hahermas and Gauthier, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003, p.88.
⑤ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.. William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996,p.109.
① Simone Chambers. Reasonable Democracy:Jurgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. New York:Cornell University Press,1996, p.22.
② Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.42.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.67.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.67.
② D原则的否定意义包含着与康德绝对命令的否定意义相同的理论趋向。就绝对命令的否定意义来讲,康德虽然强调让我意愿的准则成为普遍的法则作为道德的标准,但是我们也可以从相反的意义上来理解,即我不意愿成为普遍法则的准则,别人也同样不能意愿其成为普遍法则。依据韦尔默的研究,从否定意义上解读康德绝对命令不仅能够解决绝对命令由形式的空洞性向内容的情境性的转换难题,而且更加符合我们日常的道德直觉,譬如实质性的道德规范“我应该助人为乐”(p),这一条准则的得出,就其生成过程而是通过如果“我不助人为乐”(非p)导致的自相矛盾之结果的否定而得到的。这一点的详细讨论请参见Wellmer. "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer. The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1991,pp.113-231, p.124-125.
③ Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.42.
① 威廉·赫格的这一观点在国内与国外研究文献中经常被作为没有疑问的定论来接受,诸学者对其引用颇多。但是我们认为,赫格的观点存在对哈贝马斯U原则的误读。这种误读之核心表现在于我们此前所揭示的利益与形式、动机与目的等等在康德思想中遭受诟病的地方。商谈伦理学把利益、结果纳入道德考量,并不代表其阐发的U原则本身是一个实质性的原则,因为在其思想中,实质性的因素并不是道德原则的最终根基,U原则发挥的仅仅是一种调控性作用,而不能说利益决定了u原则。
② William Rehg, Insight and Solidarity:A study in the discourse of Jurgen Hahermas, Berkeley:University of California Press,1994, pp.58-62.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.,Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, pp.96-97.
① David Ingram, Habermas:Introduction and Analysis, Ithaca. London:Cornell University Press,2010, p.132.
① [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法：作为理性的制度化》,雷磊编译,北京：中国法制出版社,2012年版,第8页。
② [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法：作为理性的制度化》,雷磊编译,北京：中国法制出版社,2012年版,第9
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.89:[德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法：作为理性的制度化》,雷磊编译,北京：中国法制出版社,2012年版,第9页。文中所引中文根据哈贝马斯著作翻译而来。
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.87.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.87:
④ Marie Fleming, Emancipation and Illusion:Rationality and Gender in Habermas's Theory of Modernity, Pennsylvania:The Pennsylvania State University Press,1997, p.74.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. pp.89-90.
② 这一概念来自于阿佩尔的先验语用学思想,它指的是言说者在运用语言进行交往的过程中其行动与不可避免地暗含在语言应用规则中的那些有效性要求相矛盾。例如,这样一个陈述A： “S用谎言,使H确信(convinced)了p”,这就造成了有效性要求与行动的不一致。而在我用谎言扭曲交往过程中实际上犯下了以言施为矛盾,而不是普通逻辑的自我矛盾,同样用康德自我矛盾概念也无法解释这个陈述为什么是不合理的。但是如果我们将这个陈述转换为A’： “S用谎言,使H主动相信(belicving)了p”那么这个问题便容易理解,因为为这里A实际上是运用了一个与语言规则相违背的方式强迫H相信p,这必然违背真实性要求,从而落入以言施为矛盾。(详见lHabermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995,pp.90-91.)
③ David Ingram,Habermas:Introduction and Analysis. Ithaca. London:Cornell University Press,2010, p.134.
④ William Rehg,Insight and Solidarity:A study in the discourse of Jurgen Habermas, Berkeley:University of California Press,1994, p.64.
⑤ David Ingram,Habermas:Introduction and Analysis, Ithaca, London:Cornell University Press,2010, p.132.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.67.
② David Ingram, Habermas:Introduction and Analysis. Ithaca. London:Cornell University Press,2010, p.133.
③ Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds.. Ciaran and Palo De Grciff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.34.
④ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.67.
① Thomas McCarthy, "Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism:Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue", Ethics. 1994, Vol.105, No.1. pp.44-63, p.46.
② See Janna Thompson, Discourse and Knowledge:Defence of a collectivist ethics, New York:Routledge,1998, p.11.
① Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.19.
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.39.
① Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greirf, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.42.
② Wellmer, "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer, The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.113-231. p.144.
① 高宣扬：《哈伯玛斯论》,台北：远流出版公司,1992年版,第442页。
① James Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, forth edition, New York:The McGraw-Hill Companies. Inc.. 2003, p.11.
① 韦尔默也将U原则看作是对绝对命令之形式改铸,如其所言： “我想提请大家注意,U原则应该被理解为从商谈伦理学角度对绝对命令的重新表述。(Wellmer, "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer, The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans.. David Midgley. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.113-231. p.127.)我的出发点仍然是：U原则与D原则共同构成对绝对命令的改铸形式,因而对其他学者将U原则单独视为对绝对命令之改铸的批评也同样适用于韦尔默。
② Wellmer. "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer, The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp,113-231. p.127.
③ [德]黑格尔：《哲学史讲演录》(第四卷),贺麟、王太庆译,北京：商务印书馆,1983年版,第290页。
① Albrecht Welllmer, "Practical Philosophy and the Theory of Society:On the Problem of the Normative Foundations of a Critical Social Science", in Seyla Benhabib and Fred Dallmayr(eds.), The Communicative Ethics Controversy. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, pp.293-329, p.296.
② Axel Honneth. Disrespect:The Normative Foundations of Critical Theory. Cambridge:Polity Press,2007. p.111.
③ Kenneth G. Mackendrick. Discourse, Desire, and Fantasy in Jurgen Habermas' Critical Theory, New York: Routledge,2008. p.147.
④ [德]阿克塞尔·霍奈特：《为承认而斗争》,胡继华译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第100页。
① Wellmer, "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer. The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.113-231, p.198.
② Wellmer,"Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer, The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991,pp.113-231, p.123.
③ [德]康德：《判断力批判》,邓晓芒译,北京：人民出版社,第136页。
④ [德]阿尔布莱希特·韦尔默：《后形而上学现代性》,应奇、罗亚玲编译,上海：上海译文出版社,2007年版,第96页。
⑤ [德]康德：《判断力批判》,邓晓芒译,北京：人民出版社,第137页。
① [德]阿尔布莱希特·韦尔默：《后形而上学现代性》,应奇、罗亚玲编译,上海：上海译文出版社,2007年版,第97页。
② See Seyla Benhabib, Critique, Norm, and Utopia:A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory, New York: Columbia University Press,1986, p.299.
③ Seyla Benhabib, Critique, Norm, and Utopia:A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory, New York: Columbia University Press,1986, p.299.
① Wellmer. "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer, The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.113-231, p.115.
② Wellmer. "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer, The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991. pp,113-231. p.117.
① Andrew Edgar, The Philosophy of Habermas. Chesham:Acumen Publishing Limited,2005, p.155.安德鲁·埃德■#加的理解是正确的,而韦尔默与霍奈特的理解在某些方面则偏离了哈贝马斯本意。对于这个反事实的理想言说情境,实际上来说并不是哈贝马斯的一个理论假定。他把论证理论的一般性交往前提当做理想言语情境的最终决定条件(Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.. Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.125.),这就是说理想言语情境是在以语用为基础的非形式论证中证成,如果我们要进行论证,那么这个概念本身已经暗含了理想言语情境的那些特征。
② Wellmer, "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer. The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.113-231, pp.161.
① Wellmer. "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer,The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.113-231, pp.146-147.
② Wellmer, "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer. The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans.. David Midgley, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1991,pp.113-231. p.118.
③ Wellmer. "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer. The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans.. David Midgley, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.113-231.p.150.
① Wellmer, "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmcr, The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991. pp.113-231. p.118.
② Seyla Benhabib, Situating the self:Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics, New York: Routledge,1992, pp.36-37.
③ Seyla Benhabib. Situating the self:Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics, New York: Routledge,1992, p.38.
① Wellmer, "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wcllmer, The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1991. pp.113-231. p.119.
② Wellmer. "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer. The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1991,pp.113-231. p.127.
① Andrew Edgar, The Philosophy of Habermas, Chesham:Acumen Publishing Limited,2005, p.74.
① Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion: Philosophical Essays, trans.. Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008, p.44.
② Habermas. Between Naturalism and Religion: Philosophical Essays. trans.. Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008, p.85.
① Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994. p.35.
② Uwe Steinhoff, The Philosoplrv of Jurgen Habermas:a Critical Introduction, trans., Karsten SchOllner, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2009. p,168.
① Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell, New York:State University of New York Press,1993,p.45.
② Klaus Gunther. The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press.1993.p.11.
③ Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell, New York:State University of New York Press,1993, p.11.
④ Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans.. John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press,1993,p.203.
⑤ [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法 理性商谈》,朱光 雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,第43页
① Klaus Giinther. The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press,1993,p.12.
② Habermas. Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans.. Ciaran Cronin,Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.35.
③ Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law. trans., John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press,1993, p.46.
④ Klaus Giinther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press,1993, p.230.
① [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法 理性商谈》,朱光 雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,第48-52页。
② Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press,1993, pp.231-232.
③ Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press,1993,p.230.
① Habermas,The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory,eds.. Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.45.
② Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass The MIT Press,1994. p.35.
① 这一点也可从如下哈贝马斯的如下几个地方的论述得到印证Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.162; Habermas, "Postscript to Between Facts and Norms", trans.. William Rehg, in Mathieu Dellem(ed.), Habermas, Modernity and Law, London:Sage Publications,1996, pp.135-150,pp.149-150, note 11.后一个文本是《在事实与规范之间》的一篇后记,由Rehg翻译成英文并载于该书英文本中。这篇短文澄清并进一论证了该书出版后所引起的一些争议,为了凸显及其重要性,我将在以下行文中直接引用Deflem所编的《哈贝马斯、现代性与法律》这本著作中的文本,文中所引也将仅标注其在后者中的页码。
② [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法 理性商谈》,朱光 雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,第49页。
① [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法 理性商谈》,朱光 雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,第51页。
② Habermas. Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.35.
③ [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法 理性商谈》,朱光 雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,第51页。
④ Klaus Giinther. The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law. trans.. John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press,1993, p.205.
⑤ Habermas. Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans.. Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994. p.38.
① Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press,1993, p.245.
② Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans.. John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press,1993. p.239.
③ [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法 理性商谈》,朱光 雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,第44页
④ Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans.. Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge, Mass. The MIT Press,1994, p.36.
① Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994. p.37.
② Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994. p.13.
③ Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press,1993. p.205.
④ [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法 理性商谈》,朱光 雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,第44页：相似的表述亦见]Klaus Gunther. The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law. trans., John Farrell, New York:State University of New York Press,1993, p.239.
① Habermas,Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin,Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994. p.38.
② Habermas,Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin,Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.38.
③ Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law. trans., John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press,1993,p.204.
④ Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Approprlateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press,1993, p.209.
① Uwe Steinhoff, The Philosophy of Jurgen Habermas:a Critical Introduction, trans.. Karsten Schollner. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2009, p.168.
② William Rehg, Insight and Solidarity:A Study in the Discourse Ethics of Jurgen Habermas,Berkeley:University of California Press,1997, p.191.
③ Mabermas. Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.37.
① Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell, New York:State University of New York Press,1993,p.239.
② Habermas. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg. Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.229.
③ Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans.,Ciaran Cronin,Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.36.
④ Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans.. Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.36.
① Steven, "Truth and Moral Validity:On Habermas' Domesticated Pragmatism". Constellation Volume 18, No.2. Oxford:Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,2011. pp.244-259, p.247.
② Habermas. Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994. pp.63-64.
③ Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.64.
④ Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds.. Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.45.
① Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Grambridge, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.45.
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans, William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.5.
③ Habermas. Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass, The MIT Press,1994,p.64.
① Habermas, "Symbolic Expression and Ritual Behavior:Ernst Cassirer and Arnold Gehlen Revisited", in Habermas. Time of Transitions, Ciaran Cronin and Max Pensky(eds. and trans.), Cambridge:Polity Press.2006. pp.53-70, p.57.
② Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988. pp.217-280. p.245.
③ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. William Rehg. Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.20.
④ Uwe Steinhoff. The Philosophy of Jurgen Habermas:a Critical Introduction, trans., Karsten Schollner. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2009, p.167.
① William Rehg, Insight and Solidarity:A Study in the Discourse Ethics ofJurgen Hahermas. Berkeley:University of California Press,1997, p.196.
② [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法 理性商谈》,朱光 雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,2012年版,第11页。
③ [德]哈贝马斯：《对话伦理学与真理的问题》,沈清楷译,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005年版,第23页。
① Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass. The MIT Press,1994. p.14.
② Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans.. Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988. pp.217-280. p.223; Habermas. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.114.
③ Habermas. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, pp.115-116.
④ [德]哈贝马斯：《对话伦理学与真理的问题》,沈清楷译,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005年版,第139页。
⑤ Farid Abdel-Nour. "Farewell to Justification:Habermas. Human Rights, and Universalist Morality". Philosophy & Social Criticism,2004, Vol.30, No. I, pp.73-96, pp.73-74.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.7.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. pp.61-62.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.28.
② [德]康德：《道德形而上学》(康德著作全集第6卷),李秋零主编,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版,第240页。
③ [德]康德：《道德形而上学》(康德著作全集第6卷),李秋零主编,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版,第226页。
④ [德]康德：《道德形而上学》(康德著作全集第6卷),李秋零主编,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版,第240页。
⑤ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.105-106.
① [德]马克斯·韦伯：《法律社会学》,康乐、简惠美译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2011年版,第331页。
② [德]马克斯·韦伯：《社会学的基本概念》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2011年版,第71页。
① [德]马克斯·韦伯：《法律社会学》,康乐、简惠美译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2011年版,第320-321页。
② [德]马克斯·韦伯：《社会学的基本概念》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2011年版,第71页。
③ [德]马克斯·韦伯：《法律社会学》,康乐、简惠美译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2011年版,第222页
① Habermas,"Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ,Salt Lake City,1988, pp.217-280, p.223.
⑤ Habermas,"Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ,Salt Lake City,1988, pp.217-280, p.222.
⑥ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.243.
① [德]马克斯·韦伯：《法律社会学》,康乐、简惠美译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2011年版,第314页。
② Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988. pp.217-280. p.222.
③ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.256.
① I labcrmas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.259.
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.243.
② Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988. pp.217-280, pp.223-224.
③ I labermas, "Law and Morality", trans.. Kenneth Baynes. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988. pp.217-280, p.224.
① Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988, pp.217-280, p.226.
② Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988, pp.217-280, p.227. Lake City,1988, pp.217-280. p.228.
③ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.262.
④ Habermas, "Between Facts and Norms:An Author's Reflections". Denver University Law Review,1998-1999. Vol.76, No.4, pp.937-942, p.938.
⑤ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.261.
① Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy, London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980, p.98.
② Klaus Gunther,"Communicative Freedom. Communicative Power, and Jurisgenesis", in Michel Rosenleld and Andrew Arato(eds.), Habermas on Law and Democracy. London:University of California Press,1998. pp.234-252. p.235.
③ [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法 理性商谈》,朱光 雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,2012年版,第1页。
④ Robert Alexy, "A Definition of Law", in W. Krawietz and N. MacCormik(eds.). Prescriptive Formality and Normative Rationality in Modern Legal System, Berlin:Duncker&Humblot,1994, pp.98-112,pp.101-103.
① [德]马克斯·韦伯：《社会学的基本概念》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2011年版,第71页。
② Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988. pp.217-280. p.228.
③ Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human lalues. Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988, pp.217-280, p.2.33.
④ David M. Rasmussen."How is Valid Law Possible? A Review of Between Facts and Norms By Jurgen Habermas". in Mathieu Deflem(ed.), Habermas, Modernity and Law, London:SAGE Publications Ltd.,1996, pp.21-44, p.22.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.17.
① Erik Oddvar Eriksen and Jarle Weigard, Understanding Habermas. New York:Continuum.2003. p.131.
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.. William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.25.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.26.
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.37.
① Habermas,On the Logic of the Social Sciences, trans., Shierry Weber Nicholsen and Jerry A. Stark. Cambridge: Polity Press,1988. p.55.
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.. William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.26.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, pp.26-27.
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg. Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.27.
③ 高鸿钧：《商谈法哲学与民主法治国——<在事实与规范之间>阅读》,北京：清华大学出版社,2007年版,第64页。
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.30.
② Habermas. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.37.
③ Pierre Guibentif, "Approaching the Production of Law Through Habermas's Concept of Communicative Action". in Mathieu Deflem(ed.), Habermas, Modernity, and Law. London:SAGE Publications,1996, pp.45-70. p.56.
④ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.38.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.38.
① Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988,pp.217-280. p.219.
② Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas MeCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.261.
① [德]马克斯·韦伯：《社会学的基本概念》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2011年版,第57页。
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.. William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.43.
③ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.. William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.44-48.
① Habennas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.46.
② [德]尼可拉斯·卢曼：《法社会学》,宾凯、赵春燕译,上海：上海人民出版社,2013年版,第183页。
③ Habermas. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.48.
④ [德]尼可拉斯·卢曼：《法社会学》,宾凯、赵春燕译,上海：上海人民出版社,2013年版,第189页。
① Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans.. Kenneth Baynes. The Tanner Lectures on Human Vblues, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988, pp.217-280. p.253.
② [德]尼可拉斯·卢曼：《法社会学》,宾凯、赵春燕译,上海：上海人民出版社,2013年版,第190页
③ [德]尼克拉斯·卢曼：《社会的法律》,郑伊倩,北京：人民出版社,2009年版,第17页。
④ 高鸿钧：《商谈法哲学与民主法治国——<在事实与规范之间>阅读》,北京：清华大学出版社,2007年版,第48页。
⑤ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.49.
① Habcrmas. Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy. London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980. p.140.
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.50.
③ Habermas. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.43.
④ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.. William Rehg, Cambrigdc, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.48.
⑤ Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy. London:Ileinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980, p.131.
① Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans.. Kenneth Baynes. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988, pp.217-280, p.259.
① Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds.. Ciaran and Palo De GrcifF. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.49.
② [美]约翰·罗尔斯：《正义论》,何怀宏等译,北京：中国社会出版社,1988年版,第5页。
③ [美]约翰·罗尔斯：《正义论》,何怀宏等译,北京：中国社会出版社,1988年版,第5页。
④ [美]约翰·罗尔斯：《正义论》,何怀宏等译,北京：中国社会出版社,1988年版,第5页。
① [美]约翰·罗尔斯：《正义论》,何怀宏等译,北京：中国社会出版社,1988年版,第61页。
② [美]约翰·罗尔斯：《正义论》,何怀宏等译,北京：中国社会出版社,1988年版,第302页
⑧ [美]约翰·罗尔斯：《正义论》,何怀宏等译,北京：中国社会出版社,1988年版,第12页。
④ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.. William Rehg. Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, pp.57-58.
① [美]迈克尔·J.桑德尔：《自由主义与正义的局限》,万俊人等译,上海：译林出版社,2011年版,第107页。
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.69.
③ [美]约翰·罗尔斯：《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2011年版,第222页。
④ [美]约翰·罗尔斯：《政治自由主义》,万俊人译,上海：译林出版社,2011年版,第124页。
① Thomas Pogge, John Rawls:His Life and Theory of Justice, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2007, p.28.
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.71.
③ Habermas, Between Facts and Normi:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press.1996, p.56.
④ Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.71.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg. Cambrigdc, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.85.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.106.
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.106.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.107.
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.107-108.
① Wellmer, "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer, The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991. pp.113-231, p.127.
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds.. Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press.1998, p.49.
③ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy,trans.. William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.105.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans, William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.110.
① Uwe Steinhoff, The Philosophy of Jurgen Habermas:a Critical Introduction, trans., Karsten Schollner, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2009, p.223.
② Uwe Steinhoff, The Philosophy of Jurgen Habermas:a Critical Introduction, trans., Karsten Schollner, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2009, p.223.
③ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.156.
④ Robert Alexy, "Jurgen Habermas's Theory of Legal Discourse ", in Michel Rosenfeld and Andrew Arato(eds.). Habermas on Law and Democracy. London:University of California Press,1998. pp.226-233. p.226.
① David Ingram, Habermas:Introduction and Analysis, Ithaca, London:Cornell University Press,2010. p.199.
② Habermas. "Law and Morality", trans.. Kenneth Bayncs. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City.1988. pp.217-280. p.244.
③ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.234.
④ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.234.
⑤ Hbabermas. "Postscript to Between Facts and Norms", trans., William Rehg, in Mathieu Dcllem(ed.), Habermas, Modernity and Law. London:Sage Publications,1996, pp.135-150, p.136.
① Hugh Baxter, Habermas: The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Stanford, California: Standford University Press, 2011, p.66.
② Habermas, "Postscript to Between Facts and Norms", trans., William Rehg, in Mathieu Deflem(ed.), Habermas, Modernity and Law, London: Sage Publications, 1996, pp. 135-150, p.140.
③ Uwe Steinhoff. The Philosophy of Jurgen Habermas: a Critical Introduction, trans., Karsten Schollner, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, p.224.
④ 这点我们在此不能展开,就法律的证立性商谈与应用性商谈之区分具有代表性的是立法过程与司法过程立法过程关照的是法律的合法性,而司法过程则关注的是特定时间、特定地点中具体法律条文的适当性。相关论述请参见Klaus Gunther. The Sense of Appropriateness: Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell, New York: State University of New York Press, 1993, pp.247-284; Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1996, pp.228-233以及[德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法 理性商谈》,朱光 雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,第164-167页。
① Habermas. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press1996,p.132.在童世骏教授翻译的中译本中,童教授以附录的形式编入了哈贝马斯在特纳讲座中的《法律与道德》这篇文章,但是我们发现童教授将特纳讲座中的"rule of law"与哈贝马斯在《在事实与规范之间》使用的'constitutional state"统一翻译为“法治国”我认为哈贝马斯并不是在统一意义上来运用这两个词,虽然两者都具有用法律治理国家的意涵。但是前者与后者明显是就不同语境来讲,前者处于较具体的层而,它表达的是现代国家中的立法、司法以及行政等等权力皆出于具有合法性的宪法,而后者则是从法律本身的抽象性质来切入的,它实际上表达的是较抽象的商谈法,与哈贝马斯所反对的自然法与实证法相对。因而,我在本研究涉及到两个概念之处,分别采取了不同的翻译方式,以防止术语上的混乱,至少彰显出两者的细微差别。
② Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes. The Tanner Lectures on Human lalues, Vol.Ⅷ. Salt Lake City,1988. pp.217-280. p.271.
③ Hugh Baxter, Habermas:The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Stanford. California:Standford University Press,2011. p.67.
① Habermas,"Postscript to Between Facts and Norms", trans.. William Rehg, in Mathieu Deflem(ed.), Habermas, Modernity and Law. London:Sage Publications,1996, pp.135-150, p.135.
② Habermas. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.. William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.106.
① Hbabermas, "Postscript to Between Facts and Norms", trans., William Rehg. in Mathieu Deflem(ed.), Hahermas, Modernity and Law, London:SAGE Publications,1996, pp.135-150, p.137.
② Hahermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988. pp.217-280, p.233.
③ Habermas. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. pp.151-152.
① Habermas. "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Bayncs, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988. pp.217-280. p.244.
② Hbabermas. "Postscript to Between Facts and Norms", trans., William Rehg, in Mathieu Dellem(ed.). Habermas, Modernity and Law. London:Sage Publications,1996. pp.135-150. p.139.
③ 更详细的讨论请参见Lasse Thomassen. Habermas:A Guide for the Perplexed, London. New York:Continnum. 2010, pp.112-114.
④ Habermas. "Between Facts and Norms:An Author's Reflections". Denver University Law Review,1998-1999, Vol.76, No.4. pp.937-942,p.938.
① Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988, pp.217-280, p.241.
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.. William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.107.
③ Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988. pp.217-280, p.244.
① Lasse Thomassen. Habermas:A Guide for the Perplexed, London, New York:Continuum,2010. p.113.
② Habermas. "Law and Morality", trans.. Kenneth Baynes. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ. Salt Lake City,1988, pp.217-280. p.246.
③ Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds.. Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.214.
④ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.83.
① Wellmer, "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer, The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans.. David Midgley. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991. pp.113-231. p.151.
② Wellmer. "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer. The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1991. pp.113-231,p.151.
① Leslie A.Howe,On Habermas,Belmont;Wadsworth,2000,p.40.
① See Uwe Steinhoff, The Philosophy of Jurge n Habermas:a Critical Introduction, trans.. Karsten Schollner. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2009. p.193.
① Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy, London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980, p.95.
② Leslie A. Howe. On Habermas, Belmont:Wadsworth,2000, p.39.
① 哈贝马斯接受韦尔默的批评之后,已经放弃了令人容易联想其类似于皮尔斯与阿佩尔的无限交往共同体(infinite communicative community)这一个先验性质的概念。但是,它并未放弃用基础上的理想化,在一篇采访稿件中,哈贝马斯如是说： “如韦尔默一样,我批判皮尔斯与阿佩尔的理想共同体的概念,甚至是我自己的‘理想言说情境’概念,它们是抽象误置为具体的谬误。这些想象是具体主义的,因为它们提供了一个被认为终究会达成的最终条件——这不是它们打算提供的。但是我仍然坚持不可避免的语用学前提的理想化内容,这里只允许出现最好论据。”(Habermas, "Between Facts and Norms:A Conversation about Questions of Political Theory", in Rene von Shomberg and Kenneth Baynes(eds.), Discourse and Democracy: Essays on Habermas's Between Facts and Norms, New York:State University of New York Press,2002:pp.241-258,p.251.本篇文章亦收于labermas, A Berlin Republic:Writings on Germany, trans., Steven Rendall, London:University of Nebraska Press,1997, pp.131-160.)
1. Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1994.
2. Habermas, Truth and Justification, trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,2003.
3. Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995.
4. Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, trans., Jeremy J. Shapiro, Boston: Beacon Press,1971.
5. Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action, trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2001.
6. Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press, 1996.
7. Habermas, The Future of Human Nature, trans., William Rehg, Max Pensky, et al., Cambridge:Polity Press,2003.
8.[德]哈贝马斯：《哈贝马斯在华演讲集》,中国社会科学院哲学研究所编,北京：人民出版社,2002年版。
9. Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press, 1984.
10.[德]哈贝马斯：《现代性的哲学话语》,曹玉东译,上海：译林出版社,2004年版。
11. Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans.. Thomas McCarthy, London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980.
12. Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998.
13.[德]哈贝马斯：《现代性的地平线——哈贝马斯访谈录》,李安东、段怀清译,上海：上海人民出版社,1997年版。
14.[德]哈贝马斯：《作为“意识形态”的技术与科学》,李黎、郭官义译,上海：学林出版社,1999年版。
15. Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion:Philosophical Essays, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge:Polity Press,2008.
16.[德]哈贝马斯：《后民族结构》,曹卫东译,上海：上海人民出版社,2002年版。
17.[德]哈贝马斯：《后形而上学思想》,曹卫东、付德根译,上海：译林出版社,2001年版。
18. Habermas, On the Logic of the Social Sciences, trans., Shierry Weber Nicholsen and Jerry A. Stark, Cambridge:Polity Press,1988.
19. Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifeworld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy, Boston: Beason Press,1987.
20.[德]哈贝马斯：《对话伦理学与真理的问题》,沈清楷译,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005年版。
21. Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979.
22. Habermas, Theory and Practice, trans., John Viertel, Boston:Beacon Press,1974.
23.[德]哈贝马斯：《重建历史唯物主义》,郭官义译,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2000年版。
1. Habermas, "Taking Aim at the Heart of the Present:On Foucault's Lecture on Kant's What is Englightenment?", in Habermas, The New Conservatism:Cultural Criticism and the Historian's Debate, ed. and trans., Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1989, pp.173-185.
2. Habermas, "Modernity:An Unfinished Project", in Maurizio Passerin d'Entreves and Seyla Benhabib(eds.), Habermas and The Unfinished Project of Modernity, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1997, pp.39-55.
3. Habermas, "Questions and Counterquestions", in Richard J.Bernstein (ed.), Habermas and Modernity, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1985, pp.192-216.
4. Habermas, "Some Futher Clarification of the Communicative Rationality", in Maeve Cooke(ed.), On the Pragmatic of Communication, Cambridge:Polity Press,1999, pp.310-317.
5. Habermas, "An Awareness of What is Missing", in Jurgen Habermas et al., An Awareness of What is Missing:Faith and Reason in a Post-Secular Age, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge:Polity Press,2010, pp.15-23.
6. Jurgen Habermas, "A Reply", in Axel Honneth and Hans Joas(eds.), Communicative Action:Essays on Habermas's The Theory of Communicative Action, trans., Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.214-264.
7.[德]哈贝马斯：《评伽达默尔的<真理与方法>一书》,郭官义译,《世界哲学》,1986年第3期。
8.[德]哈贝马斯：《解释学要求普遍适用》,高地、鲁旭东、孟庆时译,《世界哲学》,1986年第3期。
9.[德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯：《论理由的象征性体现》,鲍永玲译,《哲学分析》,2013年第1期。
10. Habermas, "Postscript to Between Facts and Norms", trans., William Rehg, in Mathieu Deflem(ed.), Habermas, Modernity and Law, London:Sage Publications, 1996, pp.135-150.
11. Habermas, "Symbolic Expression and Ritual Behavior:Ernst Cassirer and Arnold Gehlen Revisited", in Habermas, Time of Transitions, eds. and trans., Ciaran Cronin and Max Pensky, Cambridge:Polity Press,2006, pp.53-70.
12. Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988, pp.217-280.
13. Habermas, "Between Facts and Norms:An Author's Reflections", Denver University Law Review,1998-1999, Vol.76, No.4, pp.937-942.
14. Habermas, "Between Facts and Norms:A Conversation about Questions of Political Theory", in Habermas, A Berlin Republic:Writings on Germany, trans., Steven Rendall, London:University of Nebraska Press,1997, pp.131-160.
1.[美]A.麦金太尔：《追寻美德》,宋继杰译,上海：译林出版社,2008年版。
2. Seylia Benhabib, Critique, Norm, and Utopia:A Study of the Foundations of Critical Throry, New York:Columbia University Press,1986, p.286.
3.龚群：《道德乌托邦的重构——哈贝马斯交往伦理思想研究》,北京：商务印书馆,2005年版。
4.章国峰：《关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦构想”——解读哈贝马斯<交往行动理论>》,济南：山东人民出版社,2001年版。
5. David Ingram, Habermas:Introduction and Analysis, Ithaca, London:Cornell University Press,2010.
6.胡军良：《哈贝马斯对话伦理学研究》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2010年版。
7.[英]约瑟夫·拉兹：《实践理性与规范》,朱学平译,北京：中国法制出版社,2011年版。
8. Luca Corchia, Jurgen Habermas, a Bibliography:Works and Studies(1952-2010), Pisa:Arnus University Books,2010.
9. James Gordon Finlayson, Habermas:A Very Short Introduction, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2005.
10. Edgar Andre, Habermas, The Key Concepts, New York:Routledge,2006.
11. Thomas McCarthy, The Critical Thoery of Jurgen Habermas, Cambridge, Mass. The MIT Press,1985.
12. J. M. Bernstein, Recovering Ethical Life:Jurgen Habermas and the Future of Critical Theory, London, New York:Routledge,1995.
13. Erik Oddvar Eriksen and Jarle Weigard, Understanding Habermas: Commmunicative Action and Deliberative Democracy, New York:Continuum, 2003.
14. David M.Rasmussen, Reading Habermas, Oxford:Blackwell Publishers,1990.
15. David S.Owen, Between Reason and History, New Nork:State University of New York Press,2002.
16. Omid A. Pavrow, Democracy, Power and Legitimacy:The Critical Theory of Jiirgen Habermas, London:University of Toronto Press,2003.
17. Joseph Health, Communicative Action and Rational Choice, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,2003.
18. Uwe Steinhoff, The philosophy of Jurgen Habermas, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2009.
19. Darrow Schecter, The Critique of Instrumental Reason from Weber to Habermas, New York:Continuum,2010.
20. Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell, New York:State University of New York Press, 1993.
21. William Rehg, Congent Scicence in Context:The Science Wars, Argumentation Theory, and Habermas, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2009.
22. Janna Thompson, Discourse and Knowledge:Defence of a collectivist ethics, New York:Routledge,1998.
23. Logi Gunnarsson, Making Moral Sense:Beyond Habermas and Gaiithier, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003.
24.阮新邦、林端主编：《解读<沟通行动理论>》,上海:上海人民出版社,2003年版。
25.童世骏：《批判与实践——论哈贝马斯的批判理论》,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2007年版。
26.薛华：《哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学》,沈阳：辽宁教育出版社,1988年版。
27.张少动：《研究方法》,台中：沧海书局,2002年版。
28.[德]汉斯-格奥尔格·伽达默尔：《真理与方法》(上卷),洪汉鼎译,上海：上海译文出版社,2004年版。
29.[法]萨德：《贞洁的厄运》,张章译,北京：九州出版社,2000年版。
30.[法]茨维坦·托多罗夫：《启蒙的精神》,马利红译,上海：华东师范大学出版社,2012年版。
31. Milan Zafirovski, The Enlightement and Its Effects on Modern Society, New York: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC,2011.
32.[德]康德：《判断力批判》,邓晓芒译,北京：人民出版社,2002年版。
33.[德]马克斯·韦伯：《学术与政治》,钱永祥译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社 2010年版。
34. Charles Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries, Durham:Duke University Press, 2004.
35.[德]马克斯·霍克海默、西奥多·阿道尔诺：《启蒙辩证法》,渠敬东、曹卫东译,上海：上海人民出版社,2006年版。
36.黄瑞祺：《现代与后现代》,台北：巨流图书公司,2000年版。
37.[德]T.W阿多诺：《道德哲学的问题》,谢地坤、王彤译,北京：人民出版社,2007年版。
38.[加]查尔斯·泰勒：《本真性的伦理》,程炼译,上海：上海三联书店,2012年版。
39. Hillary Putnam, Ethics without Ontology, Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press,2004.
40. Martin Morris, Rethinking the Communicative Turn:Adorno, Habermas and the Problem of Communicative Freedom, New York:State University of New York, 2001.
41. Katerina Deligiorgi, Kant and the Culture of Enlightenment, New York:State University of New York Press,2005.
42. Alfred Jules Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic, New York:Dover Publications, Inc, 1952.
43.[澳大利亚]约翰·L·麦凯：《伦理学——发明对与错》,丁三东译,上海：上海译文出版社,2006年
44.[古希腊]柏拉图：《柏拉图全集》,王晓朝译,北京：人民出版社,2002年版。
45.[德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》,苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版。
46. John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, ed., Colin Heydt, Toronto:Broadview Press, 2010.
47.[英]亨利·西季威克：《伦理学史纲》,熊敏译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2008年版。
48.[英]摩尔：《伦理学原理》,长河译,上海：上海人民出版社,2005年版。
49. Andrew Bowie, Introduction to German Philosophy:From Kant to Habermas, Cambridge:Polity Press,2003.
50. Stephen Carden, Vitue Ethics:Dewey and Maclntyre, New York:Continuum, 2006.
51. John M. Rist, Real Ethics:Rethinking the Foundations of Morality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2002.
52.[瑞士]汉斯·昆、库舍尔编：《全球伦理——世界宗教议会宣言》,何光沪译,成都：四川人民出版社,1997年版。
53.[瑞士]汉斯·昆：《世界伦理构想》,周艺译,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2002年版。
54. Hans Kung, Global Responsibility:In Search of a New World Ethics, Michigan: Crossroad Publishing Company,1996.
55.[英]理查德·麦尔文·黑尔：《道德语言》,万俊人译,北京：商务印书馆,2005年版。
56. Karl-Otto Apel, Towards a Transformation of Philosophy, trans., Glyn Adey and David Fisby, Milwaukee:Marquette University Press,1998, p.226.
57.[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔：《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年版。
58. Giovanna Borradori, Philosophy in a Time of Terror:Dialogues with Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida, Chicago, London:The University of Chicago Press,2003, p.14.
59. Maeve Cooke, Language and Reason:A Study of Habermas's Pragmatics, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1997, p.38.
60. Gillespie, Michael Allen, Theological Origins of Modernity, Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2008.
61.[德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法、理性、商谈——法哲学研究》,朱光、雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,2011年版。
62.[德]米夏埃尔·哈勒：《作为未来的过去——与著名哲学家哈贝马斯对话》,章国峰译,杭州：浙江人民出版社,2001年版。
63.高宣扬：《哈伯玛斯论》,台北：远流出版公司,1991年版。
64.欧少亭主编：《新编现代汉语词典》,延吉：延边人民出版社,2002年版。
65.[德]马克斯·韦伯：《社会学的基本概念》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2010年版。
66.[美]塔尔科特·帕森斯：《社会行动的结构》,张明德等译,上海：译林出版社,2012年版。
67.傅永军：《法兰克福学派的现代性理论》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2007年版。
68. John Ayto, Word Origins, London:A&C Black Publishers Ltd,2005.
69.[美]约翰·罗尔斯：《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2011年版。
70. John F. Sitton, Habermas and Contemporary Society, New York:PALGRAVE MACMILLAN,2003.
71.[德]韦伯：《新教伦理与资本主义精神》,康乐、简惠美译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2010年版。
72.[德]施路赫特：《理性化与官僚化：对韦伯之研究与诠释》,顾忠华译,杜林：广西师范大学出版社,2004年版。
73.高宣扬：《实用主义和语用论》,台北：远流出版事业股份有限公司,1994年版。
74. David Ingram, Habermas and the Dialetic of Reason, New Haven, London:Yale University Press,1987.
75. Marie Fleming, Emancipation and Illusion:Rationality and Gender in Habermas's Theory of Modernity, Pennsylvania:The Pennsylvania State University Press,1997.
76.汪行福：《走出时代的困境——哈贝马斯对现代性的反思》,上海：上海科学院出版社,2000年版。
77. Hugh Baxter, Habermas:The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Stanbford, California:Stanford University Press,2011.
78. James Swindal, Reflection Revisited:Jiirgen Habermas's Discursive Theory of Truth, New York:Fordham University Press,1999.
79. Michael Pusey, Jiirgen Habermas, London, New York:Tavistock Publications, 1987.
80.洪镰德：《西方马克思主义》,台北：扬智文化事业股份有限公司,2004年版。
81. Ian Craib, Modern Social Theory:From Parsons to Habermas, Brighton: Wheatsheaf Ltd.,1994.
82. Emilia Steuerman, The Bounds of Reason:Habermas, Lyotard and Melanie Klein on rationality, New York:Routledge,2000.
83.[德]伽达默尔：《真理与方法》(下卷),洪汉鼎译,上海：上海译文出版社2004年版。
84. John B. Thompson, Critical Hermeneutics:A Study in the Thought of Paul Ricoeur and Jurgen Habermas, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1981.
85. Alan How, The Habermas-Gadamer Debate and the Nature of the Social, Aldershot:Avebury Ashgate Publishing Ltd.,1995.
86.[奥]维特根斯坦：《蓝皮书与褐皮书》,涂纪亮译,北京：北京大学出版社,2012年版。
87.[奥]维特根斯坦：《哲学研究》,李步楼译,北京：商务印书馆,1996年版。
88. A. C. Grayling, Wittgenstein:A Very Short Introduction, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1996.
89. J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1975.
90. Jenny Thomas, Meaning in Interaction:An Introduction to Pragmatics, London: Longman,1995.
91. Austin Harrington, Hermeneutic Dialogue and Social Science:A Critique of Gadamer and Habermas, London:Routledge,2001.
92.盛晓明：《话语规则与知识基础——语用学维度》,上海：学林出版社,2000年版。
93.阮新邦：《迈向崭新的社会知识观》,北京：北京大学出版社,2005年版。
94.[古希腊]亚里士多德：《尼各马可伦理学》,廖申白译,北京：商务印书馆,2005年版。
95.[美]奎迈·安东尼·阿皮亚：《世界主义：陌生人世界里的道德规范》,苗华健译,北京：中央编译出版社,2012年版。
96.[英]休谟：《人性论》,关文运译,北京：商务印书馆,1980年版。
97.[英]休谟：《道德原则研究》,曾晓平译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年版。
98.[美]希拉里·普特南：《事实与价值二分法的崩溃》,应奇译,北京：东方出版社2006年版。
99.邓晓芒：《康德<道德形而上学奠基>句读》,北京：人民出版社,2012年版。
100.[美]罗伯特·诺齐克：《合理性的本质》,葛四友、陈昉译,上海：上海译文出版社,2012年版。
101.[美]罗纳德·德沃金：《认真对待权利》,信春鹰、吴玉章译,上海：上海三联书店,2008年版。
102.P.F. Strawson, Freedom and Resentment and Oher Essays, New York:Routledge, 2008.
103.T. W. Scanlon, What We Owe to Each Other, Cambridge, Mass.:The Belknap Press of Harvard University,1998.
104.[德]罗伯特·阿列可西：《法律论证理论：作为法律证立理论的理性论辩理论》,舒国滢译,北京：中国法制出版社,2002年版。
105.Stephen Toulmin, An Exmination of the Place of Reason in Ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1950.
106.万俊人：《现代西方伦理学史》(上卷),北京：中国人民出版社,2011年版。
107.杨宁芳：《图尔敏论证逻辑思想研究》,北京：人民出版社,2012年版。
108.[美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版。
109.王晓升：《哈贝马斯的现代性社会理论》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2006年版。
110.[美]L·科尔伯格：《道德发展心理学——道德阶段的本质与确证》,郭本禹、何谨等译,上海：华东师范大学出版社,2004年版。
111.[美]汉娜·阿伦特等：《耶路撒冷的艾希曼》,孙传钊编译,长存：吉林人民出版社,2003年版。
112.[美]恩格尔哈特：《生命伦理学的基础》(第二版),范瑞平译,长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1996年版。
113.Simone Chambers, Reasonable Democracy:Jurgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse, New York:Cornell University Press,1996.
114.Mark Timmons, Morality without Foundations:A Defense of Ethical Contextualism, New York, Oxford:Oxford University,1999.
115.[德]康德：《实践理性批判》,邓晓芒译,北京：人民出版社,2003年版。
116.William Rehg, Insight and Solidarity:A Study in the Discourse of Jurgen Habermas, Berkeley:University of California Press,1994.
117.[德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法：作为理性的制度化》,雷磊编译,北京：中国法制出版社,2012年版。
118.James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, forth edition, New York:The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.,2003.
119.[德]黑格尔：《哲学史讲演录》(第四卷),贺麟、王太庆译,北京：商务印书馆,1983年版。
120.Axel Honneth, Disrespect:The Normative Foundations of Critical Theory, Cambridge:Polity Press,2007.
121.Kenneth G. Mackendrick, Discourse, Desire, and Fantasy in Jiirgen Habermas' Critical Theory, New York:Routledge,2008.
122.[德]阿克塞尔·霍奈特：《为承认而斗争》,胡继华译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版。
123.[德]阿尔布莱希特·韦尔默：《后形而上学现代性》,应奇、罗亚玲编译,上海：上海译文出版社,2007年版。
124.Andrew Edgar, The Philosophy of Habermas, Chesham:Acumen Publishing Ltd., 2005.
125.Seyla Benhabib, Situating the Self:Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics, New York:Routledge,1992.
126.[德]康德：《道德形而上学》(康德著作全集第6卷),李秋零主编,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版。
127.[德]马克斯·韦伯：《法律社会学》,康乐、简惠美译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2011年版。
128.高鸿钧：《商谈法哲学与民主法治国——<在事实与规范之间>阅读》,北京：清华大学出版社,2007年版。
129.[德]尼可拉斯·卢曼：《法社会学》,宾凯、赵春燕译,上海：上海人民出版社,2013年版。
130.[德]尼克拉斯·卢曼：《社会的法律》,郑伊倩,北京：人民出版社,2009年版。
131.[美]约翰·罗尔斯：《正义论》,何怀宏等译,北京：中国社会出版社,1988年版。
132.[美]迈克尔·J.桑德尔：《自由主义与正义的局限》,万俊人等译,上海：译林出版社,2011年版。
133.[美]约翰·罗尔斯：《政治自由主义》,万俊人译,上海：译林出版社,2011年版。
134.Thomas Pogge, John Rawls:His Life and Theory of Justice, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2007.
135.Lasse Thomassen, Habermas:A Guide for the Perplexed, London, New York: Continnum,2010.
136.Leslie A. Howe, On Habermas, Belmont:Wadsworth,2000.
1. Anthony Giddens, "Reason Without Revolution? Habermas's Theorie des kommmunikativen Handelns", in Richard J.Bernstein (ed.), Habermas and Modernity, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1985, pp.95-121.
2. John Mingers and Geoff Walsham, "Toward Ethical Information Systems:The Contribution of Discourse Ethics", MIS Quarterly,2010(4), Vol.34, pp.833-854.
3. Ricardo Blaug, "Citizenship and Political Judgment:Between Discourse Ethics and Phronesis", Res Publica,2000(6), pp.179-198.
4. William Rehg, "The Critical Potential of Discourse Ethics:Reply to Meehan and Chambers", Human Studies,2002(25), pp.407-412.
5. Wellmer, "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer, The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley, Cambridge, Mass. The MIT Press,1991, pp.113-231.
6. Erin Kelly, "Habermas on Moral Justification", Social Theory and Practice,2000, Vol.26, No.2, pp.223-249.
7. Eva Erman, "Conflict and Universal Moral Theory:From Reasonableness to Reason-Giving", Political Theory,2007, Vol.35, No.5, pp.223-249.
8.李志成：《哈伯玛斯商谈伦理学的证成与应用》,台北：台湾大学博士论文,2006年。
9.宫瑜：《交往理性与道德共识——哈贝马斯话语伦理学研究》,长春：吉林大学博士论文,2011年。
10.章国锋:《话语·权力·真理——社会正义与话语的伦理》,《社会科学》,2006年第2期。
11.胡军良：《哈贝马斯对阿佩尔对话伦理思想的继承与超越》,《云南社会科学》,2010年第1期。
12.胡绍嘉：《话语的意义、行动与伦理：在哈伯马斯与皮尔斯间寻索》,载黄瑞琪主编：《沟通、批判和实践：哈伯马斯八十论集》,台北：允晨文化实业股份有限公司,2010年版。
13.王晓升：《评哈贝马斯的道德普遍主义和伦理多元主义》,《中共浙江省委党校学报》,2010年第3期。
14. Jari Ilmari Niemi, "The Foundations of Jurgen Habermas's Discourse Ethics". The Journal of Value Inquiry,2008, Vol.42, pp.255-268.
15.[德]康德：《回答这个问题——什么是启蒙?》,载《康德著作全集》(第8卷),李秋零主编,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版。
16. Michel Foucault, "What is Enlightenment?", in Paul Rabinow(ed.), Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth.The Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984, volume one, trans., Robert and Others, New York:The New Press,1997, pp.303-320.
17. Ciaran Cronin, "Kant's Politics of Enlightenment'', Journal of the History of Philosophy,2003, Vol.41, No.1, pp.51-80.
18.[英]艾伦·斯温伍德：《现代性与文化》,载周宪主编：《文化现代性》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版。
19. Thomas McCarthy, "Reflection on Rationalization in The Theory of Communicative Action", in Richard J. Bernstein (ed.), Habermas and Modernity, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Ptess,1985, pp.176-191.
20.陈泽环：《论西方伦理学的道德论证》,《哲学动态》,2006年第7期。
21.万俊人：《现代社会道德合理性基础论证——兼及中国现代化运作中的道德问题》,《北京大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),1996年第2期。
22. Seonghwa Lee, "Transversal-Universals in Discourse Ethics:Towards a Reconcilable Ethics between Universalism and Communitarianism", Human Studies,2001(24), pp.45-56.
23. Paul F. Buller, John J. Kohls, Kenneth S. Anderson, "The Challenge of Global Ethics", Journal of Business 10,1991, pp.767-775.
24. Hans Kung, "Global Ethics:A Response to My Critics", International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society,2000, Vol.14, No.2, pp.420-428.
25.邓晓芒：《全球伦理的可能性：“金规则”的三种模式》,《江苏社会科学》,2002年第4期。
26. Lasse Thomassen, "The Inclusion of the Other? Habermas and the Paradox of Tolerance", Political Theory,2006, Vol.34. No.4, pp.439-462.
27.傅水军：《全球伦理与孔子的德性之思——<全球伦理宣言>再省思》,《云南大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),2012年第4期。
28. Karl-Otto Apel, "Globalization and the Need for Universal Ethics". European Journal of Social Theory 3(2),2000, pp.137-155.
29.翟振明：《为何全球伦理不是普遍伦理》,冯平译,《世界哲学》,2003年第3期。
30. G. E. M. Anscombe, "Modern Moral Philosophy", in Roger Crisp and Michael Slote(eds.), Virtue Ethics, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1997, pp.26-44.
31.[英]齐格蒙特·鲍曼：《对秩序的追求》,载周宪主编：《文化现代性》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版。
32. Albrecht Welllmer, "Practical Philosophy and the Theory of Society:On the Problem of the Normative Foundations of a Critical Social Science", in Seyla Benhabib and Fred Dallmayr(eds.), The Communicative Ethics Controversy, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, pp.293-329.
33.[英]K.R.波普尔：《没有认识主体的认识论》,邱仁宗译,《世界科学译刊》,1980年第2期。
34. Albrecht Wellmer, "Reason, Utopia, and the Dialectic of Enlightenment", in Richard J. Bernstein(ed.), Habermas and Modernity, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1994, pp.35-66.
35.徐闻：《哈贝马斯论实践理性与交往理性》,《东岳论丛》,2011年第4期。
36.傅永军：《哈贝马斯交往合理性述评》,《山东大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),2003年第3期。
37. Charles Taylor, "Language and Society", in Axel Honneth and Hans Joas(eds.), Communicative Action:Essays on Jurgen Habermas's the Theory of Communicative Action, trans., Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.23-35.
38.傅永军：《接受与拒斥——批判理论在中国大陆的命运》,载[德]阿梅龙等主编：《法兰克福学派在中国》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2011年版。
39.[加]查尔斯·泰勒：《坚定不移的激情：为什么说哈贝马斯的声誉和影响是名至实归的》,郁喆隽译,载《当代国外马克思主义评论》,2009年辑。
40. Jacent Um'Imana, Reason as a Basis for Consensus in Interaction:A Study Based on the Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas, Diss., Rome,2001.
41. Brian K. Powell, "Discourse Ethics and Moral Rationalism", Dialogue,2009(7), pp.373-386.
42.杨玉成：《奥斯汀论言和行》,《哲学研究》,2004年第1期。
43. Carlos Pereda, "Assertions, Truth, and Argumentation", in Lewis Edwin Hahn(ed.), Perspectives on Habermas, London:Open Court Publishing Company, 2000, pp.51-70.
44. George Snedeker, "Defending the Enlightenment:Jurgen Habermas and the Theory of Communicative Reason", Dialectical Anthropology,2000(25), pp.239-253.
45.文兵：《普特南论事实与价值之分离之谬》,《南京社会科学》,2009年第10期。
46. Marin Seel, "The Two Meaning of'Communicative'Rationality:Remarks on Habermas's Critique of a Plural Concept of Reason", in Axel Honneth and Hans Joas(eds.), Communicative Action:Essays on Jiirgen Habermas's The Theory of Communicative Action, trans., Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.36-48.
47. J. Donald Moon, "Practical Discourse and Communicative Ethics", in Stephen K. White(ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Habermas, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1995, pp.143-166.
48. Albert J. Bergesen, "Chomsky versus Mead", Sociological Theory,2004, Vol.22, No.3,pp.357-370.
49. George H. Mead, "Scientific Method and The Moral Sciences", The International Journal of Ethics,1923, Vol.33, No.3, pp.229-247.
50. Gregg Daniel Miller, Mimesis in Communicative Action:Habermas and the Affective Bond of Understanding, Diss., University of Washington,2005.
51. George H. Mead, "The Philosophical Basis of Ethics", International Journal of Ethics,1908, Vol.18, No.3, pp.311-323.
52. Martin Morris, "Social Justice and Communication:Mill, Marx, and Habermas", Soc Just Res 2009(22), pp.134-155.
53. Giinter Dux,"Communicative Reason and Interest:On the Reconstruction of the Normative Order in Societies Structured by Egalitarianism or Domination", in Axel Honneth and Hans Joas(eds.), Communicative Action:Essays on Jurgen Habermas's The Theory of Communicative Action, trans., Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.74-96.
54. Seyla Benhabib, "Communicative Ethics and Current Controversies in Practical Philosophy", in Seyla Benhabib and Fred Dallmayr(eds.), The Communicative Ethics Controversy, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, pp.330-370.
55. Thomas McCarthy, "Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism:Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue", Ethics,1994, Vol.105, No.1, pp.44-63.
56. Steven, "Truth and Moral Validity:On Habermas' Domesticated Pragmatism" Constellation Volume 18, No.2, Oxford:Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,2011, pp.244-259.
57. Farid Abdel-Nour, "Farewell to Justification:Habermas, Human Rights, and Universalist Morality", in Philosophy & Social Criticism,2004, Vol.30, No.1, pp.73-96.
58. Klaus Gunther, "Communicative Freedom, Communicative Power, and Jurisgenesis", in Michel Rosenfeld and Andrew Arato(eds.), Habermas on Law and Democracy, London:University of California Press,1998, pp.234-252.
59. Robert Alexy, "A Definition of Law", in W. Krawietz and N. MacCormik(eds.), Prescriptive Formality and Normative Rationality in Modern Legal System, Berlin:Duncker&Humblot,1994, pp.98-112.
60. David M. Rasmussen, "How is Valid Law Possible? A Review of Between Facts and Norms By Jurgen Habermas", in Mathieu Deflem(ed.), Habermas, Modernity and Law, London:SAGE Publications Ltd.,1996, pp.21-44.
61. Pierre Guibentif, "Approaching the Production of Law Through Habermas's Concept of Communicative Action", in Mathieu Deflem(ed.), Habermas, Modernity, and Law, London:SAGE Publications,1996, pp.45-70.
62. Robert Alexy, "Jiirgen Habermas's Theory of Legal Discourse ", in Michel Rosenfeld and Andrew Arato(eds.), Habermas on Law and Democracy, London: University of California Press,1998, pp.226-233.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goden Rule, [2013-5-6].
2. http://www.zdic.net/c/c/13c/302371.htm, [2013-7-8].
① Anthony Giddens. "Reason Without Revolution? Habermas's Theorie des kommmunikativen Handelns", in Richard J.Bernstein (cd.), Habermas and Modernity. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1985. pp.95-121. p.96.
① Habermas. Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans.. Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994.
② I labermas,Truth and Justification, trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,2003.
① John Mingers and Geoff Walsham. "Toward Ethical Information Systems:The Contribution of Discourse Ethics". MIS Quarterly,2010(4), Vol.34. pp.833-854,p.834作者在这里明确将哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学看作一种规范伦理学,他认为：“商谈伦理学可以被看作是一种规范伦理学,在这里,它提供了一种判定道德规范的程序。”当然,以规范伦理学去完全划定商谈伦理学在类型学上的归属并不能确切表达其地位,大卫·英格拉姆(David Ingram)就认为哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学既是规范伦理学也是元伦理学, “元伦理学的方面构建了当我们用‘应当’与‘正确’时我们本能地指向什么。(David Ingram. Habermas:Introduction and Analysis. Ithaca, London:Cornell University Press,2010, p.115.)我在此无异于在类型学上划分哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学之确切归属,因为这一划分本身就没有明确的界限,只是从最核心的意义上,我将从“证立”角度重建哈贝马斯的道德论证逻辑石作是一种元伦理学路径,同时我也一直坚持这一路径的认识论取向,而不是乌托邦意义上的存在论取向。
② 龚群：《道德鸟托邦的重构——河北马斯交往伦理思想研究》,北京：商务印书馆,2005年版。
③ 胡军良：《哈贝马斯对话伦理学研究》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2010年版。
① Ricardo Blaug,"Citizenship and Political Judgment:Between Discourse Ethics and Phronesis". Res Publica. 2000(6), pp.179-198.
② William Rehg, "The Critical Potential of Discourse Ethics:Reply to Meehan and Chambers". Human Studies. 2002(25). pp.407-412.
① [英]约瑟夫·拉兹：《实践理性与规范》(导言),朱学平译,北京：中国法制出版社,2011年版,第3页。
① Habermas. Truth and Justification, trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2003, p.238.
② Habermas. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.51.
① Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, trans., Jeremy J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press, 1971.
② Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction: Preliminary; Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action. trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2001.
③ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.: The MIT Press, 1996.
④ Habermas, The Future of Human Nature, trans., William Rehg, Max Pcnsky, et al. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003.
⑤ [德]哈贝马斯：《哈贝马斯在华演讲集》,中国社会科学院哲学研究所编,北京：人民出版社,2002年版,第141页。
⑥ See Luca Corchia, Jurgen Habermas a Bibliography: Works and Studies(1952-2010). Pisa: Arnus Univcrsity (接上注)Books2010在这本由Arnus大学出版的有关河北马斯的研究文献目录中列举了自1964年到2010年研究哈贝马斯的德文、英文与法文文献总共4823种,这其中很大一部分涉及到其伦理学研究。
① James Gordon Finlayson. Habermas: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
② Edgar Andre, Habermas, The Key Concepts, New York: Routledge,2006.
③ ①Thomas McCarthy, The Critical Thoery of Jurgen Habermas, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1985.②J.M. Bernstein, Recovering Ethical Life: Jurgen Habermas and the Future of Critical Theory. London, New York: Routledge,1995.③Erik Oddvar Eriksen and Jarle Weigard, Understanding Habermas: Commmunicative Action and Deliberative Democracy, New York: Continuum. 2003.
④ 这方面的著作还有①Seyla Benhabib, Critique, Norm, and Utopia: A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory, New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.②David M.Rasmussen, Reading Habermas, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1990.③David S.Owen. Between Reason and History, New Nork: State University of New York Press, 2002.④Omid A. Pavrow, Democracy, Power and Legitimacy: The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas, London: University of Toronto Press,2003.⑤Joseph Health, Communicative Action and Rational Choice, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2003⑥Uwe Steinhoff, The philosoplry of Jurgen Habermas,Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.⑦Darrow Schectcr, The Critique of Instrumental Reason from Weber to Habermas. New York: Continuum,2010.
⑤ Thomas McCarthy, The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1985, pp.278-279.
① J. M. Bernstein. Recovering Ethical Life:Jurgen Habermas and the Future of Critical Theory. London, New York: Routledge,1995,p.209.
① Erik Oddvar Eriksen and Jarle Weigard. Understanding Habermas:Communicative Action and Deliberative Democracy, New York:Continuum, p.82.
② Wellmer, "Kthics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer. The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1991,pp.113-231.
③ Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell, New York:State University of New York Press.1993.
④ William Rehg, Congent Scicence in Context:The Science Wars, Argumentation Theory, and Habermas, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2009.
① Klaus Gunther. The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell, New York:State University of New York Press,1993.,p.203.
① William Rehg. Congent Scicence in Context:The Science Wars, Argumentation Theory, and Habermas, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,2009. p.163.
② Erin Kelly,"Habermas on Moral Justification". Social Theoiy and Practice,2000. Vol.26. No.2. pp.223-249.
③ Eva Erman, "Conflict and Universal Moral Theory:From Reasonableness to Reason-Giving". Political Theory, 2007. Vol.35. No.5, pp.223-249.
④ Erin Kelly, "Habermas on Moral Justification". Social Theory and Practice,2000, Vol.26, No.2, pp.223-249, p.223.
⑤ Eva Erman, "Conflict and Universal Moral Theory:From Reasonableness to Reason-Giving". Political Theory. 2007, Vol.35. No.5. pp.598-623. p.598.
① Janna Thompson, Discourse and Knowledge:Defence of a collectivist ethics, New York:Routledge,1998.
② Logi Gunnarsson, Making Moral Sense:Beyond Habermas and Gauthier. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003.
① Janna Thompson, Discourse and Knowledge:Defence of a collectivist ethics, New York:Rout ledge,1998, p.1.
② Janna Thompson, Discourse and Knowledge:Defence of a collectivist ethics, New York:Rout ledge,1998, p.15.
③ 这方面的著作还有：①章国锋：《关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦”构想——解读哈贝马斯<交往行为理论>》,济南：山东人民出版社,2001年版。②阮新邦、林端主编：《解读<沟通行动理论>》,上海：上海人民出版社,2003年版。③童世骏：《批判与实践——论哈贝马斯的批判理论》,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2007年版。
④ 薛华：《哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学》,沈阳：辽宁教育出版社,1988年版。
① 龚群：《道德乌托邦的重构》,北京：商务印书馆,2005年版。
② 胡军良：《哈贝马斯对话伦理学研究》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2010年版。
③ 李志成：《哈伯玛斯商谈伦理学的证成与应用》,台北：台湾大学博士论文,2006年。
④ 同属这一模式的还有宫瑜：《交往理性与道德共识——哈贝马斯话语伦理学研究》,长春：吉林大学博士论文,2011年。
① 章国锋：《话语·权力·真理——社会正义与话语的伦理》,《社会科学》,2006年第2期。
② 章国锋：《话语·权力·真理——社会正义与话语的伦理》,《社会科学》,2006年第2期。
① 胡军良：《哈贝马斯对阿佩尔对话伦理思想的继承与超越》,《云南社会科学》,2010年第1期。
② 胡军良：《哈贝马斯对阿佩尔对话伦理思想的继承与超越》,《云南社会科学》,2010年第1期。
③ 胡绍嘉：《话语的意义、行动与伦理：在哈伯马斯与皮尔斯间寻索》,载黄瑞琪主编：《沟通、批判和实践：哈伯马斯八十论集》,台北：允晨文化实业股份有限公司,2010年版。
④ Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.17.
⑤ 胡绍嘉：《话语的意义、行动与伦理：在哈伯马斯与皮尔斯间寻索》,载黄瑞琪主编：《沟通、批判和实践：哈伯马斯八十论集》,台北：允晨文化实业股份有限公司,2010年版。
① 王晓升：《评哈贝马斯的道德普遍主义和伦理多元主义》,《中共浙江省委党校学报》,2010年第3期。
② Jari Ilmari Niemi, "The Foundations of Jiirgen Habermas's Discourse Ethics", The Journal of Value Inquiry,2008. Vol.42. pp.255-268. p.258.
① 李志成：《哈伯玛斯商谈伦理学的证成与应用》,台北：台湾大学博士论文,2006年,第9页。
① 张少动：《研究方法》,台中：沧海书局,2002年版,第26页。
① [德]汉斯-格奥尔格·伽达默尔：《真理与方法》(上卷),洪汉鼎译,上海：上海译文出版社,2004年版,第420-421页。
① [法]萨德：《贞洁的厄运》,张章译,北京：九州出版社,2000年版,第3页。
② [法]茨维坦·托多罗夫：《启蒙的精神》,马利红译,上海：华东师范大学出版社,2012年版,第55页。
③ [德]哈贝马斯：《现代性的哲学话语》,曹卫东译,上海：译林出版社,2004年版,第134页。
① See Milan Zafirovski,The Enlightement and Its Effects on Modern Society, New York:Springer Science+Business Media, LLC,2011, p.107.
② “证立危机(justificatory crisis)是我借用自Logi Gunnarsson的概念,它指的是现代道德所遭遇到的证明困境。(See Logi Gunnarsson. Making Moral Sense:Beyond Habermas and Gauthier,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003.p.31.)同时,按照哈贝马斯的理解,危机概念亦有着特殊含义,它不仅仅是一个可观察到的客观过程,而必须从参与者视角予以界定,只有危机中的主体意识到自己在危机中,并努力克服危机才是真正的危机概念。这一过程首先是一个解放的过程,“我们把一个过程说成是危机,这就心照不宣地赋予其一种规范意义,即危机的解除代表处于危机中的主体的解放。(Habermas,Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy, London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980, p.1)从这一意义限定出发,我这样理解以上两种危机概念：“证立危机”指的是启蒙之后的众多道德理论在论证人类道德时所陷入的不可调和的矛盾,诸如元伦理学的道德情感主义把道德看作感情的表达与抒发,以及社群主义这将其看作特定社会中美德的培育等等。它们有一个共同之处,都继承了启蒙精神,但却得出了不可通约的结论；而我用“现实危机”指的是现实生活中种种道德缺位的情况,现代社会在物质进步与有效管理上无疑取得了长足进步,但是我们却随处可见人与人之间的冷漠与无情。这些表现同样有一个共同之处,即都将动物的自私基因发展到了极致,而悬置道德规范的规约作用,并最终放弃了参与者的规范主义视角。
① [德]康德：《问答这个问题——什么是启蒙?》,载《康德著作全集》(第8卷),李秋零主编,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版,第40页。
② [德]康德：《判断力批判》,邓明芒译,北京：人民出版社,2002年版,第136页。康德在该书的同一页为启蒙概念加了一段注释,按照他的说法,“启蒙虽然在论题上很容易,在假设上却是一件必须艰难而缓慢地施行的事业：因为以自己的理性不是被动地、而是永远自己为自己立法,这对于那只想适合于自己的根本目的而不要求知道那超出自己知性之上的东西的人来说,虽然是极为容易的事；但由于努力去追求后者几乎是不可防止的,而这种事在其他那些用许多希望来许诺能满足这种求知欲的人那里是永远也不缺少的,所以要在思维方式中(尤其在公众的思维方式中)保持和确立这种单纯否定的东西(它构成真正的启蒙)是很难的。”([德]康德：《判断力批判》,邓晓芒译,北京：人民出版社,2002年版,第136页。)从康德的这段解释中可以看出,康德虽然在不同的文本中从不太相同的角度切入对启蒙的理解,但是就其核心而言,启蒙意味着一种破旧扬新的双重而向,启蒙一方而将人从蒙昧与迷信状态中解放出来,另一方面则用理性力量开启人类自我立法的全新道路。
① Michel Foucault. "What is Enlightenment?", in Paul Rabinow(ed.), Ethics:Subjectivity and Truth:The Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984,volume one, trans.. Robert and Others. New York:The New Press,1997. pp.303-320. pp.303-304.
② [德]康德：《问答这个问题——什么是启蒙?》,载《康德著作全集》(第8卷),李秋零主编,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版,第40页。
③ Michel Foucault,"What is Enlightenment? ", in Paul Rabinow(ed.). Ethics:Subjectivity and Truth:The Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984, volume one, trans., Robert and Others, New York:The New Press,1997, pp.303-320. p.306.
④ [德]康德：《问答这个问题——什么是启蒙?》,载《康德著作全集》(第8卷),李秋零主编,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版,第41页。
① [德]康德：《问答这个问题——什么是启蒙?》,载《康德著作全集》(第8卷),李秋零主编,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版,第45页。
② [德]马克斯·韦伯：《学术与政治》,钱永祥译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2010年版,第189页。
③ Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998,p.7.
① [德]哈贝马斯：《现代性的哲学话语》,曹卫东译,上海：译林出版社,2004年版,第96页。
② Charles Taylor,Modern Social Imaginaries,Durham:Duke University Press,2004, p64.
① [德]康德：《回答这个问题——什么是启蒙?》,载《康德著作全集》(第8卷),李秋零主编,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版,第42页。
② Michel Foucault. "What is Enlightenment? ". in Paul Rabinow(ed.), Ethics:Subjectivity and Truth:The Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954-1084. volume one, trans., Robert and Others, New York:The New Press,1997. pp.303-320, p.307.
③ Ciaran Cronin,"Kant's Politics of Enlightenment", Journal of the History of Philosophy,2003. Vol.41. No.1. pp.51-80. p.59.
① [德]马克斯·霍克海默、西奥多·阿道尔诺：《启蒙辩证法》,渠敬东、曹卫东译,上海：上海人民出版社,2006年版,第1页。
② [德]哈贝马斯：《现代性的哲学话语》,曹卫东译,上海：译林出版社,2004年版,第123页。
⑧ [德]马克斯·霍克海默、西奥多·阿道尔诺：《启蒙辩证法》,渠敬东、曹卫东译,上海：上海人民出版社,2006年版,第8页。
① [英]艾伦·斯温伍德：《现代性与文化》,载周宪主编：《文化现代性》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版,第64-65页。
② 黄瑞棋：《现代与后现代》,台北：巨流图书公司,2000年版,第46页。
③ [德]哈贝马斯：《现代性的哲学话语》,曹卫东译,上海：译林出版社,2004年版,第127页。
④ [德]哈贝马斯：《现代性的哲学话语》,曹卫东译,上海：译林出版社,2004年版,第127页。
⑤ [德]哈贝马斯：《现代性的哲学话语》,曹卫东译,上海：译林出版社,2004年版,第127页。
⑥ [德]T.W.阿多诺：《道德哲学的问题》,谢地坤、王彤译,北京：人民出版社,2007年版,第164页。
① [加]查尔斯·泰勒：《本真性的伦理》,程炼译,上海：上海三联书店,2012年版,第6页。
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds.. Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.5.
③ Hillary Putnam. Ethics without Ontology, Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press,2004, p.109.
① Martin Morris. Rethinking the Communicative Turn:Adorno, Habermas and the Problem of Communicative Freedom. NewYork:State University of New York,2001, p.55.
② Habermas,"Taking Aim at the Heart of the Present:On Foucault's Lecture on Kant's What is Englightenment?". in Habermas. The New Conservatism:Cultural Criticism and the Historian's Debate, ed. and trans., Shierry Weber Nicholsen,Cambridge,Mass.:The MIT Press,1989, pp.173-185,p.176.
① See Katerina Deligiorgi. Kant and the Culture of Enlightenment. New York:State University of New York Press. 2005. p.4.
② Thomas McCarthy. "Reflection on Rationalization in The Theory of Communicative Action", in Richard J. Bernstein (ed.),Habermas and Modernity. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Ptess,1985. pp.176-191,p.176.
① [德]哈贝马斯：《现代性的地平线——哈贝马斯访谈录》,李安东、段怀清译,上海：上海人民出版社,1997年版,第137页。
① Alfred Jules Ayer,Language, Truth and Logic, New York:Dover Publications. Inc,1952, pp.103-105.
② [澳大利亚]约翰·L·麦凯：《伦理学——发明对与错》,丁三东泽,上海：上海译文出版社,2006年,第15-16页。
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.187.
① Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, cds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. pp.8-9.
② 英文版将这一术语翻译为"metaphysical justification按照字而意思当译为“形而上学证立”,但是哈贝马斯所用德语词汇是"ontotheologish Bcgrundung"。因而,从哈贝马斯运用该词的语境来说,这里翻译成“神学本体论的证立”应该更为符合哈贝马斯所要说明的问题。当然,形而上学论证的意义更为宽泛,它本身就包括了神学本体论论证方式,但在哲学与神学相对而言的意义上则突出其哲学意涵。
① Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.9.
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.9.
③ Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.7.
④ Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.79.
① Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998,p.10.
② [古希腊]柏拉图：《柏拉图全集》(第一卷),王晓朝译,北京：人民出版社,2002年版,第81页。
① [德]哈贝马斯：《作为“意识形态”的技术与科学》,李黎、郭官义译,上海：学林出版社,1999年版,第119页。
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.10.
③ Wellmer."Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer. The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans.. David Midgley. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.113-231,p.113.
① [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》,苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第8页。
② [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》,苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第16页。
③ [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》,苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第39页。
① [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》,苗力田泽,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第48页。
② 这里所说的“认知的有效性”,意味着康德的道德法则可以得到理性的辩护,为有理性者普遍接受。当然这种认知的有效性在道德法则与道德行动之间建立的必然性联系,不是一种自然的因果性关系,而是一种自由的因果性联系,是一种理性的事实。
③ John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, ed., Colin Heydt, Toronto:Broadview Press,2010, p.37.
④ John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, ed., Colin Heydt, Toronto:Broadview Press,2010, p.43.
⑤ John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, ed., Colin Heydt, Toronto:Broadview Press,2010, p.47.
① John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, ed., Colin Heydt, Toronto:Broadview Press,2010, p.43-44.
② [英]亨利·西季威克：《伦理学史纲》,熊敏译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2008年版,第206页。
③ John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, ed., Colin Heydt, Toronto:Broadview Press,2010, p.38.
① Habermas⑧ The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, pp.11-12.
② [英]摩尔：《伦理学原理》,长河译,上海：上海人民出版社,2005年版,第3页。
③ [英]摩尔：《伦理学原理》,长河译,上海：上海人民出版社,2005年版,第6页。
④ [英]摩尔：《伦理学原理》,长河译,上海：上海人民出版社,2005年版,第11页。
① [美]A.麦金太尔：《追寻美德》,宋继杰译,上海：译林出版社,2008年版,筇16-17页。
① Hillary Putnam, Ethics without Ontology, Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press,2004, p.17.
② Hillary Putnam, Ethics without Ontology, Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press,2004,pp.24-25需要注意的是,普特南从传统本体论角度来理解这些不同的证立策略,所以其对康德的伦理学普特南给予了双重评价：一方面肯定其以“绝对命令”的普遍性以及对人个体自由的尊重为基础的道德内涵；另一方面他认为康德并未摆脱形而上学的论证方式,康德关于理性能力之先于形而上学的论断仍然充斥着形而上学,因而在这曾意义上康德的证立模式仍然都有其所说的膨胀性质。后一点评价与哈贝马斯对康德的评价某种程度上是相同的,哈贝马斯也认为康德并未走出传统意识哲学的形而上学范式。
③ [美]A.麦金太尔：《追寻美德》,宋继杰译,上海：译林出版社,2008年版,第6页。
① Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greitf, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.11.
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greitf, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.23.
① 陈泽环：《论西方伦理学的道德论证》,《哲学动态》,2006年第7期。
② Andrew Bowie,Introduction to German Philosopliy:From Kant to Habermas, Cambridge:Polity Press,2003. p.258.
③ Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion:Philosophical Essays, trans.. Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge:Polity Press,2008, p.87.
④ Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds.. Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.79.
① [德]哈贝马斯：《后民族结构》,曹卫东译,上海：上海人民出版社,2002年版,第251页。
② [美]A.麦金太尔：《追寻美德》,宋继杰译,上海：译林出版社,2008年版,第2页。
③ [美]A.麦金太尔：《追寻美德》,宋继杰译,上海：译林出版社,2008年版,第2页。
① [美]A.麦金太尔：《追寻美德》,宋继杰译,上海：译林出版社,2008年版,第5页。
② [美]A.麦金太尔：《追寻美德》,宋继杰译,上海：译林出版社,2008年版,第26页。
③ Stephen Carden, Vitue Ethics:Dewey and MacIntyre, New York:Continuum,2006, p.8.
④ Charles Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries, Durham:Duke University Press,2004, p.64.
① Charles Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries, Durham:Duke University Press,2004, p.11.
② Charles Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries, Durham:Duke University Press,2004, p.12.
③ Charles Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries, Durham:Duke University Press,2004, p.12.
① [加]查尔斯·泰勒：《本真性的伦理》,程炼译,上海：上海三联书店,2012年版,第13页。
② Stephen Carden, Vitue Ethics:Dewev and Maclntyre, New York:Continuum,2006, p.123.
③ John M. Rist, Real Ethics:Rethinking the Foundations of Morality, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2002, p.24.
① 万俊人：《现代社会道德合理性基础论证——兼及中国现代化运作中的道德问题》,《北京大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),1996年第2期。
② Habermas. "Modernily:An Unfinished Project", in Maurizio Passerin d'Entreves and Seyla Benhabib(eds.). Hahermas and Tje Unfinished Project of Modernily,Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1997, pp.39-55.
③ Seonghwa Lee. "Transversal-Universals in Discourse Ethics:Towards a Reconcilable Ethics between Universalism and Communitarianism", Human Studies,2001(24). pp.45-56. p.48.
① [瑞士]汉斯·昆、库舍尔编：《全球伦理——世界宗教议会宣言》,何光沪译,成都：四川人民出版社,1997年版,第12页。
② [瑞士]汉斯·昆：《世界伦理构想》,周艺译,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店2002年版,第36页。
① See Paul F. Buller, John J. Kohls, Kenneth S. Anderson, "The Challenge of Global Ethics",Journal of Business 10,1991. pp.767-775. p.775.
② [瑞士]汉斯·昆：《世界伦理构想》,周艺译,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店2002年版,第76页。
③ Hans Kung, "Global Ethics:A Response to My Critics". International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 2000. Vol.14, No.2, pp.420-428, p.422.
① [瑞士]汉斯·昆：《世界伦理构想》,周艺译,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店2002年版,第7页。
② [瑞士]汉斯·昆：《世界伦理构想》,周艺译,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店2002年版,第76页。
③ http://cn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goden Rule. [2013-5-6].
① 邓晓芒：《全球伦理的可能性：“金规则”的三种模式》,《江苏社会科学》,2002年第4期。
② [德]T.W.阿多诺：《道德哲学的问题》,谢地坤、王彤译,北京：人民出版社,2007年版,第11-12页。
① Lasse Thomassen, "The Inclusion of the Other? Habermas and the Paradox of Tolerance". Political Theory. 2006. Vol.34. No.4. pp.439-462, p.442.
① Hans Kung. Global Ethics:"A Response to My Critics", International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 2000, Vol.14, No.2, pp.420-428, p,423.
② Hans Kung. Global Ethics:"A Response to My Critics", International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 2000, Vol.14, No.2, pp.420-428, p.423.
③ Hans Kung. Global Responsibility:In Search of a New World Ethics, Michigan:Crossroad Publishing Company, 1996, p.37.
④ 傅水军：《全球伦理与孔子的德性之思——<全球伦理宣言>再省思》,《云南大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),2012年第4期。
① Karl-Otto Apel,"Globalization and the Need for Universal Ethics", European Journal of Social Theory 3(2).2000. pp.137-155, p.141.
② 参见翟振明：《为何全球伦理不是普遍伦理》,冯平译,《世界哲学》,2003年第3期。
① [美]A.麦金太尔：《追寻美德》,宋继杰译,上海：译林出版社,2008年版,第58页。
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.162.
① [英]理查德·卖尔文·黑尔：《道德语言》,万俊人译,北京：商务印书馆,2005年版,第5页。
① Karl-Otto Apel, Towards a Transformation of Philosophy, trans.. Glyn Adey and David Fisby, Milwaukee: Marquette University Press,1998, p.226.
② G. E. M. Anscombe. "Modern Moral Philosophy", in Roger Crisp and Michael Slote(eds.), Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1997, pp.26-44, p.42.
① [德]哈贝马斯：《现代性的哲学话语》,曹卫东译,上海：译林出版社,2004年版,第7贝。
② [英]齐格蒙特·鲍曼：《对秩序的追求》,载周宪主编：《文化现代性》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版,第97页。
① Habermas, "Modernity:An Unfinished Project", in Maurizio Passerin d'Entreves and Seyla Benhabib(eds.). Habermas and The Unfinished Project of Modernity, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press.1997, pp.39-55. p.39.
② [英]安东尼·吉登斯：《现代性的后果》,田禾译,上海：译林出版社,2011年版,第18页。
③ [德]哈贝马斯：《现代性的哲学话语》,曹卫东译,上海：译林出版社,2004年版,第8页。
④ [法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔：《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年版,第87页。
① Habermas, "Modernity. An Unfinished Project", in Maurizio Passerin d'Entreves and Seyla Benhabib(eds.), Habermas and The Unfinished Project of Modernity, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1997, pp.39-55. p.45.
② Giovanna Borradori, Philosophy in a Time of Terror:Dialogues With Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida, Chicago, London:The University of Chicago Press,2003. p.14.
⑤ [德] 马克斯·霍克海默、西奥多·阿道尔诺：《启蒙辩证法》,渠敬东、曹卫东译,上海：上海人民出版社,2006年版,第72页。
① [英]安东尼·吉登斯：《现代性的后果》,田禾译,上海：译林出版社,2011年版,第4页。
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds.. Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.42.
① Maeve Cooke. Language and Reason:A Study of Habermas's Pragmatics, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press, 1997,p.38.
② [德]哈贝马斯：《后形而上学思想》,曹卫东、付德根译,上海：译林出版社,2001年版,第27页。
① Gillespie, Michael Allen. Theological Origins of Modernity. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2008, p.261.
② Karl-Otto Apel, Towards a Transformation of Philosophy, trans.. Glyn Adey and David Fisby. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press,1998. p.226.
③ Karl-Otto Apel, Towards a Transformation of Philosopliy, trans.. Glyn Adey and David Fisby, Milwaukee: Marquette University Press,1998. p.228.
④ Karl-Otto Apel, Towards a Transformation of Philosophy, trans., Glyn Adey and David Fisby, Milwaukee: Marquette University Press,1998, p.228.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.56.
① Habermas, "Questions and Counterquestions". in Richard J.Bernstein (ed.). Habermas and Modernity. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1985, pp.192-216, p.193.
② Habermas, Truth and Justification, trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2003, p.239.
① Erin Kelly,“Habermas on Moral Justification", Social Theory and Practice,2000. Vol.26, No.2. pp.223-249, p.223.
② Habermas. Truth and Justification, trans.. Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2003. p.237.
① 陈泽环：《论西方伦理学的道德论证》,《哲学动态》,2006年第7期,第54页。
② Erin Kelly. "Habermas and Moral Justification", Society and Practice,2000. Vol.26. No.2, pp.223-249. p.223.
③ Albrecht Welllmer, "Practical Philosophy and the Theory of Society: On the Problem of the Normative Foundations of a Critical Social Science", in Seyla Benhabib and Fred Dallmayr(eds.). The Communicative Ethics Controversy, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. pp.293-329, p.293.
① [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法、理性、商谈——法哲学研究》,朱光、雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,2011年版,第6页。
② [德]米夏埃尔·哈勒：《作为未来的过去——与著名哲学家哈贝马斯对话》,章国峰译,杭州：浙江人民出版社,2001年版,第112-113页。
① [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法、理性、商谈——法哲学研究》,朱光、雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,2011年版,第7页。
① Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds.. Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.4.
① Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.3.
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory:, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.3.
③ Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. pp.7-8.
④ Andrew Edgar, Hahermas:The Key Concepts. New York:Routledge,2006, p.45.
⑤ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.9.
① Erin Kelly, "Habermas and Moral Justification". Social and Practice,2000, Vol.26, No.2, pp.223-249, pp.223-24.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.163.
① [德]哈贝马斯：《后形而上学思想》,曹卫东、付德根译,上海：译林出版社,2001年版,第27页。
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.,:The MIT Press,1995, p.129.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.,:The MIT Press,1995, p.130.
④ [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法、理性、商谈--法哲学研究》,朱光、雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,2011年版,第7页。
① Habermas. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.120.
① Habermas, Truth and Justification, trans., Barbara Fultner. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,2003. p.1.
① 高宣扬教授把商谈伦理学看作哈贝马斯交往理论的伦理学基础,他认为,“交往行为的伦理学原则同时也应看作是交往行为理论的内在构成部分,是交往行为理论中同语言行为理论相平行的又一个构成环节”。(高宣扬：《哈伯玛斯论》,台北：远流出版公司,1991年版,第399—400页。)高宣扬教授这里有不严谨之处,商谈伦理学构成交往理论基础并没有什么需要商讨的地方,但是将其看作与其语言学理论平行的理论则有待商榷,因为包括商谈伦理在内的所有理论都是建基于其语言学思想之上。
① Sce Ingram David, Hahermas:Introduction and Analysis. New York:Cornell University Press,2010, p.67.
② 童世骏：《批判与实践——论哈贝马斯的批判理论》,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2007年版,第53-59页。
① 该部分的词源学意义对网上资料偶有借鉴,详见http://www.zdic.net/c/c/13c/302371.him,[2013-7-8].
① 欧少亭主编：《新编现代汉语词典》,延吉：延边人民出版社,2002年版,第1003页
② 欧少亭主编：《新编现代汉语词典》,延吉：延边人民出版社,2002年版,第1004页
③ Habermas. On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action. trans., Barbara Fultner. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,2001, p.4.
① Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.275.
② Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.275.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.10.
② Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action, trans.. Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2001, p.4.
① Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action. trans., Barbara Fultner. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2001. p.72.
② Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action. trans., Barbara Fultner. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2001. p.72.
③ Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action. trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2001. p.4.
④ Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action. trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,2001. p.4.
① Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action. trans., Barbara Fultner. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,2001. p.5.
② Habermas,On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action. trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,2001. p.5.
③ Habermas,The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.97.
④ Habermas, On the Logic of the Social Sciences, trans.. Shierry Weber Nicholsen and Jerry A. Stark. Cambridge: Polity Press,1988. p.53.
① Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans,, Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.97.
② [德]马克斯·韦伯《社会学的基本概念》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2010年版,第21页。
① [德]马克斯·韦伯：《社会学的基本概念》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2010年版,第20页。
② 韦伯认为,诠释方式来研究意义要达到一种理解的确证,它有两种特质：一种是理性的,如逻辑学和数学,这种类型的确证必须是知性可以清楚把握的,对此他举了一个2x2=4的例子,在他看来,这个命题可以为知性直接而清楚地对其意义进行理解；另一种是拟情式的再体验,我们完全可以理解一个人的愤怒与悲伤,因为可以以自己在同样情感下的表现来确证对方所经历的情感关联。但是,有一种情况在韦伯看来是无法达到他所要求的确证,那就是对终极目标与价值的理解。
③ [德]马克思·韦伯：《社会学的基本概念》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2010年版,第20页。
④ Habermas. On the Logic of the Social Sciences, trans., Shierry Weber Nicholsen and Jerry A. Stark. Cambridge: Polity Press,1988, pp.53-54.
⑤ Habermas. On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action, trans., Barbara Fultner. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2001. pp.3-4.
① 阮新邦、林端主编：《解读<沟通行动论>》,上海：上海人民出版社,203年版,第82页。
② [美]塔尔科特·帕森斯：《社会行动的结构》,张明德等译,上海：译林出版社,2012年版,第49-50页。
③ [美]塔尔科特·帕森斯：《社会行动的结构》,张明德等译,上海：译林出版社,2012年版,第52页
④ [美]塔尔科特·帕森斯：《社会行动的结构》,张明德等译,上海：译林出版社,2012年版,第50页
① Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action. trans.. Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2001,p.5.
② 高宣扬：《哈伯玛斯论》,台北：远流出版公司,1991年版,第172页。
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy, Boston:Beason Press,1987, p.205.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans.. Thomas MaCarthy. Boston:Beason Press.1987. pp.206-207.
③ Edgar Andre, Habermas:The Key Concepts, London. New York:Routlcdge,2006, p.3.
④ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.12.
① [英]K.R.波普尔：《没有认识主体的认识论》,邱仁宗译,《世界科学译刊》,1980年第2期。
② [英]K.R.波普尔：《没有认识主体的认识论》,邱仁宗译,《世界科学译刊》,1980年第2期。
③ [英]K.R.波普尔：《没有认识主体的认识论》,邱仁宗译,《世界科学译刊》,1980年第2期。
① Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one: Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.， Thomas McCarthy, Boston: Beacon Press. 1984, p.76.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one: Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press. 1984. p.82.更详尽的论证体现在哈贝马斯2005年用德语发表，并于2008年被译成英文的著作《在自然主义与宗教之间》中,其中,哈贝马斯对之进行了更为明确的说明,他明确把自己从语言学角度证成的世界概念认定为是将康德的先验世界概念进行去先验化处理的结果,这样一来商谈伦理学所指涉的世界观念就“不是康德意义上的范导性(regulative)观念,而是对所有人在指涉事实时都是建构性的(constructive)。" (Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion: Philosophical Essays. trans.,. Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008, p.31.)
③ [德]马克斯·韦伯：《社会学的基本概念》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2010年版,第51页。
① 傅永军：《法兰克福学派的现代性理论》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2007年版,第47页。
② [德]马克斯·韦伯：《社会学的基本概念》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2010年版,第53页。
③ [德]马克斯·韦伯：《社会学的基本概念》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2010年版,第53-54页。
④ [德]马克斯·韦伯：《社会学的基本概念》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2010年版,第51页。
① 傅永军：《法兰克福学派的现代性理论》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2007年版,第48-49页。
② J. M. Bernstein. Recovering Ethical Life:Jurgen llabermas and The Future of Critical Theory. London. New York:Routlcdge,1995. p.97.
③ Habcrmas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press.1984, p.281.
④ Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.. Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984. pp.85-95.
① Habermas. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.h Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.58.
② Habermas, On the Logic of the Social Sciences, trans., Shierry Weber Nicholsen and Jerry A. Stark. Cambridge: Polity Press,1988. p.54.
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.86.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one: Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.90.
③ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.91.
④ Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion:Philosophical Essays, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge:Polity Press,2008, p.47.
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.. Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.91.
② Joseph Heath, Communicative Action and Rational Choice. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2003, p.13.
③ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.94.
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.95.
② Omid A. Payrow Shabani, Democracy, Power, and Legitimacy:The Critical Theory of Jiirgen Habermas, Toronto: University of Toronto Press,2003, p.38.
③ Joseph Heath, Communicative Action and Rational Choice, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2003. p.39.
④ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.. William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.17.
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.249.
② Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.250.
③ 哈贝马斯曾将对“合理性”问题的论证划分为三个层次：元伦理层面、方法论层面与经验层面。这三个层面分别指向行动中的合理性内涵、语言为代表的符号代表的意义与有效性的内在关联和社会现代化如何能够从文化合理化和社会合理化层面予以描述。沿用哈贝马斯的思路,我将日常生活中的道德实践(作为一种交往行动)也划分为这三个层面,道德的元伦理层面来源于交往行动的合理性,而其方法论则源于在诠释学意义上对意义与有效性要求的解释,相应地,其经验层面则关联于其在现代化进程中对启蒙概念的维护而导向一个有合理道德基础的理性社会。关于哈贝马斯对这三个层面的论述详见Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.6.
④ Habcrmas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.87.
① Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.. Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.1.
② 参见傅永军：《法兰克福学派的现代性理论》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2007年版,第43页。
③ John Ayto. Word Origins. London:A&C Black Publishers Ltd,2005. pp.413-414.
④ [美]约翰·罗尔斯：《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2011年版,第102页。
⑤ [美]约翰·罗尔斯：《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2011年版,第102-103页。
⑥ 参见傅永军：《法兰克福学派的现代性理论》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2007年版,第43页。
① 哈贝马斯在其后来回应赫伯特·施耐德巴赫(Herbert Schnadellbach)对于其合理性概念的质疑时,曾明确将言说合理性的几个向度予以分类:论证合理性discursive rationality);认识合理(epistemic rationality);目的论合理性(teleological rationality)交往合理性(communicative rationality)更为详细的论论参见Habermas, "Some Futher Clariflcation of the Communicative Rationality", in Maeve Cooke(ed.). On the Pragmatic of Communication. Cambridge:Polity Press,1999, pp.310-317.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.1.
③ Habermas. "An Awareness of What is Missing", in Jurgen Habermas et al. An Awareness of What is Missing: Faith and Reason in a Post-Secular Age. trans.. Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge:Polity Press,2010. pp.15-23. p.16.
① Habermas, "Some Futher Clarification of the Communicative Rationality", in Maeve Cooke(ed.). On the Pragmatic of Communication. Cambridge:Polity Press.1999. pp.310-317, p.311.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.2.
③ John F. Sitton, Habermas and Contemporary Society, New York:PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.2003. p.41.
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.7.
② [德]韦伯：《新教伦理与资本主义精神》,康乐、简惠美译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2010年版,第11页。
③ [德]韦伯：《新教伦理与资本主义精神》,康乐、简惠美译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2010年版,第31页,
④ [德]施路赫特：《理性化与官僚化：对韦伯之研究与诠释》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2004年版,第49页。
⑤ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.16.
① Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.. Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.16.
② Erik Oddvar and Jarle Weigard. Understanding Habermas:Communicative Action and Deliberative Democracy. New York:Continuum, p.17.
③ Ingram David, Habermas:Introduction and Analysis. New York:Cornell University Press,2010, p.85.
① Habermas. "Some Futher Clarification of the Communicative Rationality", in Maevc Cooke(ed), On the Pragmatic of Communication, Cambridge:Polity Press,1999, p.315.
② Albrecht Wellmer,"Reason, Utopia, and the Dialectic of Enlightenment", in Richard J. Bernstein(ed.), Hahermas and Modernity, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1994, pp.35-66, p.52.
③ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.8.
④ Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.10.
⑤ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.28.
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.10.
② Darrow Schecter, The Critique of Instrumental Reason from Weber to Habermas, New York:Continuum,2010. p.187.
③ David Ingram. Habermas and the Dialetic of Reason, New Haven, London:Yale University Press,1987. p.ⅹⅱ.
④ 徐闻：《哈贝马斯论实践理性与交往理性》,《东岳论丛》,2011年第4期,第67页。
⑤ [德]哈贝马斯：《对话伦理学与真理的问题》,沈清楷译,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005年版,第61页。
① Albrecht Wellmer. "Reason. Utopia, and the Dialeetie of Enlightenment", in Richard J. Bernstein(ed.), Hahermas and Modernity. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1994:pp.35-66. p.53.
② Marie Fleming, Emancipation and Illusion:Rationality and Gender in Hakermas's Theory of Modernity. Pennsylvania:The Pennsylvania State University Press,1997, pp.68-69.
③ 参见傅永军：《哈贝马斯交往合理性述评》,《山东大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),2003年第3期。
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason.trans.. Thomas MaCarthy, Boston:Beason Press,1987, p.119.
② Habermas. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.. William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, pp.21-22.
③ Habermas. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.135.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.136.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, pp.134-35.
③ 值得注意的是,在哈贝马斯那里,社会整合概念之外还有一个与之相似却完全不同的概念——社会性整合(societal integration)。社会整合单指以生活世界为资源进行的整合,而社会性整合却包含了社会包含了社会整合与系统整合。换言之,整个社会的良序发展被哈贝马斯看作是一个社会性整合过程,这一过程则由社会整合与系统整合共同完成。在山阿克塞尔·霍奈特(Axel Honneth)与汉斯·乔阿斯(Hans Joas)主编的《交往行动：哈贝马斯交往行动理论论集》一书中哈贝马斯在回答麦卡锡的批评时对这一概念进行了澄清： “我首先将社会整合与系统整合(social and system integration)看作社会性整合(societal integration)的两个方而,这两个概念在分析的意义上是不同的。”详见Jiirgen Habermas. "A Reply", in Axel Honneth and Hans Joas(eds.). Communicative Action:Essays on Hahermas's The Theory of Communicative Action, trans., Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991. pp.214-264. p.252.
① Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy, London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980, p.4.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy, Boston:Beason Press,1987, pp.119-120.
③ 汪行福：《走出的困境——哈贝马斯对现代性的反思》,上海：上海科学院出版社,2000年版,第247页。
④ Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy, London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980, p.5.
⑤ Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy, London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980, p.3.
① Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans.. Thomas McCarthy, London:Heiiiemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980. p.4.
② Jurgen Habermas. "A Reply", in Axel Honneth and Hans Joas(eds.), Communicative Action:Essays on Habermas's The Theory of Communicative Action, trans., Jeremy Gaincs and Doris L. Jones, Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1991. pp.214-264, p.252.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.188.
④ [德]哈贝马斯：《后形而上学思想》,曹卫东、付德根译,上海：译林出版社,2001年版,第79页。
⑤ See Hugh Baxter, Hahermas:The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Stanbford. California:Stanford University Press,2011, pp.151-152.
① See James Swindal, Reflection Revisited:Jurgen Ilabermas's Discursive Theory of Truth, New York:Fordham University Press,1999, p.173温戴尔的看法是有依据的,哈贝马斯在《在事实与规范》一书中从两个方面分析了生活世界概念,在他看来胡塞尔意义上的生活世界概念指的就是作为背景知识的生活世界,而一旦我们从社会建制化角度来理解生活世界,“它就不再能从参与者的形式语用学角度被描述为背景知识,而是从社会学观察者角度被客观化。(Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.23.)
② [德]哈贝马斯：《后形而上学思想》,曹卫东、付德根译,上海：译林出版社,2001年版,第79页。
③ Habermas. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.22.
④ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.138.
① [德]哈贝马斯：《后形而上学思想》,曹卫东、付德根译,上海：译林出版社,2001年版,第79页。
② [德]哈贝马斯：《后形而上学思想》,曹卫东、付德根译,上海：译林出版社,2001年版,第79页。
③ [德]哈贝马斯：《后形而上学思想》,曹卫东、付德根译,上海：译林出版社,2001年版,第80页。
④ 所谓“主题化”简单来说就是可以成为讨论中心的那些因素。譬如在一群同时具有物理知识又拥有丰富的数学知识和哲学知识的交往者间进行一场有关“哲学对人类生存意义”的讨论,那么在这里被主题化的只有哲学知识。主题是与行动者的兴趣与目的先关联的, “一个主题产生于行动者的兴趣与目的的关联中,它规定了相关要素的范围并且能够成为其中的话题焦点(Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995,p.135.)
⑤ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.138.
① John Sitton, Hahermas and Contemporary Society, New York:PALGRAVE MACMILLAN,2003, p.62.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy, Boston:Beason Press,1987, p.116.
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy. Boston:Beason Press,1987. p.138.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy. Boston:Beason Press,1987. p.137.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.136.
④ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.135.
⑤ Habermas. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.26.
① John F. Sitton. Habermas and Contemporary Society, New York:PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.2003, p.77.
② Habermas. Knowledge and Human Interests. trans., Jeremy J. Shapiro, Boston:Beacon Press, p.38.
③ Michael Pusey. Jurgen Hahermas, London. New York:Tavistoek Publications,1987, p.106.
④ Charles Taylor, "Language and Society", in Axel Honneth and Hans Joas(eds.), Communicative Action:Essays on Jurgen Habermas's the Theory of Communicative Action, trans.. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1991. pp.23-35. p.23.
① Habermas, Truth and Justification, trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,2003, p.36.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans, Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.96.
① 傅永军：《接受与拒斥——批判理论在中国大陆的命运》,载[德]阿梅龙等主编：《法兰克福学派在中国》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2011年版,第37页。
② [加]查尔斯·泰勒：《坚定不移的激情：为什么说哈贝乌斯的声誉和影响是名至实归的》,郁喆隽译,载《当代国外马克思主义评论》,2009年辑,第4页。
③ 参见洪镰德：《西方马克思主义》,台北：扬智文化事业股份有限公司,2004年版,第228-229页。
① Ian Craib. Modern Social Theory:From Parsons to Habermas, Brighton:Wheatsheaf Ltd..1994, p.128.
② Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, trans., Jeremy J. Shapiro, Boston:Beacon Press,1971, p.134.
③ Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, trans., Jeremy J. Shapiro, Boston:Beacon Press,1971,pp.134-135.
④ Jacent Um Imana. Reason as a Basis for Consensus in Interaction:A Study Based on the Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas, Diss., Rome,2001, p.156.
① Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press.1979, p.1.
② Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, trans., Jeremy J. Shapiro, Boston:Beacon Press,1971, p.314.
③ Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion:Philosophical Essays, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge:Polity Press,2008, p.13.
④ Emilia Steuerman, The Bounds of Reason:Habermas, Lyotard and Melanie Klein on Rationality, New York: Routledge,2000, p.22.
① Martin in Morris, Rethinking the Communicative Turn:Adorno, Habermas and the Problem of Communicative Freedom. NewYork:State University of New York Press,2001. p.96.
② [德]伽达默尔：《真理与方法》(下卷),洪汉鼎译,上海：上海译文出版社2004年版,第615页。
② Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, trans., Jeremy J. Shapiro. Boston:Beacon Press,1971, p.314.
④ [德]伽达默尔：《真理与方法》(下卷),洪汉鼎译,上海：上海译文出版社2004年版,第345页。
① [德]伽达默尔：《真理与方法》(下卷),洪汉鼎译,上海：上海译文出版社2004年版,第465页。
② [德]伽达默尔：《真理与方法》(下卷),洪汉鼎译,上海：上海译文出版社2004年版,第387页
③ [德]哈贝马斯：《评伽达默尔的<真理与方法>一书》,郭官义译,《世界哲学》,1986年第3期。
① Habermas. Theory and Practice, trans.. John Viertel. Boston:Beacon Press,1974, p.22.
② [德]哈贝马斯：《解释学要求普遍适用》,高地、鲁旭东、孟庆时译,《世界哲学》,1986年第3期,第20贝。
① Alan How, The Habermas-Gadamer Debate and the Nature of the Social. Aldershot:Avcbury Ashgate Publishing Ltd.,1995,p.48.
② [奥]维特根斯坦：《蓝皮鼠与褐皮书》,涂纪亮泽,北京：北京大学出版社,2012年版,第7页
③ [奥]维特根斯坦：《哲学研究》,李步楼译,北京：商务印书馆,1996年版,第7页
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy, Boston:Beason Press,1987. p.6.
② A. C. Grayling, Wittgenstein:A Very Short Introduction, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1996, p.89.
① Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion:Philosophical Essays, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge:Polity Press,2008. pp.15-16.
② Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979, p.6.
③ Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979, p.9.
④ Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979,
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.14.
② Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1979, p.8.
① Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans.,Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979. p.3.
② Habermas, On the Logic of the Social Sciences, trans., Shierry Weber Nicholsen and Jerry A. Stark, Cambridge: Polity Press,1988.pp.167-168.
③ Habermas, On the Logic of the Social Sciences, trans., Shierry Weber Nicholsen and Jerry A. Stark, Cambridge: Polity Press,1988. p.144.
④ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.. Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.131.
① Habermas, On the Logic of the Social Sciences, trans., Shicrry Weber Nicholsen and Jerry A. Stark. Cambridge: Polity Press,1988. p.106.
② Jacent Um'Imana, Reason as a Basis for Consensus in Interaction:A Study Based on the Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas, Diss., Romae,2001,p.147.
③ Habermas. Truth and Justification, trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2003,p.52.
① Brian K. Powell, "Discourse Ethics and Moral Rationalism". Dialogue,2009(7), pp.373-386. p.377.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lcnhardt and Shicrry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.211.
① Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979. p.7.
② Habermas. Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979. p.7.
① J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1975, p.1.
② J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1975, p.5.
③ J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1975, p.94.
① 正如此前已经讨论过哈贝马斯对“行为”与“行动”概念的区分一样,奥斯汀的"speech act'翻译为“言语行动”更加确切。这里统一将奥斯汀分离出的三种活动译为“行为”,是因为发音这种活动,并不是严格意义上的人类行动,而是一种动物行为：而发语这种活动同样不是严格的人类行动概念,比如“鹦鹉学舌”这种发语行为；真正意义上属于行动的,只有发言这种活动。故而,为了行文流畅,在此不作具体区分,统一译为“行为”。同时,引文中涉及到此概念之处,将不再作特别说明。
② J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1975,p.95.
① J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1975, p.121.
② J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1975, pp.98-99.
③ J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1975, p.100.
① J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1975, p.109.
② J. L. Austin. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1975, p.121.
③ 杨玉成：《奥斯汀论言和行》,《哲学研究》,2004年第1期,第70页
④ Jenny Thomas. Meaning in Interaction:An Introduction to Pragmatics, London:Longman,1995,p.35.
① J. L. Austin. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1975. p.94.
② Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979. pp.41-42.
③ J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1975, p.6.
④ J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1975,p.13.
① 杨玉成：《奥斯汀论言和行》,《哲学研究》,2004年第1期。
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.294.
③ Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action. trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2001, p.73.
④ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.293.
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.295.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Voume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.278.
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.297.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.297. trans.. Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2001,p.68.
② Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979. p.1.
③ Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979. p.3.
④ Habermas. Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979. p.2.
① Habermas. Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979. pp.2-3.
① Emilia Steuerman, The Bounds of Reason:Habermas, Lvotard and Melanie Klein on Rationality, New York: Routledge,2000. p.28.
② 盛晓明：《话语规则与知识基础——语用学维度》,上海:学林出版社,2000年版,第138页。
③ Austin Harrington, Hermeneutic Dialogue and Social Science:A critique of Gadamer and Habermas, London: Routledge,2001.p.34.
④ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.105.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.21.
② Edgar Andre. Habermas:The Key Concepts, London. New York:Routledge,2006. p.65.
① Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.22.
② Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994、p.56.哈贝马斯并不能算一个严谨的哲学家,在讨论到理想言语情境的条件时,他经常会变换不同的说法,如其在《在自然主义与宗教之间》中对这四个条件就做了如下的表述(我们可以将其看作对这四个条件的进一步说明)：“(a)公共性与包容性(publicity and inclusiveness)没有一个能对存在争议的有效性要求作出相关贡献的人可以被排除在外：(b)参与交往的平等权利(equal rights to engage in communication):每个人必须有同等的机会对某事发表意见：(c)摒除欺骗与幻想(exclusion of deception and illusion)参与者必须心口如一：以及(d)无强制(absence of coercion)交往必须是不受限制的,从而保障以更好的论据决定讨论结果。(Habermas. Between Naturalism and Religion:Philosophical Essays, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge:Polity Press,2008, p.50.)
① Seylia Benhabib, Critique, Norm, and Utopia:A Study of the Foundations of Critical Throry, New York: Columbia University Press,1986. p.285.
② Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy. London:Ileinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980. p.110.
③ Carlos Pereda. "Assertions. Truth, and Argumentation", in Lewis Edwin Hahn(ed.), Perspectives on Habermas, London:Open Court Publishing Company,2000, pp.51-70. p.52.
① 高宣扬：《实用主义和语用论》,台北：远流出版事业股份有限公司,1994年版,第460页。
② Emilia Steuerman, The Bounds of Reason:Habermas, Lyotard and Melanie Klein on Rationalily, New York: Routledge,2000. p.29.
③ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.105.
① [德]哈贝马斯：《重建历史唯物主义》,郭官义译,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2000年版,第77页。
① Maevc Cooke, Language and Reason:A Study of Habermas's Pragmatics. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press, 1997, p.29.
② 阮新邦：《迈向崭新的社会知识观》,北京：北京大学出版社,2005年版,第13页。
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.3.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.. Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.1.
① [德]哈贝马斯：《后形而上学思想》,曹卫东、付德根译,上海：译林出版社,2001年版,第32页。
② [德]哈贝马斯：《后形而上学思想》,曹卫东、付德根译,上海：译林出版社,2001年版,第32-33页。
⑧ [古希腊]亚里士多德：《尼各马可伦理学》,廖申白译,北京：商务印书馆,2005年版,第35页。
④ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995,p.1.
① Habermas,Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, pp.2-3.
① Habermas, The Future of Human Nature, trans., William Rehg, Max Pensky, et al, Cambridge:Polity Press.2003, pp.1-15.
② [德]哈贝马斯：《后形而上学思想》,曹卫东、付德根译,上海：译林出版社,2001年版,第33页。
③ [德]哈贝马斯：《后形而上学思想》,曹卫东、付德根译,上海：译林出版社,2001年版,第36-37页
① [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第33-35页。
② Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.2.
③ Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994. p.2.
④ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, pp.49.
⑤ Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.4.
① Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994. p.6.
② [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第39页
③ Janna Thompson, Discourse and Knowledge:Defence of a Collectivist Ethics, London:Routledge,1998. p.13.
④ Janna Thompson, Discourse and Knowledge:Defence of a Collectivist Ethics. London:Routledge,1998. p.14.
⑤ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy,trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.1.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p. 1.
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.4.
③ Habermas, Between Facts and Norm:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.3.
④ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.4.
① Habermas,Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.4.
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.5.
③ Habermas, The Future of Human Nature, trans., William Rehg, Max Pensky, et al, Cambridge:Polity Press,2003. p.2.
④ Habermas. The Future of Human Nature, Trans., William Rchg, Max Pensky, et al, Cambridge:Polity Press,2003. p.10.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.14.
② George Snedeker, "Defending the Enlightenment:Jiirgen Habermas and the Theory of Communicative Reason". Dialectical Anthropology,2000(25), pp.239-253, p.246.
③ Habermas. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.27.
① Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass. The MIT Press,1994, pp.31-32.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge:The MIT Press,1995, p.138.
① Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge, Mass, The MIT Press,1994. p.20.
① Habemas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.45.
② Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge, Mass, The MIT Press,1994, p.20.
① [美]奎迈·安东尼·阿皮亚：《世界主义：陌生人世界里的道德规范》,苗华健译,北京：中央编译出版社,2012年版,第67页。
② Janna Thompson, Discourse and Knowledge:Defence of a Collectivist Ethics. London:Routledge,1998, p.11.
① 要否定事实与价值的尖锐分立,无非有两种方式：一种是断然否认二者存在分立,也即否认这种划分本身的合理性,普特南是这一路径的代表,我们将其称作消解论者；一种是承认二者的分立,但强调二者之间在沟通的可能,哈贝马斯是这一路径的代表,我们将其称作弥合论者。
② [英]休谟：《人性论》,关文运译,北京：商务印书馆,1980年版,第509页。
③ Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy, London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980, p.102.
④ [英]休谟：《道德原则研究》,曾晓平译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年版,第22页。
⑤ [英]休谟：《人性论》,关文运译,北京：商务印书馆,1980年版,第497页。
① [英]休谟：《道德原则研究》,曾晓平译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年版,第23页。
② Albrecht Welllmer, "Practical Philosophy and the Theory of Society:On the Problem of the Normative Foundations of a Critical Social Science", in Seyla Benhabib and Fred Dallmayr(eds.), The Communicative Ethics Controversy, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, pp.293-329. p.293.
③ Habermas. Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.22.
④ Omid A. Payrow Shabani, Democracy, Power, and Legitimacy:The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.2003, p.95.
① [美]希拉里·普特南：《事实与价值二分法的崩溃》,应奇译,北京：东方出版社2006年版,第16页。
② [美]希拉里·普特南：《事实与价值二分法的崩溃》,应奇译,北京：东方出版社2006年版,第43页。
① [美]希拉里·普特南：《事实与价值二分法的崩溃》,应奇译,北京：东方出版社2006年版,第148页。
② Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy. London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980. p.102.
③ Habermas, Truth and Justification, trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2003, p.231.
④ Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy, London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980. p.104.
① 文兵：《普特南论事实与价值之分离之谬》,《南京社会科学》,2009年第10期。
② Habermas, Truth and Justification, trans., Barbara Fultner. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,2003, p.214.
③ Habermas, Truth and Justification, trans., Barbara Fultner. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,2003, p.229.
① Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion: Philosopliical Essays, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008, p.46.
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. 1998, p.55.
③ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigdc, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1996, p.255.
④ Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1998, p.55.
⑤ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.. William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1996, p.255.
① Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds.. Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.55.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.76; Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.38; Habermas. Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press.1994. p.29.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.52.
② 胡军良：《哈贝马斯对话伦理学研究》,北京:中国社会科学出版社,2010年版,第187页
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.57.
④ 傅永军：《法兰克福学派的批判理论》,北京：社会科学出版社,2007年版,第270页
① [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第4页
① 参见邓晓芒：《康德<道德形而上学奠基>句读》,北京：人民出版社,2012年版,第55页。
② [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第4页。
③ Habermas,Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.,Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.179.
① Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy, London: Hcincmann Educational Books Ltd., 1980, p.88.
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1996. p.255.
③ 对于原则(principle)与规则(rule)之间J的区别,罗伯特·诺齐克(Robert Nozick)曾在其《合理性的本质》一书中有过详细论述,他认为：“原则这一术语通常用来指向比规则更深和更一般的东西。”([美]罗伯特·诺齐克：《合理性的本质》,葛四友、陈昉译,上海：上海译文出版社,2012年版,第65页。)另外,罗纳德·德沃金(Ronald Dworkin)也曾对原则与规则之间的重要区别有独到之见,在他看来规则是一个要么有效要么无效的单向概念,而原则则有权重上的差别,它可以衡量规则。(详见[美]罗纳德·德沃金：《认真对待权利》,信春鹰、吴玉章译,上海：上海三联书店,2008年版,第44-50页。)原则与规则在道德哲学上是两个并不等同的概念,原则更多类似于数学上的原理,而规则则更多指向一个规范系统,譬如交通规则。我们可以说我们秉持着尊重行人安全的原则,制定了“车让行人”的交通规则,却不可以相反;同样,我们可以说我们秉持着“不能把人当做工具而应当做目的”的原则,产生出了“不能歧视弱势群体”的基本规则,却不能相反。但是,哈贝马斯并未就这两个概念之间的差异作刻意的区分,似这不代表哈贝马斯在实际上未对有所区分,譬如我们后文将要讨论的普遍化原则,哈贝马斯也同时将之看作一种论证规则。但是为了方便起见,当我运用“道德规范”这一术语时涉及的是所有可普遍化的道德陈述与道德判断,它包括了道德规则(譬如“伤害别人是错误的”)以及道德原则(譬如功利主义的功利原则与康德的绝对命令)。
① Martin Morris. Rethinking the Communicative Turn:Adorno, Habermas, and the Problem of Communicative Freedom, New York:State University of New York,2001, p.103.
② 哈贝马斯的事实性与有效性概念成为其《在事实与规范之间》的主题,哈贝马斯遵循其一贯思路,从语言的意义问题引出对这一对概念的分析。对于一个判断而言,它一方面以语义学的方式指向了语义规则,方面以语用学的方式指向了理想化的有效性要求。但是,不管是语义规则还是语用上的有效性要求,实际上都是一种理想化的诉求。因而在这里便存在着一个事实性与有效性张力的问题,事实性通常为显示给我们的从观察者角度看到的事实或表达在语言中的事态,而有效性则是事实性的理想化。同样,在道德领域这一社会世界的对象中,也存在着这样一层关系,一方面我们确实可以看到一些制约着人们之间的规范现象,也可以从这些现象中推得道德事实上的存在,而另一方面这些现存的道德规范却并一定具有有效性,也就不一定是经过理性论证或合理同意的,这是其有效性层面。(Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg. Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, pp.9-17.)我们在这里引入哈贝马斯的这一对概念,意在表明商谈伦理学所要证成对象的深层次内涵。
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p45.
② P.F. Strawson, Freedom and Resentment and Oher Essays, New York:Routledge,2008, p.7.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.45.
① P.F. Strawson, Freedom and Resentment and Oher Essays, New York:Routledge,2008, p.7.
② P.F. Strawson, Freedom and Resentment and Oher Essays, New York:Routledge,2008, p.7.
③ 关于责任能力在道德行动中的作用,哈贝马斯曾有过明确论述,在他看来,责任能力与法律上对被告人责仟能力的界定是相同的,对于道德而言,同样需要行动者有为其行动负责的能力,如其所论：“一个人如果不能为他的行动以及他向他者说出的话语负责(account for),那么这个人就会被怀疑为并没有合理且负责地行动。即使法官要做一个有罪判决,那么他首先必须确定被告人是否能够为其罪行负责。而且,法官必须审查是否存在可以申明其无罪的理由(exculpatory ground)。为了公平判定其罪行,我们必须搞清楚这一罪行是归咎于·外部环境还是行动者自身。申明其无罪的理由证明了合理性的假设,不仅在法庭审判上,在日常生活中我们都要对其他行动者持有该假设。(Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion: Philosophical Essays, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge:Polity Press,2008, p.37.)因而,当哈贝马斯从商谈角度谈论道德规范的生成程序时,实际上已经假定了行动者具有的这种自我负责能力
④ P.F. Strawson. Freedom and Resentment and Oher Essays, New York:Routledge,2008,p.8.
① P.F. Strawson, Freedom and Resentment and Oher Essays, New York:Routledge,2008. pp.7-8.
② P.F. Strawson, Freedom and Resentment and Oher Essays, New York:Routlcdge, 2008, p.10.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.46.
④ P. F. Strawson, Freedom and Resentment and Oher Essays, New York:Routledge,2008. pp.10-11
⑤ P. F. Strawson, Freedom and Resentment and Oher Essays, New York:Routledge,2008. p.9.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.46.
② Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994. p.40.
③ “间接证据”一词,我们在这里指的是哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学并不是以道德情感为证成道德普遍性的直接根据,也无意于揭示行动者因道德上的恶而引发的内疚感与道德上的善而引发的责仟感。哈贝马斯关注的只是道德现象学背后所隐藏的交往太多,这与斯特劳森揭示出的非道德的客观态度形成互相对立的立场,而与其揭示的道德的反应性态度则是立场一致的,但这种一致性只是在交往结构的主体间性意义上讲的。
① P.F. Strawson. Freedom and Resentment and Oher Essays. New York:Routledge,2008, p.27.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.46.
③ Habermas. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.48.
④ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.47.
⑤ P.F. Strawson, Freedom and Resentment and Oher Essays. New York:Routledge,2008, p.24.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.47.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.48.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.49.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.50.
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.2.
③ Habermas. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.56.
① Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994,p.32.
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.39.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.51.
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds.. Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.25.
③ Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.25.
① Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff,Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.25.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nieholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.51.
③ Thomas McCarthy, The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1985, p.311.
④ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nieholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.52.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, pp.52-53.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.53.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995,p.53.
② Mabermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995,p.54.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.55.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.59.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995,p.137.
④ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.59.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shicrry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995,p.60.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shicrry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995,p.60.
① Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.38.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.61.
③ Habermas. Between Naturalism and Religion:Philosophical Essays, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge:Polity Press,2008, p.36.
① [德]哈贝马斯：《对话伦理学与真理的问题》,沈清楷译,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005年版,第55-56页。
② Habermas,Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995.p.61.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.257.
② Habermas. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.119这三个特点实际上并非由哈贝马斯提出,而是在研究道德认知发展理论过程中从科尔们格那里借用而来。从这一点来看,这也是我们一直强调要运用综合性视野进行研究的原因,因为哈贝马斯的一些观点并未明确表明其理论来源。在后面的论述中,这种视野的运用对于我们澄清一些关键性的,而不是简单地从“哈贝马斯认为”去说明的一些观点将发挥更为重要的作用。
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.120.
④ William Rehg, Congent Scicence in Context:The Science Wars, Argumentation Theory, and Habermas, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2009, p.106.
⑤ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.22.
① Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff,Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.2.
② Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion:Philosophical Essays, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge:Polity Press,2008. pp.37.
③ [德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯：《论理由的象征性体现》,鲍水玲译,《哲学分析》,2013年第1期。
④ Eva Erman, "Conflict and Universal Moral Theory:From Reasonableness to Reason-Giving", Political Theory, 2007. Vol.35, No.5, pp.598-623. p.604.
① [德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯：《论理由的象征性体现》,鲍永玲译,《哲学分析》,2013年第1期。
② [德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯：《论理由的象征性体现》,鲍永玲译,《哲学分析》,2013年第1期。
③ T. W. Scanlon, What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, Mass.:The Bel knap Press of Harvard University,1998, pp.18-19.
① T. W. Scanlon, What We Owe to Each Other, Cambridge, Mass.:The Bel knap Press of Harvard University,1998. p.19.
② T. W. Scanlon, What We Owe to Each Other, Cambridge. Mass.:The Belknap Press of Harvard University,1998, p.19.
③ T. W. Scanlon, What We Owe to Each Other, Cambridge, Mass.:The Belknap Press of Harvard University,1998, p.18.
④ Marin Seel, "The Two Meaning of 'Communicative' Rationality:Remarks on Habermas's Critique of a Plural Concept of Reason", in Axel Honneth and Hans Joas(eds.), Communicative Action:Essavs on Jurgen Hahermas's The Theory of Communicative Action, trans., Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991,pp.36-48,p.41.
⑤ Eva Erman. "Conflict and Universal Moral Theory:From Reasonableness to Reason-Giving", Political Theory, 2007, Vol.35. No.5, pp.598-623,p.605.
① [英]约瑟夫·拉兹：《实践理性与规范》,朱学平译,北京：中国法制出版社,2011年版,第1页。
② Erin Kelly, "Habermas on Moral Justification". Social Theory and Practice,2000. Vol.26. No.2, pp.223-249. p.227.
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.22.
② [德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯：《论理由的象征性体现》,鲍水玲译,《哲学分析》,2013年第1期。
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995,p.70.
④ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.22.
⑤ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.18.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nieholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.79“闽西豪森三重困境”来源于18世纪德国汉诺威的乡绅闽西豪森出版的一本故事集《闽西森男爵的奇遇》。其中有一则故事讲述其有一次不慎落入泥潭,四周没有任何可以抓扶之物,于是他用用力抓住自己的头发把自己从泥潭中解救了出来。这个故事后来被汉斯·阿尔伯特(Hans Albert)予以引申来批判启蒙时期的理性主义与经验主义对根源的无穷追问,从而导致了无穷倒退、循环论证以及武断确立前提这样的三种困境。(详见[德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法律论证理论：作为法律证立理论的理性论辩理论》(译者序),舒国滢译,北京：中国法制出版社,2002年版,第1-2页。)关于这一困境的具体说明亦可参见Erik Oddvar Eriksen and Jarle Weigard, Understanding Habermas:Commmunicative Action and Deliberative Democracy, New York:Continuum,1984, p.70.
① Stephen Toulmin. An Exmination of the Place of Reason in Ethics, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1950. p.129.
① Stephen Toulmin. An Exmination of the Place of Reason in Ethics, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1950, p.28.
② Stephen Toulmin. An Exmination of the Place of Reason in Ethics, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1950. p.5.
③ 万俊人：《现代西方伦理学史》(上卷),北京：中国人民出版社,2011年版,第366页。
④ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, pp.50-55.
① William Rehg, Congent Scicence in Context:The Science Wars, Argumentation Theory, and Habermas, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2009. p.106.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.68.
③ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.24.
① See Edgar Andre, Habermas:The Key Concepts, London. New York:Routledge,2006, p.158.
② 需要注意的是在黑尔的规定主义伦理学中实际上也隐含着对这样一个隐含的道德论证三段论的分析,区别之处在于,黑尔认为对于大前提也即道德原则之性质我们不是通过论证而是一种“选择(choice)。这样,道德原则也就沦为与艾耶尔与斯蒂文森一样的价值判断。(黑尔对此问题的论述详见[英]理查德·卖尔文·黑尔：《道德语言》,万俊人译,北京：商务印书馆,2005年版,第56-57页。)对于黑尔与情感主义关系,高宣扬教授曾如此评价：“不管是情感主义还是规定主义的伦理学,都和法国的存在主义者沙特那样,当他们用感情、喜爱、选择等语词去说明价值的评判的时候,并没有在道德发展的历史中去探索他们所说的选择的必要性的根源。他们把选择归结为道德概念的本质本身。……实际上试图使他们自己的个人的道德性绝对化。”(高宣扬：《哈伯玛斯论》,台北：远流出版公司,1991年版,第399-421页。)
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.68.
① Stephen Toulmin, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003, p.97.
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.31.
② 关于此论证结构章国锋教授亦有论及,我不明白的是章先生为何会将(D)(Data)解读为“结论”,(D)实际上只是众多可供选择的数据或事实,这明显是对图尔敏与哈贝马斯的一种误读。(章国峰：《关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦构想”——解读哈贝马斯<交往行动理论>》,北京：2001年版,第147-148页。)
③ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.25.
① Stephen Toulmin. The Uses of Argument, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003, p.104.
② Stephen Toulmin. The Uses of Argument, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003, p.162.
⑧ 杨宁芳：《图尔敏论证逻辑思想研究》,北京：人民出版社,2012年版,第106页。
④ William Rehg, Congent Scicence in Context:The Science Wars, Argumentation Theory, and Habermas, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,2009, p.107.
① Habermas, Truth and Justification, trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2003. p37.
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.25.
③ Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.25.
④ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984. pp.32-33.
① Habcrmas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.35.
② 这里之所以说B是事实性的,是将B作现实存在诸种选择的复数形式来对待的,因为B就其作为支撑而言存在着多种可能的情况而道德论证图式的仟务是结合各个要素之间的关系从B的众多情况中选择一个适合于为W提供支撑的那个要素。这个要素受多种情况的限定,而这些限定里最重要的是我们对于现代道德之时代语境之判定。如果说,我们将时代精神判定为未获启蒙的蒙昧状态的话,那么这里的B则必然与神圣他者或权力他者相关联,而如果我们将其判定为继承了启蒙精神的现代性之断裂时代的话,这里的B则必然遵循我们在启蒙与危机关系之辩证分析中揭示的奠基于人的自我谋划之诉求。
③ [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法律论证理论：作为法律证立理论的理性论辩理论》(译者序),舒国滢译,北京：中国法制出版社,2002年版,笫142页。
④ Seyla Benhabib. Critique, Norm, and Utopia:A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory, New York: Columbia University Press,1986. p.301.
① Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.39.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.116.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.120.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholson, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.71.
① Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans.. Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994. p.22.
② Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy, London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd..1980. p.107.
③ See J. Donald Moon, "Practical Discourse and Communicative Ethics", in Stephen K. White(ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Habermas, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.1995. pp.143-166. p.143.
④ Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds.. Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, pp.3-4.
⑤ See Joseph Heath, Communicative Action and Rational Choice, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2003. p.227.
⑥ Habermas. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.63.
① [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法 理性商谈：法哲学研究》,朱光、雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,2011年版,第7页。
② David M. Rasmussen, Reading Hahermas, Cambridge. Mass.:Basil Blackwell Ltd,1990, p.60.
① Habermas,Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.66.
② 对于道德规范或者有效性要求的合理可接受性之深入讨论请参阅Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion:Philosophical Essays, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge:Polity Press2008,pp.48-49.哈贝马斯在此明确将道德有效性要求的合理可接受性奠基于基于更好论证的说服力上,可接受性概念由此也是与基于客观世界的真理性概念相比较而言的,真理不需要可接受性或者说对于接受主体依赖不大,因为它本质上来说是独立于主体的,但是道德规范则需要在理性讨论的基础上询问“我为什么要接受此规范?”而这就不得不涉及到实际论证过程中参与者的各项利益、需求、价值。就这一点来说,哈贝马斯在这里的观点已经与j《在事实与规范之间》发生了细微的变化,当然这种变化并不是本质性的。在《在事实与规范之间》中,哈贝马斯从皮尔斯的观点出发,将合理的可接受性首先诠释为对“真实性”观念的界定,但是皮尔斯毕竟
① 哈贝马斯对其所谓的“日常道德直觉”这一概念,并未深入讨论,也没有给出带有定义性质的界定,按照本研究的分析理路,我们可以尝试给其下一个定义：所谓日常道德直觉,指的是生活于现实社会关系中的个体存在者,在道德规则制约下所自然形成的对道德规范制约性的一种惯常共识。这一定义包含着两个层面,一方面道德乃是现实性地存在于人与人之间的一种实存规范,行动者在行动过程中必然受到其制约；另一方面道德乃是理性行动者在语言沟通基础上建构起来的规则系统,它是普遍的但并非不变的。另外,还有一点需要补充,实存规范是指具体的道德规范,而规则系统则特指受原则指导建构起的行为约束系统。所有这两个方面皆遵循我们此前所揭示的规范、规则与原则之关系,这里面起基础作用的是原则。
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy, Boston:Beason Press,1987, p.2.
③ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy, Boston:Beason Press,1987, p.93.
① [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第330页。
② Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion:Philosophical Essays, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge:Polity Press,2008, p.15.
① [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第328页。
② [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第328页。
③ Albert J. Bergesen,"Chomsky versus Mead", Sociological Theory,2004, Vol.22, No.3,pp.357-370, p.360.这一图式是我参照Bergesen在该文章中讨论乔姆斯基与米德区别时所列图式而来。
④ George H. Mead, "Scientific Method and The Moral Sciences", The International Journal of Ethics,1923, Vol.33. No.3. pp.229-247, pp.229-230.
① Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans.. Thomas MaCarthy. Boston:Beason Press,1987. p.92.
② [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,1992年版,第120页。
③ See Gregg Daniel Miller, Mimesis in Communicative Action:Habermas and the Affective Bond of Understanding. Diss., University of Washington,2005, p.37.
④ George H. Mead, "Scientific Method and The Moral Sciences", The International Journal of Ethics,1923. Vol.33. No.3. pp.229-247, p.232.
① [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第134页。
② 王晓升：《哈贝马斯的现代性社会理论》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2006年版,第52页。
③ [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第135页。
① [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第137页
② [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第137页。
③ [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第140页.
① [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第155页。
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy. Boston:Beason Press,1987. p.97.
③ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy, Boston:Beason Press,1987. p.2.
④ [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第126页。
① [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第328页。
② George H. Mead, "The Philosophical Basis of Ethics", International Journal of Ethics,1908, Vol.18. No.3. pp.311-323.p.316.
③ 米德在这里之所以用冲动来表示道德动机,是因为他希望与康德的动机概念区分开来,因为康德对道德动机的表述最后落脚于对道德规则的理性尊重上。康德的动机概念本身不是一个经验概念,而米德运用冲动来代替动机概念则试图将康德纯形式的尊重,转化为同时涉及到目的与动机之间关联的概念。因而,在米德这里,动机与目的始终是不能分离开来使用的,具体到道德规范的制定上,则表现为内容与形式的合这一观点与其说是反对功利主义或义务论这两种学说,毋宁说是对这两者的一种调和策略。
④ [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第331页
① [美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版,第334页。
② Albert J. Bergesen. "Chomsky versus Mead", Sociological Theory,2004, Vol.22. No.3. pp.357-370. p.360.
③ Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Iblume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy, Boston:Beason Press,1987. p.92.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, pp.144-145.
① Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994. p.114.
② Habermas. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.117.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.117.
② Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.127.
⑧ [美]L·科尔们格：《道德发展心理学——道德阶段的本质与确证》,郭本禹、何谨等译,上海：华东师范大学出版社2004年版,第203页。科尔伯格为其论证思路设定的基本假设实际上并不限于这三点,依据他的基本分析,从认知发展心理学角度来论证道德发展必须包含一些元伦理与规范伦理学的基本假设,这些假设除了我们正义中提到的三个之外另外还包含了其它的六个：(1)价值相干性假设(value relevanee);(2)现象主义假设(phenomenalism);(3)规定主义假设(preseriptivism);(4)原则性假设(principledness);(5)建构主义假设(constructivism)(6)公正主义(justice)假设。(参见[美]L·科尔伯格：《道德发展心理学——道德阶段的本质与确证》,郭本禹、何谨等译,上海：华东师范大学出版社2004年版,第203-204页。)可以说,哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学的基本特征完全符合科尔伯格所指出的这些基本假设,但是就其论证的着重点来看,哈贝马斯将我们引文中的三个假设单独列出来加以论证,这一点我们此前已经提及。
① [美]L·科尔伯格：《道德发展心理学——道德阶段的本质与确证》,郭本禹、何谨等译,上海：华东师范大学出版社2004年版,第204页。
① [美]L·科尔伯格：《道德发展心理学——道德阶段的本质与确证》,郭本禹、何谨等译,上海：华东师范大学出版社2004年版,第174-176页；亦可参见Habermas,Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. trans.. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, pp.123-125.
② [美]L·科尔伯格：《道德发展心理学——道德阶段的本质与确证》,郭本禹、何谨等译,上海：华东师范大学出版社2004年版,第176页。
③ L.Kohlberg. "From Is to Ought", in T. Miahel(ed.), Cognitive Development and Epislemology, New York: Aeademic Press.1971, p.236, qtd., Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Societv, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979, p.80.
① Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979, pp.70-94.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.125.
③ Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.115.
① Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans.,Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979, p.76.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.117.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.118.
④ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.118.
⑤ Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass The MIT Press,1994, p.115.
⑥ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.129.
① Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1979. p.83.
② Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans.,Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979. p.82.
① Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1979. p.86.
② Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans.. Ciaran Cronin,Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.116.
① Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979. p.70.
② Habermas, The Future of Human Nature, trans., William Rehg, Max Pensky, et al. Cambridge:Polity Press,2003. p.7.
③ Habermas. Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1979. p.87.
④ Habermas. Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979, p.88.
① [美]L·科尔伯格：《道德发展心理学——道德阶段的本质与确证》,郭本禹、何谨等译,上海：华东师范大学出版社2004年版,第359页。
② Habermas. Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979. p.88.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shicrry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.163.
① 对于哈贝马斯为科尔伯格道德判断阶段加入的这一阶段,科尔伯格与其同事曾作出回应。在科尔伯格等人看来,其第6阶段实际上已经包含了哈贝马斯从完全交往互动角度加入的阶段7。“我们已经发现了道德发展唯一的最适切的阶段——阶段6的观点的弱化。虽然理性重构的思想的确需要我们假设一个第六或更高的阶段,但是我们还不能说我们已经在经验上证实了它。”([美]L·科尔伯格：《道德发展心理学—道德阶段的本质与确证》,郭本禹、何谨等译,上海：华东师范大学出版社2004年版,第212页。)科尔们格同意哈贝马斯的批评,但是,在他看来,阶段7并不是那种乌托邦性质个体利益普遍化为全球公民利益。而是“关于成人试图解决形而上学和宗教任务的描述,即把那种公正、爱、真理的理想与个人对终极现实的解释整合于一体的仟务。”([美]L·科尔伯格：《道德发展心理学——道德阶段的本质与确证》,郭本禹、何谨等译,上海：华东师范大学出版社2004年版,第234页。)因而,科尔伯格把阶段7称作“伦理与宗教思维的软阶段”。科尔们格在此似乎又回到了对形而上学的反思,这显然与道德的后形而上学观念相悖。
② Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979, p.88.
③ Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1979, p.90.
④ Mabermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press.1979. p.78.
⑤ See Uwe Steinhoff, The Philosophy of Jurgen Habermas:a Critical Introduction, trans., Karsten Schollner. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2009. p.183.
① Habermas. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.119.
② Joseph Health. Communicative Action and Rational Choice, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,2003, p.229.
① [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法律论证理论：作为法律证立理论的理论辩理论》,舒国滢译,北京：中国法制出版社,2002年版,第144页。
② [德]哈贝马斯：《重建历史唯物主义》,郭官义译,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2012年版,第6页。
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.120.
① 这里之所以用“第三种形式”这种表述,我们是在康德的绝对命令与米德建构的绝对命令之外意义上说的,因为从此前对U原则分析来看,哈贝马斯虽然一直强调自己遵循康德的路线,但是就其对U原则的表述而言,却明显借重了米德构建的绝对命令之形式。而米德构建这一命令的目的是突破康德在形式与目的之间造成的分离,这也是哈贝乌斯的取向。所以说,我们需要对哈贝马斯为其道德原则所规定的形式主义之意涵进行说明,这涉及到的首先是U原则作为一种形式化的表述其与实质性的内容(利益)之间存在什么样的关系,或者说去阐明U原则在何种意义上仍然是形式主义的。而且必须阐明哈贝乌斯在何种意义上界定其证成的道德原则(这里涉及到另一个原则即D原则)与康德绝对命令之间具有直接承继关系。
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.63.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.66.
④ Martin Morris,"Social Justice and Communication:Mill. Marx, and Habermas", Soc Just Res 2009(22), pp.134-155,p.150.
① [美]汉娜·阿伦特等：《耶路撒冷的艾希曼》,孙传钊编译,长春：吉林人民出版社,2003年版,第27-28页。
① Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.120.
① J. M. Bernstein, Recovering Ethical Life:Jurgen Habermas and the future of Critical Theory, New York: Routlcdge,1995, p.159.
② [美]恩格尔哈特：《生命伦理学的基础》(第二版),范瑞平译,长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1996年版,第1页。
③ Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.116.
① Erik Oddvar Eriksen and Jarle Weigard, Understanding Habermas, London,New York:Continuum,2003, p.62.
② [美]恩格尔哈特：《生命伦理学的基础》(第二版),范瑞平译,长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1996年版,第2页。
① Gunter Dux, "Communicative Reason and Interest:On the Reconstruction of the Normative Order in Societies Structured by Egalitarianism or Domination", in Axel Honneth and Hans Joas(eds.), Communicative Action: Essays on Jurgen Habermas's The Theory of Communicative Action, trans., Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.74-96, p.76.
② [美]恩格尔哈特：《生命伦理学的基础》(第二版),范瑞平译,长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1996年版,第2页。
③ [美]恩格尔哈特：《生命伦理学的基础》(第二版),范瑞平译,长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1996年版,第8页。
① Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998,p.40.
② Simone Chambers, Reasonable Democracy:Jurgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse, New York:Cornell University Press,1996. p.17.
③ 钱伯斯并未用“一阶道德规范(英语翻译为first-order norm)与“二阶道德原则(英语翻译为second-order principle)这样的术语,而是统一用的“原则”这一语词,即“一阶道德原则(first-order principle)与“二阶道德原则(second-order principle)"。鉴于本研究已经论证哈贝马斯在规范与原则所作出的区分,我们对钱伯斯的用语进行了在本研究看来符合哈贝马斯意涵的更改。
① 恩格尔哈特的生命伦理学立基于后现代语境,也即哈贝马斯的后形而上学语境(当然,哈贝马斯的后形而上学不能与后现代划等号,两者只是表述了共同的思想背景),基于这一理论倾向,恩格尔哈特将自己的伦理学定位为世俗世界的程序主义伦理学,并且为其制定了基本的道德原则——允许原则。这一原则的内容是：“一个人只有在得到别人同意之后才能利用别人。”([荚]恩格尔哈特：《生命伦理学的基础》(第二版),范瑞平译,长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1996年版,第92-93页。)
② Simone Chambers, Reasonable Democracy:Jurgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. New York:Cornell University Press,1996, p.17.
③ Mark Timmons, Morality without Foundations:A Defense of Ethical Contextualism, New York, Oxford:Oxford University,1999, p.11.
④ [澳]约翰·L·麦凯：《伦理学：发明对与错》,丁三东译,上海：上海人民出版社,2007年版,第4页。
① 公(impartiality)这里指的是道德的基本特征,这一词也经常被翻译为“不偏不倚性”,它与“正义”(justice)并能等同,在哈贝马斯的术语里,正义是现代道德的基本对象,它与习俗所追求的伦理上的“善”形成一个基本的对子,而公正我们可以将之视为现代道德所诉求的正义之特征,它要求平等对待每一个人,不管其处于何种阶层、何种社会地位、甚或民族与性别等等。一言以蔽之,正义所追求的公正排除了一切我们经验客观查到的个体差异作为道德考量标准。
② Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifesorld and System:A Critique of Founctionalisl Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy, Boston:Beason Press,1987. p.222.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.68.
④ Habermas, Truth and Justification, trans., Barbara Fultner. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2003. p.86.
⑤ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry, The MIT Press,1995, p.103.
① Habermas,Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.56.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.63.
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.42.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nieholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.67.
① Mabermas,Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nieholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.67.
② Simone Chambers, Reasonable Democracy:Jurgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse, New York:Cornell University Press,1996, p.19.
③ Simone Chambers, Reasonable Democracy:Jurgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. New York:Cornell University Press,1996, p.19
④ Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.19.
① Erik Oddvar Eriksen and Jarle Weigard, Understanding Habermas, London. New York:Continuum,2003, p.67.
② [德]康德：《实践理性批判》,邓晓芒译,北京：人民出版社,2003年版,第21页
③ [德]康德：《实践理性批判》,邓晓芒译,北京：人民出版社,2003年版,第39页。
④ [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第38页。
⑤ [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第25页。
① [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第13页。
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.50.
③ [德]康德：《实践理性批判》,邓晓芒译,北京：人民出版社,2003年版,第39页。
④ [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第39页。
① [德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第53页。
② John M. Rist. Real Ethics:Rethinking the Foundations of Morality, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2002, p.164.
③ Seyla Benhabib, "Communicative Ethics and Current Controversies in Practical Philosophy", in Seyla Benhabib and Fred Dallmayr(eds.), The Communicative Ethics Controversy, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. pp.330-370, p.336.
④ See Seyla Benhabib,Critique, Norm and Utopia:A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory, New York: Columbia University Press,1986. pp.74-75.
① Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff; Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.41.
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.66.1哈贝马斯对于这一原则有不同的表述,在《包容他者》(Habermas, Habermas, Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.41.)中延续了这一表述,但是在《在事实与规范之间》(Haberma:Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse of Law and Democracy, Cambridge:The MIT Press,1996. p.107.)中却发生了改变,他的表述是'Action norms are valid if and only ifall possibly affected people could assent to them as participants in rational discourse."抛开那些无关紧要的不同,这里有一个需要特别说明的地方,即在前期的讨论中哈贝马斯一直用的是“实践商谈(practical discourse)而后来却使用的“合理商谈(rational discourse)这个术语。马提亚·科特那(Matthias Kettner)在其一篇有重要启发意义的文章《哈贝马斯<在事实与规范之间>一书中商谈伦理的失位》(Matthias Kettner.The Disappearance of Discourse Ethics in Habermas's Between Facts and Norms, in Rene von Schomberg and Kenneth Baynes(eds.). Discourse and Democracy:Essays on Hahermas's between Facts and Norms, Albany: State University of New York Press,2002,pp.201-218.)中敏锐地发现了这一问题,作者据此认为哈贝马斯思想存在混淆与表述不清之处。但实际上在哈贝马斯这里,“合理商谈”与“实践商谈”并不是一个相对而言的概念, “合理商谈”对应的是“非合理商谈(irrational discourse)实践商谈”对应的是“理论商谈(theoretical discourse)“理论商谈指的是它被断言和证成仅仅看其是否是真实的：实践商谈指 (接上注)的是它被断言和证成仅仅看其是否能有效地成为行动的理由”(详见Martin Seel, "The two Meanings of'Communicative'Rationarity:Remarks on Habermas's Critique of a Plural Concept of Reason", in Axel Honneth and Hans Joas(eds.), Communicative Action:Essays on Habermas's The Theory of Communicative Action, trans., Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.36-48.p.41.),但是两者都属于“合理商谈”
① Habcrmas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. pp.108-109.
② David Ingram, Habermas:Introduction and Analysis, Ithaca. London:Cornell University Press,2010, p.132.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.93.
④ Habermas, Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.42.
⑤ Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion:Philosophical Essays, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge:Polity Press,2008, p.88.
① Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.39.
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.42.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.92.
④ Logi Gunnarsson, Making Moral Sense:Beyond Hahermas and Gauthier, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003, p.88.
⑤ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.. William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996,p.109.
① Simone Chambers. Reasonable Democracy:Jurgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. New York:Cornell University Press,1996, p.22.
② Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.42.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.67.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.. Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.67.
② D原则的否定意义包含着与康德绝对命令的否定意义相同的理论趋向。就绝对命令的否定意义来讲,康德虽然强调让我意愿的准则成为普遍的法则作为道德的标准,但是我们也可以从相反的意义上来理解,即我不意愿成为普遍法则的准则,别人也同样不能意愿其成为普遍法则。依据韦尔默的研究,从否定意义上解读康德绝对命令不仅能够解决绝对命令由形式的空洞性向内容的情境性的转换难题,而且更加符合我们日常的道德直觉,譬如实质性的道德规范“我应该助人为乐”(p),这一条准则的得出,就其生成过程而是通过如果“我不助人为乐”(非p)导致的自相矛盾之结果的否定而得到的。这一点的详细讨论请参见Wellmer. "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer. The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1991,pp.113-231, p.124-125.
③ Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.42.
① 威廉·赫格的这一观点在国内与国外研究文献中经常被作为没有疑问的定论来接受,诸学者对其引用颇多。但是我们认为,赫格的观点存在对哈贝马斯U原则的误读。这种误读之核心表现在于我们此前所揭示的利益与形式、动机与目的等等在康德思想中遭受诟病的地方。商谈伦理学把利益、结果纳入道德考量,并不代表其阐发的U原则本身是一个实质性的原则,因为在其思想中,实质性的因素并不是道德原则的最终根基,U原则发挥的仅仅是一种调控性作用,而不能说利益决定了u原则。
② William Rehg, Insight and Solidarity:A study in the discourse of Jurgen Hahermas, Berkeley:University of California Press,1994, pp.58-62.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans.,Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, pp.96-97.
① David Ingram, Habermas:Introduction and Analysis, Ithaca. London:Cornell University Press,2010, p.132.
① [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法：作为理性的制度化》,雷磊编译,北京：中国法制出版社,2012年版,第8页。
② [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法：作为理性的制度化》,雷磊编译,北京：中国法制出版社,2012年版,第9
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.89:[德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法：作为理性的制度化》,雷磊编译,北京：中国法制出版社,2012年版,第9页。文中所引中文根据哈贝马斯著作翻译而来。
② Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.87.
③ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.87:
④ Marie Fleming, Emancipation and Illusion:Rationality and Gender in Habermas's Theory of Modernity, Pennsylvania:The Pennsylvania State University Press,1997, p.74.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. pp.89-90.
② 这一概念来自于阿佩尔的先验语用学思想,它指的是言说者在运用语言进行交往的过程中其行动与不可避免地暗含在语言应用规则中的那些有效性要求相矛盾。例如,这样一个陈述A： “S用谎言,使H确信(convinced)了p”,这就造成了有效性要求与行动的不一致。而在我用谎言扭曲交往过程中实际上犯下了以言施为矛盾,而不是普通逻辑的自我矛盾,同样用康德自我矛盾概念也无法解释这个陈述为什么是不合理的。但是如果我们将这个陈述转换为A’： “S用谎言,使H主动相信(belicving)了p”那么这个问题便容易理解,因为为这里A实际上是运用了一个与语言规则相违背的方式强迫H相信p,这必然违背真实性要求,从而落入以言施为矛盾。(详见lHabermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995,pp.90-91.)
③ David Ingram,Habermas:Introduction and Analysis. Ithaca. London:Cornell University Press,2010, p.134.
④ William Rehg,Insight and Solidarity:A study in the discourse of Jurgen Habermas, Berkeley:University of California Press,1994, p.64.
⑤ David Ingram,Habermas:Introduction and Analysis, Ithaca, London:Cornell University Press,2010, p.132.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. p.67.
② David Ingram, Habermas:Introduction and Analysis. Ithaca. London:Cornell University Press,2010, p.133.
③ Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds.. Ciaran and Palo De Grciff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.34.
④ Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, p.67.
① Thomas McCarthy, "Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism:Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue", Ethics. 1994, Vol.105, No.1. pp.44-63, p.46.
② See Janna Thompson, Discourse and Knowledge:Defence of a collectivist ethics, New York:Routledge,1998, p.11.
① Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.19.
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.39.
① Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greirf, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.42.
② Wellmer, "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer, The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.113-231. p.144.
① 高宣扬：《哈伯玛斯论》,台北：远流出版公司,1992年版,第442页。
① James Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, forth edition, New York:The McGraw-Hill Companies. Inc.. 2003, p.11.
① 韦尔默也将U原则看作是对绝对命令之形式改铸,如其所言： “我想提请大家注意,U原则应该被理解为从商谈伦理学角度对绝对命令的重新表述。(Wellmer, "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer, The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans.. David Midgley. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.113-231. p.127.)我的出发点仍然是：U原则与D原则共同构成对绝对命令的改铸形式,因而对其他学者将U原则单独视为对绝对命令之改铸的批评也同样适用于韦尔默。
② Wellmer. "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer, The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp,113-231. p.127.
③ [德]黑格尔：《哲学史讲演录》(第四卷),贺麟、王太庆译,北京：商务印书馆,1983年版,第290页。
① Albrecht Welllmer, "Practical Philosophy and the Theory of Society:On the Problem of the Normative Foundations of a Critical Social Science", in Seyla Benhabib and Fred Dallmayr(eds.), The Communicative Ethics Controversy. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, pp.293-329, p.296.
② Axel Honneth. Disrespect:The Normative Foundations of Critical Theory. Cambridge:Polity Press,2007. p.111.
③ Kenneth G. Mackendrick. Discourse, Desire, and Fantasy in Jurgen Habermas' Critical Theory, New York: Routledge,2008. p.147.
④ [德]阿克塞尔·霍奈特：《为承认而斗争》,胡继华译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版,第100页。
① Wellmer, "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer. The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.113-231, p.198.
② Wellmer,"Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer, The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991,pp.113-231, p.123.
③ [德]康德：《判断力批判》,邓晓芒译,北京：人民出版社,第136页。
④ [德]阿尔布莱希特·韦尔默：《后形而上学现代性》,应奇、罗亚玲编译,上海：上海译文出版社,2007年版,第96页。
⑤ [德]康德：《判断力批判》,邓晓芒译,北京：人民出版社,第137页。
① [德]阿尔布莱希特·韦尔默：《后形而上学现代性》,应奇、罗亚玲编译,上海：上海译文出版社,2007年版,第97页。
② See Seyla Benhabib, Critique, Norm, and Utopia:A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory, New York: Columbia University Press,1986, p.299.
③ Seyla Benhabib, Critique, Norm, and Utopia:A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory, New York: Columbia University Press,1986, p.299.
① Wellmer. "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer, The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.113-231, p.115.
② Wellmer. "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer, The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991. pp,113-231. p.117.
① Andrew Edgar, The Philosophy of Habermas. Chesham:Acumen Publishing Limited,2005, p.155.安德鲁·埃德■#加的理解是正确的,而韦尔默与霍奈特的理解在某些方面则偏离了哈贝马斯本意。对于这个反事实的理想言说情境,实际上来说并不是哈贝马斯的一个理论假定。他把论证理论的一般性交往前提当做理想言语情境的最终决定条件(Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.. Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.125.),这就是说理想言语情境是在以语用为基础的非形式论证中证成,如果我们要进行论证,那么这个概念本身已经暗含了理想言语情境的那些特征。
② Wellmer, "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer. The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.113-231, pp.161.
① Wellmer. "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer,The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.113-231, pp.146-147.
② Wellmer, "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer. The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans.. David Midgley, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1991,pp.113-231. p.118.
③ Wellmer. "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer. The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans.. David Midgley, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.113-231.p.150.
① Wellmer, "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmcr, The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991. pp.113-231. p.118.
② Seyla Benhabib, Situating the self:Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics, New York: Routledge,1992, pp.36-37.
③ Seyla Benhabib. Situating the self:Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics, New York: Routledge,1992, p.38.
① Wellmer, "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wcllmer, The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1991. pp.113-231. p.119.
② Wellmer. "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer. The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1991,pp.113-231. p.127.
① Andrew Edgar, The Philosophy of Habermas, Chesham:Acumen Publishing Limited,2005, p.74.
① Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion: Philosophical Essays, trans.. Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008, p.44.
② Habermas. Between Naturalism and Religion: Philosophical Essays. trans.. Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008, p.85.
① Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994. p.35.
② Uwe Steinhoff, The Philosoplrv of Jurgen Habermas:a Critical Introduction, trans., Karsten SchOllner, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2009. p,168.
① Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell, New York:State University of New York Press,1993,p.45.
② Klaus Gunther. The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press.1993.p.11.
③ Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell, New York:State University of New York Press,1993, p.11.
④ Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans.. John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press,1993,p.203.
⑤ [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法 理性商谈》,朱光 雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,第43页
① Klaus Giinther. The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press,1993,p.12.
② Habermas. Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans.. Ciaran Cronin,Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.35.
③ Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law. trans., John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press,1993, p.46.
④ Klaus Giinther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press,1993, p.230.
① [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法 理性商谈》,朱光 雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,第48-52页。
② Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press,1993, pp.231-232.
③ Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press,1993,p.230.
① Habermas,The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory,eds.. Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.45.
② Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass The MIT Press,1994. p.35.
① 这一点也可从如下哈贝马斯的如下几个地方的论述得到印证Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.162; Habermas, "Postscript to Between Facts and Norms", trans.. William Rehg, in Mathieu Dellem(ed.), Habermas, Modernity and Law, London:Sage Publications,1996, pp.135-150,pp.149-150, note 11.后一个文本是《在事实与规范之间》的一篇后记,由Rehg翻译成英文并载于该书英文本中。这篇短文澄清并进一论证了该书出版后所引起的一些争议,为了凸显及其重要性,我将在以下行文中直接引用Deflem所编的《哈贝马斯、现代性与法律》这本著作中的文本,文中所引也将仅标注其在后者中的页码。
② [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法 理性商谈》,朱光 雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,第49页。
① [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法 理性商谈》,朱光 雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,第51页。
② Habermas. Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.35.
③ [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法 理性商谈》,朱光 雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,第51页。
④ Klaus Giinther. The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law. trans.. John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press,1993, p.205.
⑤ Habermas. Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans.. Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994. p.38.
① Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press,1993, p.245.
② Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans.. John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press,1993. p.239.
③ [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法 理性商谈》,朱光 雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,第44页
④ Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans.. Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge, Mass. The MIT Press,1994, p.36.
① Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994. p.37.
② Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994. p.13.
③ Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press,1993. p.205.
④ [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法 理性商谈》,朱光 雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,第44页：相似的表述亦见]Klaus Gunther. The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law. trans., John Farrell, New York:State University of New York Press,1993, p.239.
① Habermas,Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin,Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994. p.38.
② Habermas,Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin,Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.38.
③ Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law. trans., John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press,1993,p.204.
④ Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Approprlateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell. New York:State University of New York Press,1993, p.209.
① Uwe Steinhoff, The Philosophy of Jurgen Habermas:a Critical Introduction, trans.. Karsten Schollner. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2009, p.168.
② William Rehg, Insight and Solidarity:A Study in the Discourse Ethics of Jurgen Habermas,Berkeley:University of California Press,1997, p.191.
③ Mabermas. Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.37.
① Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell, New York:State University of New York Press,1993,p.239.
② Habermas. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg. Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.229.
③ Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans.,Ciaran Cronin,Cambridge. Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.36.
④ Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans.. Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.36.
① Steven, "Truth and Moral Validity:On Habermas' Domesticated Pragmatism". Constellation Volume 18, No.2. Oxford:Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,2011. pp.244-259, p.247.
② Habermas. Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994. pp.63-64.
③ Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,1994, p.64.
④ Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds.. Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.45.
① Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Grambridge, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.45.
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans, William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.5.
③ Habermas. Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass, The MIT Press,1994,p.64.
① Habermas, "Symbolic Expression and Ritual Behavior:Ernst Cassirer and Arnold Gehlen Revisited", in Habermas. Time of Transitions, Ciaran Cronin and Max Pensky(eds. and trans.), Cambridge:Polity Press.2006. pp.53-70, p.57.
② Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988. pp.217-280. p.245.
③ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. William Rehg. Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.20.
④ Uwe Steinhoff. The Philosophy of Jurgen Habermas:a Critical Introduction, trans., Karsten Schollner. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2009, p.167.
① William Rehg, Insight and Solidarity:A Study in the Discourse Ethics ofJurgen Hahermas. Berkeley:University of California Press,1997, p.196.
② [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法 理性商谈》,朱光 雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,2012年版,第11页。
③ [德]哈贝马斯：《对话伦理学与真理的问题》,沈清楷译,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005年版,第23页。
① Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass. The MIT Press,1994. p.14.
② Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans.. Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988. pp.217-280. p.223; Habermas. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.114.
③ Habermas. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, pp.115-116.
④ [德]哈贝马斯：《对话伦理学与真理的问题》,沈清楷译,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005年版,第139页。
⑤ Farid Abdel-Nour. "Farewell to Justification:Habermas. Human Rights, and Universalist Morality". Philosophy & Social Criticism,2004, Vol.30, No. I, pp.73-96, pp.73-74.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.7.
① Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995. pp.61-62.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.28.
② [德]康德：《道德形而上学》(康德著作全集第6卷),李秋零主编,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版,第240页。
③ [德]康德：《道德形而上学》(康德著作全集第6卷),李秋零主编,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版,第226页。
④ [德]康德：《道德形而上学》(康德著作全集第6卷),李秋零主编,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版,第240页。
⑤ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.105-106.
① [德]马克斯·韦伯：《法律社会学》,康乐、简惠美译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2011年版,第331页。
② [德]马克斯·韦伯：《社会学的基本概念》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2011年版,第71页。
① [德]马克斯·韦伯：《法律社会学》,康乐、简惠美译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2011年版,第320-321页。
② [德]马克斯·韦伯：《社会学的基本概念》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2011年版,第71页。
③ [德]马克斯·韦伯：《法律社会学》,康乐、简惠美译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2011年版,第222页
① Habermas,"Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ,Salt Lake City,1988, pp.217-280, p.223.
⑤ Habermas,"Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ,Salt Lake City,1988, pp.217-280, p.222.
⑥ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.243.
① [德]马克斯·韦伯：《法律社会学》,康乐、简惠美译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2011年版,第314页。
② Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988. pp.217-280. p.222.
③ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.256.
① I labcrmas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press,1984. p.259.
① Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans.. Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.243.
② Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988. pp.217-280, pp.223-224.
③ I labermas, "Law and Morality", trans.. Kenneth Baynes. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988. pp.217-280, p.224.
① Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988, pp.217-280, p.226.
② Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988, pp.217-280, p.227. Lake City,1988, pp.217-280. p.228.
③ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.262.
④ Habermas, "Between Facts and Norms:An Author's Reflections". Denver University Law Review,1998-1999. Vol.76, No.4, pp.937-942, p.938.
⑤ Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.261.
① Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy, London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980, p.98.
② Klaus Gunther,"Communicative Freedom. Communicative Power, and Jurisgenesis", in Michel Rosenleld and Andrew Arato(eds.), Habermas on Law and Democracy. London:University of California Press,1998. pp.234-252. p.235.
③ [德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法 理性商谈》,朱光 雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,2012年版,第1页。
④ Robert Alexy, "A Definition of Law", in W. Krawietz and N. MacCormik(eds.). Prescriptive Formality and Normative Rationality in Modern Legal System, Berlin:Duncker&Humblot,1994, pp.98-112,pp.101-103.
① [德]马克斯·韦伯：《社会学的基本概念》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2011年版,第71页。
② Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988. pp.217-280. p.228.
③ Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human lalues. Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988, pp.217-280, p.2.33.
④ David M. Rasmussen."How is Valid Law Possible? A Review of Between Facts and Norms By Jurgen Habermas". in Mathieu Deflem(ed.), Habermas, Modernity and Law, London:SAGE Publications Ltd.,1996, pp.21-44, p.22.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.17.
① Erik Oddvar Eriksen and Jarle Weigard, Understanding Habermas. New York:Continuum.2003. p.131.
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.. William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.25.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.26.
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.37.
① Habermas,On the Logic of the Social Sciences, trans., Shierry Weber Nicholsen and Jerry A. Stark. Cambridge: Polity Press,1988. p.55.
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.. William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.26.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, pp.26-27.
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg. Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.27.
③ 高鸿钧：《商谈法哲学与民主法治国——<在事实与规范之间>阅读》,北京：清华大学出版社,2007年版,第64页。
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.30.
② Habermas. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.37.
③ Pierre Guibentif, "Approaching the Production of Law Through Habermas's Concept of Communicative Action". in Mathieu Deflem(ed.), Habermas, Modernity, and Law. London:SAGE Publications,1996, pp.45-70. p.56.
④ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.38.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.38.
① Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988,pp.217-280. p.219.
② Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas MeCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1984, p.261.
① [德]马克斯·韦伯：《社会学的基本概念》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2011年版,第57页。
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.. William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.43.
③ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.. William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.44-48.
① Habennas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.46.
② [德]尼可拉斯·卢曼：《法社会学》,宾凯、赵春燕译,上海：上海人民出版社,2013年版,第183页。
③ Habermas. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.48.
④ [德]尼可拉斯·卢曼：《法社会学》,宾凯、赵春燕译,上海：上海人民出版社,2013年版,第189页。
① Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans.. Kenneth Baynes. The Tanner Lectures on Human Vblues, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988, pp.217-280. p.253.
② [德]尼可拉斯·卢曼：《法社会学》,宾凯、赵春燕译,上海：上海人民出版社,2013年版,第190页
③ [德]尼克拉斯·卢曼：《社会的法律》,郑伊倩,北京：人民出版社,2009年版,第17页。
④ 高鸿钧：《商谈法哲学与民主法治国——<在事实与规范之间>阅读》,北京：清华大学出版社,2007年版,第48页。
⑤ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.49.
① Habcrmas. Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy. London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980. p.140.
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.50.
③ Habermas. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.43.
④ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.. William Rehg, Cambrigdc, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.48.
⑤ Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy. London:Ileinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980, p.131.
① Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans.. Kenneth Baynes. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988, pp.217-280, p.259.
① Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds.. Ciaran and Palo De GrcifF. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.49.
② [美]约翰·罗尔斯：《正义论》,何怀宏等译,北京：中国社会出版社,1988年版,第5页。
③ [美]约翰·罗尔斯：《正义论》,何怀宏等译,北京：中国社会出版社,1988年版,第5页。
④ [美]约翰·罗尔斯：《正义论》,何怀宏等译,北京：中国社会出版社,1988年版,第5页。
① [美]约翰·罗尔斯：《正义论》,何怀宏等译,北京：中国社会出版社,1988年版,第61页。
② [美]约翰·罗尔斯：《正义论》,何怀宏等译,北京：中国社会出版社,1988年版,第302页
⑧ [美]约翰·罗尔斯：《正义论》,何怀宏等译,北京：中国社会出版社,1988年版,第12页。
④ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.. William Rehg. Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, pp.57-58.
① [美]迈克尔·J.桑德尔：《自由主义与正义的局限》,万俊人等译,上海：译林出版社,2011年版,第107页。
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.69.
③ [美]约翰·罗尔斯：《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2011年版,第222页。
④ [美]约翰·罗尔斯：《政治自由主义》,万俊人译,上海：译林出版社,2011年版,第124页。
① Thomas Pogge, John Rawls:His Life and Theory of Justice, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2007, p.28.
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.71.
③ Habermas, Between Facts and Normi:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press.1996, p.56.
④ Habermas. The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1998. p.71.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg. Cambrigdc, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.85.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.106.
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.106.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.107.
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.107-108.
① Wellmer, "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer, The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991. pp.113-231, p.127.
② Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds.. Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press.1998, p.49.
③ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy,trans.. William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.105.
① Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans, William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.110.
① Uwe Steinhoff, The Philosophy of Jurgen Habermas:a Critical Introduction, trans., Karsten Schollner, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2009, p.223.
② Uwe Steinhoff, The Philosophy of Jurgen Habermas:a Critical Introduction, trans., Karsten Schollner, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2009, p.223.
③ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.156.
④ Robert Alexy, "Jurgen Habermas's Theory of Legal Discourse ", in Michel Rosenfeld and Andrew Arato(eds.). Habermas on Law and Democracy. London:University of California Press,1998. pp.226-233. p.226.
① David Ingram, Habermas:Introduction and Analysis, Ithaca, London:Cornell University Press,2010. p.199.
② Habermas. "Law and Morality", trans.. Kenneth Bayncs. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City.1988. pp.217-280. p.244.
③ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. p.234.
④ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.234.
⑤ Hbabermas. "Postscript to Between Facts and Norms", trans., William Rehg, in Mathieu Dcllem(ed.), Habermas, Modernity and Law. London:Sage Publications,1996, pp.135-150, p.136.
① Hugh Baxter, Habermas: The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Stanford, California: Standford University Press, 2011, p.66.
② Habermas, "Postscript to Between Facts and Norms", trans., William Rehg, in Mathieu Deflem(ed.), Habermas, Modernity and Law, London: Sage Publications, 1996, pp. 135-150, p.140.
③ Uwe Steinhoff. The Philosophy of Jurgen Habermas: a Critical Introduction, trans., Karsten Schollner, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, p.224.
④ 这点我们在此不能展开,就法律的证立性商谈与应用性商谈之区分具有代表性的是立法过程与司法过程立法过程关照的是法律的合法性,而司法过程则关注的是特定时间、特定地点中具体法律条文的适当性。相关论述请参见Klaus Gunther. The Sense of Appropriateness: Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell, New York: State University of New York Press, 1993, pp.247-284; Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1996, pp.228-233以及[德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法 理性商谈》,朱光 雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,第164-167页。
① Habermas. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press1996,p.132.在童世骏教授翻译的中译本中,童教授以附录的形式编入了哈贝马斯在特纳讲座中的《法律与道德》这篇文章,但是我们发现童教授将特纳讲座中的"rule of law"与哈贝马斯在《在事实与规范之间》使用的'constitutional state"统一翻译为“法治国”我认为哈贝马斯并不是在统一意义上来运用这两个词,虽然两者都具有用法律治理国家的意涵。但是前者与后者明显是就不同语境来讲,前者处于较具体的层而,它表达的是现代国家中的立法、司法以及行政等等权力皆出于具有合法性的宪法,而后者则是从法律本身的抽象性质来切入的,它实际上表达的是较抽象的商谈法,与哈贝马斯所反对的自然法与实证法相对。因而,我在本研究涉及到两个概念之处,分别采取了不同的翻译方式,以防止术语上的混乱,至少彰显出两者的细微差别。
② Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes. The Tanner Lectures on Human lalues, Vol.Ⅷ. Salt Lake City,1988. pp.217-280. p.271.
③ Hugh Baxter, Habermas:The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Stanford. California:Standford University Press,2011. p.67.
① Habermas,"Postscript to Between Facts and Norms", trans.. William Rehg, in Mathieu Deflem(ed.), Habermas, Modernity and Law. London:Sage Publications,1996, pp.135-150, p.135.
② Habermas. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.. William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.106.
① Hbabermas, "Postscript to Between Facts and Norms", trans., William Rehg. in Mathieu Deflem(ed.), Hahermas, Modernity and Law, London:SAGE Publications,1996, pp.135-150, p.137.
② Hahermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988. pp.217-280, p.233.
③ Habermas. Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996. pp.151-152.
① Habermas. "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Bayncs, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988. pp.217-280. p.244.
② Hbabermas. "Postscript to Between Facts and Norms", trans., William Rehg, in Mathieu Dellem(ed.). Habermas, Modernity and Law. London:Sage Publications,1996. pp.135-150. p.139.
③ 更详细的讨论请参见Lasse Thomassen. Habermas:A Guide for the Perplexed, London. New York:Continnum. 2010, pp.112-114.
④ Habermas. "Between Facts and Norms:An Author's Reflections". Denver University Law Review,1998-1999, Vol.76, No.4. pp.937-942,p.938.
① Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988, pp.217-280, p.241.
② Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans.. William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.107.
③ Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988. pp.217-280, p.244.
① Lasse Thomassen. Habermas:A Guide for the Perplexed, London, New York:Continuum,2010. p.113.
② Habermas. "Law and Morality", trans.. Kenneth Baynes. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ. Salt Lake City,1988, pp.217-280. p.246.
③ Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds.. Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998, p.214.
④ Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. William Rehg, Cambrigde. Mass.:The MIT Press,1996, p.83.
① Wellmer, "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer, The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans.. David Midgley. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991. pp.113-231. p.151.
② Wellmer. "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer. The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley. Cambridge. Mass.:The MIT Press,1991. pp.113-231,p.151.
① Leslie A.Howe,On Habermas,Belmont;Wadsworth,2000,p.40.
① See Uwe Steinhoff, The Philosophy of Jurge n Habermas:a Critical Introduction, trans.. Karsten Schollner. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2009. p.193.
① Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans., Thomas McCarthy, London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980, p.95.
② Leslie A. Howe. On Habermas, Belmont:Wadsworth,2000, p.39.
① 哈贝马斯接受韦尔默的批评之后,已经放弃了令人容易联想其类似于皮尔斯与阿佩尔的无限交往共同体(infinite communicative community)这一个先验性质的概念。但是,它并未放弃用基础上的理想化,在一篇采访稿件中,哈贝马斯如是说： “如韦尔默一样,我批判皮尔斯与阿佩尔的理想共同体的概念,甚至是我自己的‘理想言说情境’概念,它们是抽象误置为具体的谬误。这些想象是具体主义的,因为它们提供了一个被认为终究会达成的最终条件——这不是它们打算提供的。但是我仍然坚持不可避免的语用学前提的理想化内容,这里只允许出现最好论据。”(Habermas, "Between Facts and Norms:A Conversation about Questions of Political Theory", in Rene von Shomberg and Kenneth Baynes(eds.), Discourse and Democracy: Essays on Habermas's Between Facts and Norms, New York:State University of New York Press,2002:pp.241-258,p.251.本篇文章亦收于labermas, A Berlin Republic:Writings on Germany, trans., Steven Rendall, London:University of Nebraska Press,1997, pp.131-160.)
1. Habermas, Justification and Application:Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1994.
2. Habermas, Truth and Justification, trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,2003.
3. Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans., Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995.
4. Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, trans., Jeremy J. Shapiro, Boston: Beacon Press,1971.
5. Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communivative Action, trans., Barbara Fultner, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2001.
6. Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans., William Rehg, Cambrigde, Mass.:The MIT Press, 1996.
7. Habermas, The Future of Human Nature, trans., William Rehg, Max Pensky, et al., Cambridge:Polity Press,2003.
8.[德]哈贝马斯：《哈贝马斯在华演讲集》,中国社会科学院哲学研究所编,北京：人民出版社,2002年版。
9. Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume one:Reason and The Rationalization of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press, 1984.
10.[德]哈贝马斯：《现代性的哲学话语》,曹玉东译,上海：译林出版社,2004年版。
11. Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, trans.. Thomas McCarthy, London:Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.,1980.
12. Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory, eds., Ciaran and Palo De Greiff, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1998.
13.[德]哈贝马斯：《现代性的地平线——哈贝马斯访谈录》,李安东、段怀清译,上海：上海人民出版社,1997年版。
14.[德]哈贝马斯：《作为“意识形态”的技术与科学》,李黎、郭官义译,上海：学林出版社,1999年版。
15. Habermas, Between Naturalism and Religion:Philosophical Essays, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge:Polity Press,2008.
16.[德]哈贝马斯：《后民族结构》,曹卫东译,上海：上海人民出版社,2002年版。
17.[德]哈贝马斯：《后形而上学思想》,曹卫东、付德根译,上海：译林出版社,2001年版。
18. Habermas, On the Logic of the Social Sciences, trans., Shierry Weber Nicholsen and Jerry A. Stark, Cambridge:Polity Press,1988.
19. Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two:Lifeworld and System:A Critique of Founctionalist Reason, trans., Thomas MaCarthy, Boston: Beason Press,1987.
20.[德]哈贝马斯：《对话伦理学与真理的问题》,沈清楷译,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005年版。
21. Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans., Thomas McCarthy, Boston:Beacon Press,1979.
22. Habermas, Theory and Practice, trans., John Viertel, Boston:Beacon Press,1974.
23.[德]哈贝马斯：《重建历史唯物主义》,郭官义译,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2000年版。
1. Habermas, "Taking Aim at the Heart of the Present:On Foucault's Lecture on Kant's What is Englightenment?", in Habermas, The New Conservatism:Cultural Criticism and the Historian's Debate, ed. and trans., Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1989, pp.173-185.
2. Habermas, "Modernity:An Unfinished Project", in Maurizio Passerin d'Entreves and Seyla Benhabib(eds.), Habermas and The Unfinished Project of Modernity, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1997, pp.39-55.
3. Habermas, "Questions and Counterquestions", in Richard J.Bernstein (ed.), Habermas and Modernity, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1985, pp.192-216.
4. Habermas, "Some Futher Clarification of the Communicative Rationality", in Maeve Cooke(ed.), On the Pragmatic of Communication, Cambridge:Polity Press,1999, pp.310-317.
5. Habermas, "An Awareness of What is Missing", in Jurgen Habermas et al., An Awareness of What is Missing:Faith and Reason in a Post-Secular Age, trans., Ciaran Cronin, Cambridge:Polity Press,2010, pp.15-23.
6. Jurgen Habermas, "A Reply", in Axel Honneth and Hans Joas(eds.), Communicative Action:Essays on Habermas's The Theory of Communicative Action, trans., Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.214-264.
7.[德]哈贝马斯：《评伽达默尔的<真理与方法>一书》,郭官义译,《世界哲学》,1986年第3期。
8.[德]哈贝马斯：《解释学要求普遍适用》,高地、鲁旭东、孟庆时译,《世界哲学》,1986年第3期。
9.[德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯：《论理由的象征性体现》,鲍永玲译,《哲学分析》,2013年第1期。
10. Habermas, "Postscript to Between Facts and Norms", trans., William Rehg, in Mathieu Deflem(ed.), Habermas, Modernity and Law, London:Sage Publications, 1996, pp.135-150.
11. Habermas, "Symbolic Expression and Ritual Behavior:Ernst Cassirer and Arnold Gehlen Revisited", in Habermas, Time of Transitions, eds. and trans., Ciaran Cronin and Max Pensky, Cambridge:Polity Press,2006, pp.53-70.
12. Habermas, "Law and Morality", trans., Kenneth Baynes, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol.Ⅷ, Salt Lake City,1988, pp.217-280.
13. Habermas, "Between Facts and Norms:An Author's Reflections", Denver University Law Review,1998-1999, Vol.76, No.4, pp.937-942.
14. Habermas, "Between Facts and Norms:A Conversation about Questions of Political Theory", in Habermas, A Berlin Republic:Writings on Germany, trans., Steven Rendall, London:University of Nebraska Press,1997, pp.131-160.
1.[美]A.麦金太尔：《追寻美德》,宋继杰译,上海：译林出版社,2008年版。
2. Seylia Benhabib, Critique, Norm, and Utopia:A Study of the Foundations of Critical Throry, New York:Columbia University Press,1986, p.286.
3.龚群：《道德乌托邦的重构——哈贝马斯交往伦理思想研究》,北京：商务印书馆,2005年版。
4.章国峰：《关于一个公正世界的“乌托邦构想”——解读哈贝马斯<交往行动理论>》,济南：山东人民出版社,2001年版。
5. David Ingram, Habermas:Introduction and Analysis, Ithaca, London:Cornell University Press,2010.
6.胡军良：《哈贝马斯对话伦理学研究》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2010年版。
7.[英]约瑟夫·拉兹：《实践理性与规范》,朱学平译,北京：中国法制出版社,2011年版。
8. Luca Corchia, Jurgen Habermas, a Bibliography:Works and Studies(1952-2010), Pisa:Arnus University Books,2010.
9. James Gordon Finlayson, Habermas:A Very Short Introduction, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2005.
10. Edgar Andre, Habermas, The Key Concepts, New York:Routledge,2006.
11. Thomas McCarthy, The Critical Thoery of Jurgen Habermas, Cambridge, Mass. The MIT Press,1985.
12. J. M. Bernstein, Recovering Ethical Life:Jurgen Habermas and the Future of Critical Theory, London, New York:Routledge,1995.
13. Erik Oddvar Eriksen and Jarle Weigard, Understanding Habermas: Commmunicative Action and Deliberative Democracy, New York:Continuum, 2003.
14. David M.Rasmussen, Reading Habermas, Oxford:Blackwell Publishers,1990.
15. David S.Owen, Between Reason and History, New Nork:State University of New York Press,2002.
16. Omid A. Pavrow, Democracy, Power and Legitimacy:The Critical Theory of Jiirgen Habermas, London:University of Toronto Press,2003.
17. Joseph Health, Communicative Action and Rational Choice, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,2003.
18. Uwe Steinhoff, The philosophy of Jurgen Habermas, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2009.
19. Darrow Schecter, The Critique of Instrumental Reason from Weber to Habermas, New York:Continuum,2010.
20. Klaus Gunther, The Sense of Appropriateness:Application Discourse in Morality and Law, trans., John Farrell, New York:State University of New York Press, 1993.
21. William Rehg, Congent Scicence in Context:The Science Wars, Argumentation Theory, and Habermas, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,2009.
22. Janna Thompson, Discourse and Knowledge:Defence of a collectivist ethics, New York:Routledge,1998.
23. Logi Gunnarsson, Making Moral Sense:Beyond Habermas and Gaiithier, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003.
24.阮新邦、林端主编：《解读<沟通行动理论>》,上海:上海人民出版社,2003年版。
25.童世骏：《批判与实践——论哈贝马斯的批判理论》,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2007年版。
26.薛华：《哈贝马斯的商谈伦理学》,沈阳：辽宁教育出版社,1988年版。
27.张少动：《研究方法》,台中：沧海书局,2002年版。
28.[德]汉斯-格奥尔格·伽达默尔：《真理与方法》(上卷),洪汉鼎译,上海：上海译文出版社,2004年版。
29.[法]萨德：《贞洁的厄运》,张章译,北京：九州出版社,2000年版。
30.[法]茨维坦·托多罗夫：《启蒙的精神》,马利红译,上海：华东师范大学出版社,2012年版。
31. Milan Zafirovski, The Enlightement and Its Effects on Modern Society, New York: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC,2011.
32.[德]康德：《判断力批判》,邓晓芒译,北京：人民出版社,2002年版。
33.[德]马克斯·韦伯：《学术与政治》,钱永祥译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社 2010年版。
34. Charles Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries, Durham:Duke University Press, 2004.
35.[德]马克斯·霍克海默、西奥多·阿道尔诺：《启蒙辩证法》,渠敬东、曹卫东译,上海：上海人民出版社,2006年版。
36.黄瑞祺：《现代与后现代》,台北：巨流图书公司,2000年版。
37.[德]T.W阿多诺：《道德哲学的问题》,谢地坤、王彤译,北京：人民出版社,2007年版。
38.[加]查尔斯·泰勒：《本真性的伦理》,程炼译,上海：上海三联书店,2012年版。
39. Hillary Putnam, Ethics without Ontology, Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press,2004.
40. Martin Morris, Rethinking the Communicative Turn:Adorno, Habermas and the Problem of Communicative Freedom, New York:State University of New York, 2001.
41. Katerina Deligiorgi, Kant and the Culture of Enlightenment, New York:State University of New York Press,2005.
42. Alfred Jules Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic, New York:Dover Publications, Inc, 1952.
43.[澳大利亚]约翰·L·麦凯：《伦理学——发明对与错》,丁三东译,上海：上海译文出版社,2006年
44.[古希腊]柏拉图：《柏拉图全集》,王晓朝译,北京：人民出版社,2002年版。
45.[德]康德：《道德形而上学原理》,苗力田译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版。
46. John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, ed., Colin Heydt, Toronto:Broadview Press, 2010.
47.[英]亨利·西季威克：《伦理学史纲》,熊敏译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2008年版。
48.[英]摩尔：《伦理学原理》,长河译,上海：上海人民出版社,2005年版。
49. Andrew Bowie, Introduction to German Philosophy:From Kant to Habermas, Cambridge:Polity Press,2003.
50. Stephen Carden, Vitue Ethics:Dewey and Maclntyre, New York:Continuum, 2006.
51. John M. Rist, Real Ethics:Rethinking the Foundations of Morality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2002.
52.[瑞士]汉斯·昆、库舍尔编：《全球伦理——世界宗教议会宣言》,何光沪译,成都：四川人民出版社,1997年版。
53.[瑞士]汉斯·昆：《世界伦理构想》,周艺译,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2002年版。
54. Hans Kung, Global Responsibility:In Search of a New World Ethics, Michigan: Crossroad Publishing Company,1996.
55.[英]理查德·麦尔文·黑尔：《道德语言》,万俊人译,北京：商务印书馆,2005年版。
56. Karl-Otto Apel, Towards a Transformation of Philosophy, trans., Glyn Adey and David Fisby, Milwaukee:Marquette University Press,1998, p.226.
57.[法]让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔：《后现代道德》,莫伟民、伭晓笛译,上海：学林出版社,2000年版。
58. Giovanna Borradori, Philosophy in a Time of Terror:Dialogues with Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida, Chicago, London:The University of Chicago Press,2003, p.14.
59. Maeve Cooke, Language and Reason:A Study of Habermas's Pragmatics, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1997, p.38.
60. Gillespie, Michael Allen, Theological Origins of Modernity, Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2008.
61.[德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法、理性、商谈——法哲学研究》,朱光、雷磊译,北京：中国法制出版社,2011年版。
62.[德]米夏埃尔·哈勒：《作为未来的过去——与著名哲学家哈贝马斯对话》,章国峰译,杭州：浙江人民出版社,2001年版。
63.高宣扬：《哈伯玛斯论》,台北：远流出版公司,1991年版。
64.欧少亭主编：《新编现代汉语词典》,延吉：延边人民出版社,2002年版。
65.[德]马克斯·韦伯：《社会学的基本概念》,顾忠华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2010年版。
66.[美]塔尔科特·帕森斯：《社会行动的结构》,张明德等译,上海：译林出版社,2012年版。
67.傅永军：《法兰克福学派的现代性理论》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2007年版。
68. John Ayto, Word Origins, London:A&C Black Publishers Ltd,2005.
69.[美]约翰·罗尔斯：《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2011年版。
70. John F. Sitton, Habermas and Contemporary Society, New York:PALGRAVE MACMILLAN,2003.
71.[德]韦伯：《新教伦理与资本主义精神》,康乐、简惠美译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2010年版。
72.[德]施路赫特：《理性化与官僚化：对韦伯之研究与诠释》,顾忠华译,杜林：广西师范大学出版社,2004年版。
73.高宣扬：《实用主义和语用论》,台北：远流出版事业股份有限公司,1994年版。
74. David Ingram, Habermas and the Dialetic of Reason, New Haven, London:Yale University Press,1987.
75. Marie Fleming, Emancipation and Illusion:Rationality and Gender in Habermas's Theory of Modernity, Pennsylvania:The Pennsylvania State University Press,1997.
76.汪行福：《走出时代的困境——哈贝马斯对现代性的反思》,上海：上海科学院出版社,2000年版。
77. Hugh Baxter, Habermas:The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Stanbford, California:Stanford University Press,2011.
78. James Swindal, Reflection Revisited:Jiirgen Habermas's Discursive Theory of Truth, New York:Fordham University Press,1999.
79. Michael Pusey, Jiirgen Habermas, London, New York:Tavistock Publications, 1987.
80.洪镰德：《西方马克思主义》,台北：扬智文化事业股份有限公司,2004年版。
81. Ian Craib, Modern Social Theory:From Parsons to Habermas, Brighton: Wheatsheaf Ltd.,1994.
82. Emilia Steuerman, The Bounds of Reason:Habermas, Lyotard and Melanie Klein on rationality, New York:Routledge,2000.
83.[德]伽达默尔：《真理与方法》(下卷),洪汉鼎译,上海：上海译文出版社2004年版。
84. John B. Thompson, Critical Hermeneutics:A Study in the Thought of Paul Ricoeur and Jurgen Habermas, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1981.
85. Alan How, The Habermas-Gadamer Debate and the Nature of the Social, Aldershot:Avebury Ashgate Publishing Ltd.,1995.
86.[奥]维特根斯坦：《蓝皮书与褐皮书》,涂纪亮译,北京：北京大学出版社,2012年版。
87.[奥]维特根斯坦：《哲学研究》,李步楼译,北京：商务印书馆,1996年版。
88. A. C. Grayling, Wittgenstein:A Very Short Introduction, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1996.
89. J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1975.
90. Jenny Thomas, Meaning in Interaction:An Introduction to Pragmatics, London: Longman,1995.
91. Austin Harrington, Hermeneutic Dialogue and Social Science:A Critique of Gadamer and Habermas, London:Routledge,2001.
92.盛晓明：《话语规则与知识基础——语用学维度》,上海：学林出版社,2000年版。
93.阮新邦：《迈向崭新的社会知识观》,北京：北京大学出版社,2005年版。
94.[古希腊]亚里士多德：《尼各马可伦理学》,廖申白译,北京：商务印书馆,2005年版。
95.[美]奎迈·安东尼·阿皮亚：《世界主义：陌生人世界里的道德规范》,苗华健译,北京：中央编译出版社,2012年版。
96.[英]休谟：《人性论》,关文运译,北京：商务印书馆,1980年版。
97.[英]休谟：《道德原则研究》,曾晓平译,北京：商务印书馆,2001年版。
98.[美]希拉里·普特南：《事实与价值二分法的崩溃》,应奇译,北京：东方出版社2006年版。
99.邓晓芒：《康德<道德形而上学奠基>句读》,北京：人民出版社,2012年版。
100.[美]罗伯特·诺齐克：《合理性的本质》,葛四友、陈昉译,上海：上海译文出版社,2012年版。
101.[美]罗纳德·德沃金：《认真对待权利》,信春鹰、吴玉章译,上海：上海三联书店,2008年版。
102.P.F. Strawson, Freedom and Resentment and Oher Essays, New York:Routledge, 2008.
103.T. W. Scanlon, What We Owe to Each Other, Cambridge, Mass.:The Belknap Press of Harvard University,1998.
104.[德]罗伯特·阿列可西：《法律论证理论：作为法律证立理论的理性论辩理论》,舒国滢译,北京：中国法制出版社,2002年版。
105.Stephen Toulmin, An Exmination of the Place of Reason in Ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1950.
106.万俊人：《现代西方伦理学史》(上卷),北京：中国人民出版社,2011年版。
107.杨宁芳：《图尔敏论证逻辑思想研究》,北京：人民出版社,2012年版。
108.[美]乔治·H·米德：《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海：上海译文出版社,1992年版。
109.王晓升：《哈贝马斯的现代性社会理论》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2006年版。
110.[美]L·科尔伯格：《道德发展心理学——道德阶段的本质与确证》,郭本禹、何谨等译,上海：华东师范大学出版社,2004年版。
111.[美]汉娜·阿伦特等：《耶路撒冷的艾希曼》,孙传钊编译,长存：吉林人民出版社,2003年版。
112.[美]恩格尔哈特：《生命伦理学的基础》(第二版),范瑞平译,长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1996年版。
113.Simone Chambers, Reasonable Democracy:Jurgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse, New York:Cornell University Press,1996.
114.Mark Timmons, Morality without Foundations:A Defense of Ethical Contextualism, New York, Oxford:Oxford University,1999.
115.[德]康德：《实践理性批判》,邓晓芒译,北京：人民出版社,2003年版。
116.William Rehg, Insight and Solidarity:A Study in the Discourse of Jurgen Habermas, Berkeley:University of California Press,1994.
117.[德]罗伯特·阿列克西：《法：作为理性的制度化》,雷磊编译,北京：中国法制出版社,2012年版。
118.James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, forth edition, New York:The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.,2003.
119.[德]黑格尔：《哲学史讲演录》(第四卷),贺麟、王太庆译,北京：商务印书馆,1983年版。
120.Axel Honneth, Disrespect:The Normative Foundations of Critical Theory, Cambridge:Polity Press,2007.
121.Kenneth G. Mackendrick, Discourse, Desire, and Fantasy in Jiirgen Habermas' Critical Theory, New York:Routledge,2008.
122.[德]阿克塞尔·霍奈特：《为承认而斗争》,胡继华译,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005年版。
123.[德]阿尔布莱希特·韦尔默：《后形而上学现代性》,应奇、罗亚玲编译,上海：上海译文出版社,2007年版。
124.Andrew Edgar, The Philosophy of Habermas, Chesham:Acumen Publishing Ltd., 2005.
125.Seyla Benhabib, Situating the Self:Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics, New York:Routledge,1992.
126.[德]康德：《道德形而上学》(康德著作全集第6卷),李秋零主编,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版。
127.[德]马克斯·韦伯：《法律社会学》,康乐、简惠美译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2011年版。
128.高鸿钧：《商谈法哲学与民主法治国——<在事实与规范之间>阅读》,北京：清华大学出版社,2007年版。
129.[德]尼可拉斯·卢曼：《法社会学》,宾凯、赵春燕译,上海：上海人民出版社,2013年版。
130.[德]尼克拉斯·卢曼：《社会的法律》,郑伊倩,北京：人民出版社,2009年版。
131.[美]约翰·罗尔斯：《正义论》,何怀宏等译,北京：中国社会出版社,1988年版。
132.[美]迈克尔·J.桑德尔：《自由主义与正义的局限》,万俊人等译,上海：译林出版社,2011年版。
133.[美]约翰·罗尔斯：《政治自由主义》,万俊人译,上海：译林出版社,2011年版。
134.Thomas Pogge, John Rawls:His Life and Theory of Justice, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2007.
135.Lasse Thomassen, Habermas:A Guide for the Perplexed, London, New York: Continnum,2010.
136.Leslie A. Howe, On Habermas, Belmont:Wadsworth,2000.
1. Anthony Giddens, "Reason Without Revolution? Habermas's Theorie des kommmunikativen Handelns", in Richard J.Bernstein (ed.), Habermas and Modernity, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1985, pp.95-121.
2. John Mingers and Geoff Walsham, "Toward Ethical Information Systems:The Contribution of Discourse Ethics", MIS Quarterly,2010(4), Vol.34, pp.833-854.
3. Ricardo Blaug, "Citizenship and Political Judgment:Between Discourse Ethics and Phronesis", Res Publica,2000(6), pp.179-198.
4. William Rehg, "The Critical Potential of Discourse Ethics:Reply to Meehan and Chambers", Human Studies,2002(25), pp.407-412.
5. Wellmer, "Ethics and Dialogue:Elements of Moral Judgement in Kant and Discourse", in Albrecht Wellmer, The Persistence of Modernity:Essays on Aesthetics, Ethics and Postmodernism, trans., David Midgley, Cambridge, Mass. The MIT Press,1991, pp.113-231.
6. Erin Kelly, "Habermas on Moral Justification", Social Theory and Practice,2000, Vol.26, No.2, pp.223-249.
7. Eva Erman, "Conflict and Universal Moral Theory:From Reasonableness to Reason-Giving", Political Theory,2007, Vol.35, No.5, pp.223-249.
8.李志成：《哈伯玛斯商谈伦理学的证成与应用》,台北：台湾大学博士论文,2006年。
9.宫瑜：《交往理性与道德共识——哈贝马斯话语伦理学研究》,长春：吉林大学博士论文,2011年。
10.章国锋:《话语·权力·真理——社会正义与话语的伦理》,《社会科学》,2006年第2期。
11.胡军良：《哈贝马斯对阿佩尔对话伦理思想的继承与超越》,《云南社会科学》,2010年第1期。
12.胡绍嘉：《话语的意义、行动与伦理：在哈伯马斯与皮尔斯间寻索》,载黄瑞琪主编：《沟通、批判和实践：哈伯马斯八十论集》,台北：允晨文化实业股份有限公司,2010年版。
13.王晓升：《评哈贝马斯的道德普遍主义和伦理多元主义》,《中共浙江省委党校学报》,2010年第3期。
14. Jari Ilmari Niemi, "The Foundations of Jurgen Habermas's Discourse Ethics". The Journal of Value Inquiry,2008, Vol.42, pp.255-268.
15.[德]康德：《回答这个问题——什么是启蒙?》,载《康德著作全集》(第8卷),李秋零主编,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版。
16. Michel Foucault, "What is Enlightenment?", in Paul Rabinow(ed.), Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth.The Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984, volume one, trans., Robert and Others, New York:The New Press,1997, pp.303-320.
17. Ciaran Cronin, "Kant's Politics of Enlightenment'', Journal of the History of Philosophy,2003, Vol.41, No.1, pp.51-80.
18.[英]艾伦·斯温伍德：《现代性与文化》,载周宪主编：《文化现代性》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版。
19. Thomas McCarthy, "Reflection on Rationalization in The Theory of Communicative Action", in Richard J. Bernstein (ed.), Habermas and Modernity, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Ptess,1985, pp.176-191.
20.陈泽环：《论西方伦理学的道德论证》,《哲学动态》,2006年第7期。
21.万俊人：《现代社会道德合理性基础论证——兼及中国现代化运作中的道德问题》,《北京大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),1996年第2期。
22. Seonghwa Lee, "Transversal-Universals in Discourse Ethics:Towards a Reconcilable Ethics between Universalism and Communitarianism", Human Studies,2001(24), pp.45-56.
23. Paul F. Buller, John J. Kohls, Kenneth S. Anderson, "The Challenge of Global Ethics", Journal of Business 10,1991, pp.767-775.
24. Hans Kung, "Global Ethics:A Response to My Critics", International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society,2000, Vol.14, No.2, pp.420-428.
25.邓晓芒：《全球伦理的可能性：“金规则”的三种模式》,《江苏社会科学》,2002年第4期。
26. Lasse Thomassen, "The Inclusion of the Other? Habermas and the Paradox of Tolerance", Political Theory,2006, Vol.34. No.4, pp.439-462.
27.傅水军：《全球伦理与孔子的德性之思——<全球伦理宣言>再省思》,《云南大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),2012年第4期。
28. Karl-Otto Apel, "Globalization and the Need for Universal Ethics". European Journal of Social Theory 3(2),2000, pp.137-155.
29.翟振明：《为何全球伦理不是普遍伦理》,冯平译,《世界哲学》,2003年第3期。
30. G. E. M. Anscombe, "Modern Moral Philosophy", in Roger Crisp and Michael Slote(eds.), Virtue Ethics, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1997, pp.26-44.
31.[英]齐格蒙特·鲍曼：《对秩序的追求》,载周宪主编：《文化现代性》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2010年版。
32. Albrecht Welllmer, "Practical Philosophy and the Theory of Society:On the Problem of the Normative Foundations of a Critical Social Science", in Seyla Benhabib and Fred Dallmayr(eds.), The Communicative Ethics Controversy, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, pp.293-329.
33.[英]K.R.波普尔：《没有认识主体的认识论》,邱仁宗译,《世界科学译刊》,1980年第2期。
34. Albrecht Wellmer, "Reason, Utopia, and the Dialectic of Enlightenment", in Richard J. Bernstein(ed.), Habermas and Modernity, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1994, pp.35-66.
35.徐闻：《哈贝马斯论实践理性与交往理性》,《东岳论丛》,2011年第4期。
36.傅永军：《哈贝马斯交往合理性述评》,《山东大学学报》(哲学社会科学版),2003年第3期。
37. Charles Taylor, "Language and Society", in Axel Honneth and Hans Joas(eds.), Communicative Action:Essays on Jurgen Habermas's the Theory of Communicative Action, trans., Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.23-35.
38.傅永军：《接受与拒斥——批判理论在中国大陆的命运》,载[德]阿梅龙等主编：《法兰克福学派在中国》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2011年版。
39.[加]查尔斯·泰勒：《坚定不移的激情：为什么说哈贝马斯的声誉和影响是名至实归的》,郁喆隽译,载《当代国外马克思主义评论》,2009年辑。
40. Jacent Um'Imana, Reason as a Basis for Consensus in Interaction:A Study Based on the Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas, Diss., Rome,2001.
41. Brian K. Powell, "Discourse Ethics and Moral Rationalism", Dialogue,2009(7), pp.373-386.
42.杨玉成：《奥斯汀论言和行》,《哲学研究》,2004年第1期。
43. Carlos Pereda, "Assertions, Truth, and Argumentation", in Lewis Edwin Hahn(ed.), Perspectives on Habermas, London:Open Court Publishing Company, 2000, pp.51-70.
44. George Snedeker, "Defending the Enlightenment:Jurgen Habermas and the Theory of Communicative Reason", Dialectical Anthropology,2000(25), pp.239-253.
45.文兵：《普特南论事实与价值之分离之谬》,《南京社会科学》,2009年第10期。
46. Marin Seel, "The Two Meaning of'Communicative'Rationality:Remarks on Habermas's Critique of a Plural Concept of Reason", in Axel Honneth and Hans Joas(eds.), Communicative Action:Essays on Jiirgen Habermas's The Theory of Communicative Action, trans., Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.36-48.
47. J. Donald Moon, "Practical Discourse and Communicative Ethics", in Stephen K. White(ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Habermas, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1995, pp.143-166.
48. Albert J. Bergesen, "Chomsky versus Mead", Sociological Theory,2004, Vol.22, No.3,pp.357-370.
49. George H. Mead, "Scientific Method and The Moral Sciences", The International Journal of Ethics,1923, Vol.33, No.3, pp.229-247.
50. Gregg Daniel Miller, Mimesis in Communicative Action:Habermas and the Affective Bond of Understanding, Diss., University of Washington,2005.
51. George H. Mead, "The Philosophical Basis of Ethics", International Journal of Ethics,1908, Vol.18, No.3, pp.311-323.
52. Martin Morris, "Social Justice and Communication:Mill, Marx, and Habermas", Soc Just Res 2009(22), pp.134-155.
53. Giinter Dux,"Communicative Reason and Interest:On the Reconstruction of the Normative Order in Societies Structured by Egalitarianism or Domination", in Axel Honneth and Hans Joas(eds.), Communicative Action:Essays on Jurgen Habermas's The Theory of Communicative Action, trans., Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1991, pp.74-96.
54. Seyla Benhabib, "Communicative Ethics and Current Controversies in Practical Philosophy", in Seyla Benhabib and Fred Dallmayr(eds.), The Communicative Ethics Controversy, Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press,1995, pp.330-370.
55. Thomas McCarthy, "Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism:Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue", Ethics,1994, Vol.105, No.1, pp.44-63.
56. Steven, "Truth and Moral Validity:On Habermas' Domesticated Pragmatism" Constellation Volume 18, No.2, Oxford:Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,2011, pp.244-259.
57. Farid Abdel-Nour, "Farewell to Justification:Habermas, Human Rights, and Universalist Morality", in Philosophy & Social Criticism,2004, Vol.30, No.1, pp.73-96.
58. Klaus Gunther, "Communicative Freedom, Communicative Power, and Jurisgenesis", in Michel Rosenfeld and Andrew Arato(eds.), Habermas on Law and Democracy, London:University of California Press,1998, pp.234-252.
59. Robert Alexy, "A Definition of Law", in W. Krawietz and N. MacCormik(eds.), Prescriptive Formality and Normative Rationality in Modern Legal System, Berlin:Duncker&Humblot,1994, pp.98-112.
60. David M. Rasmussen, "How is Valid Law Possible? A Review of Between Facts and Norms By Jurgen Habermas", in Mathieu Deflem(ed.), Habermas, Modernity and Law, London:SAGE Publications Ltd.,1996, pp.21-44.
61. Pierre Guibentif, "Approaching the Production of Law Through Habermas's Concept of Communicative Action", in Mathieu Deflem(ed.), Habermas, Modernity, and Law, London:SAGE Publications,1996, pp.45-70.
62. Robert Alexy, "Jiirgen Habermas's Theory of Legal Discourse ", in Michel Rosenfeld and Andrew Arato(eds.), Habermas on Law and Democracy, London: University of California Press,1998, pp.226-233.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goden Rule, [2013-5-6].
2. http://www.zdic.net/c/c/13c/302371.htm, [2013-7-8].