多元社会的正义事业
|
摘要
多元社会的正义事业——罗尔斯政治自由主义“社会统一论”研究
从问题意识上看,罗尔斯后期的政治自由主义理论旨在回应现代社会的“合理多元论事实”向其正义理论提出的下述挑战:在自由平等的公民因各种虽不相容却合理的宗教、哲学和道德“整全学说”而产生深刻分歧的情况下,合理的社会统一如何可能?进而,该社会如何在共识和统一的基础上实现社会正义、基于正当理由的稳定性和法律合法性?罗尔斯虽然明确提出了“社会统一问题”,但却为此建构了极为抽象、复杂的政治自由主义理念体系。这在很大程度上致使既有讨论因忽视或混淆了“社会统一”这一核心问题意识而误解该理论,甚至低估其理论意义。
有鉴于此,本文采取“基于问题意识的重构性路径”,从罗尔斯的问题意识入手,将罗尔斯围绕“社会统一问题”进行的理论建构称为政治自由主义“社会统一论”,并将其置于问题提出的背景和罗尔斯本人的理论脉络中进行了理论重构,以把握其内在理路;同时,本文还采取了“内部视角与外部视角相结合的路径”探究其理论意义和局限。
通过考察“社会统一论”的出场背景,本文纠正了认为罗尔斯的理论转向是为了回应共同体主义对“正义论”的批判这一通行看法。进而认为:“社会统一论”的提出是为了修正在现代多元社会中“正义论”因预设了某种相对同质的社会而存在的内在理论困境,并回应“正义论”无法解决的“社会统一问题”。
通过考察“社会统一论”的论证基础并对该理论进行重构,本文认为:“社会统一论”将现代社会占支配地位的政治哲学基点从伦理理想层面(即何谓美好生活)“下降”到与法律的基本要求直接相关的、最基本的社会规则层面(即我们应当如何正当地生活在一起),并把围绕自由主义的政治正义观念“扩大共识,缩小分歧”作为基本目标。为此,罗尔斯首先通过将“道德建构主义”改造为“政治建构主义”的理论改造,使其正义观念脱离了康德式整全学说,进而使之成为从现代民主社会“公共政治文化”中提炼出来的、既避免了真理问题的争议又具有某种客观性的独立的“政治正义观念”。在此基础上,罗尔斯在“良序社会”这种社会理想图景的指导下,通过正义观论证、稳定性论证和合法性论证这三个层面的论证,阐明了“社会统一论”旨在基于共识而达致的三重政治价值理想及其实现条件。其中,正义观论证阐明了自由主义的正义观念依凭怎样的条件才能具有道德上的可接受性,因而能够得到不同整全学说的共识;稳定性论证阐明了现实社会中持不同合理整全学说的公民们实际上如何就自由主义的政治正义观念达成“重叠共识”,从而促进正义观念和社会秩序的稳定;合法性论证则阐明了公民们怎样将达成的共识固化为具有合法性的法律法规,从而以法律的方式保障社会的正义和稳定。为了从外部保障“社会统一问题”的解决、良序社会的实现,罗尔斯也从政体、国家(政府)和公民这三个层面建构了“社会统一论”的法律建制。
通过重构罗尔斯的社会观,本文考察了正义观念的终极权威和社会统一的深层根源,并得出了不同于某些共同体主义论者的如下结论:罗尔斯不仅将现代民主社会理解为其成员具有合作需求的“社会联合”社会,而且也将其理解为社会形式和历史传统对其成员的身份具有巨大型构作用的“社会内嵌式”社会。在这种社会观的参照下,自由主义政治正义观念的终极权威和社会统一的深层根源就来源于作为世世代代的社会成员集体政治社会实践结果的社会生活形式和社会生活传统。
通过探究“社会统一论”的理论意义,本文认为:从其自身的理论发展和自我期许来看,罗尔斯“社会统一论”的提出一方面回应了“正义论”无法解答的多元社会如何统一的问题,另一方面也促成了自由主义理论从整全性自由主义到政治自由主义的范式转换。而相较探寻道德真理的“整全理论”和霍布斯式的“权宜之计”论,“社会统一论”对“社会统一问题”的理论求解可谓一种“现实乌托邦式”的探求。它为理论寻求实践关怀,将政治哲学或法哲学应当发挥的作用定位于实践作用、定向作用和调和作用。它在理想与现实之间谋求最佳平衡,承认政治法律解决方案的特定时空性,并为社会统一的实现过程设定了一个由不同层次和梯度组成的“现实—理想结构”,而不是一种终极性的、完备的方案或目标。它也为政治问题探求道德基础,将自身的出发点和目标确定为通过政治法律建制维护并促进每个公民平等的道德人格。“社会统一论”的“现实乌托邦式”探求与贯穿罗尔斯理论发展始终的某种“终极关怀”密不可分,即:人生在多大程度上是可以救赎的?如何构设一种“现实乌托邦”作为我们集体生活的最终道德目标,从而消除放任自流和愤世嫉俗的危险,并提升我们生命的价值?
然而,如果跳出罗尔斯的问题意识、理论预设和论证逻辑,我们会发现:无论是“社会统一论”的道德基础还是其哲学基础都有待发展和拓深。在这些方面,无论是尤尔根·哈贝马斯从“重构论”出发、迈克尔·桑德尔从“自治共和国”出发进行的批判,还是查尔斯·拉莫尔和乔治·克劳德对其道德基础和哲学基础的推进,都为我们进一步反思或推进罗尔斯的“社会统一论”提供了有益的理论努力。
The Project of Justice in a Pluralistic Society: A Research on Rawls’s“Social Unity Theory”of Political Liberalism
Rawls’s political liberalism aims at meeting the following challenge of the“fact of reasonable pluralism”in modern society: how is social unity based on the right reasons possible in a society of free and equal citizens, who remain profoundly divided by reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral“comprehensive doctrines”? Furthermore, how can this society achieve social justice, stability and legal legitimacy on the basis of consensus and social unity? Although Rawls has clearly put forward the issue of social unity, he constructs an extremely abstract and complex system of ideas of political liberalism to resolve this problem. This has led a large part of scholars in this field to misunderstand Rawls’s political liberalism, or even underestimate its theoretical significance inasmuch as they neglected or confused social unity which represents its question awareness.
For this reason, in order to grasp the inner logic of the theory, as a response to the above situations, this dissertation follows“the reconstructive approach based upon Rawls’s question awareness”, starting with the question awareness of Rawls’s political liberalism, referring to his theorization effort around this issue as the“social unity theory”of political liberalism, and reconstructing the theory by putting it into its social background and Rawls’s theoretical context. Moreover, this dissertation also follows“the approach of combining the internal perspectives with the external ones”to inquire its contributions and limits.
First of all, this dissertation examines the theoretical background of the“social unity theory”and points out that the mainstream view that Rawls’s transition to political liberalism is driven by certain communitarian critiques is of no ground. The author maintains that the“social unity theory”can be regarded as a self-adjustment of the inner tension in A Theory of Justice which presupposes that the society is relatively homogeneous, a presupposition which is in conflict with a modern pluralistic society, and as a response to the“social unity problem”in a pluralistic society that A Theory of Justice can not resolve.
Secondly, this dissertation reconstructs the“social unity theory”based on the study of its argumentation basis. The argument is that instead of pursuing the ethical ideal of a good life, the theory deals with the basic social rules about how we can live together, a question closely related to the basic demands of law, and concentrates on how we can“expand our consensus and narrow our differences”on the basis of liberal“political conceptions of justice”. Therefore, based upon the transformation from“moral constructivism”to the“political constructivism”, it converts the conception of justice deeply rooted in the Kantian comprehensive doctrines into a freestanding political conception implicit in the“public political culture”of a democratic society, both avoiding the debates around truth and getting its self-sufficient conception of objectivity. With the“well-ordered society”as its ideal social picture, the theory lays out three levels of argumentation to discuss the political ideals it aims to realize and the approaches to their realization. The argument of justice explains how the liberal conceptions of justice can be affirmed by various comprehensive doctrines on account of moral acceptability. The argument of stability explains how a certain liberal conception of justice can be the focus of an“overlapping consensus”among citizens who adhere to different comprehensive doctrines in real social world, and how this process can enforce a stable conception of justice and a stable social order for the right reasons. The argument of legitimacy explains how the citizens can solidify their consensus as legitimate laws so as to legally protect social justice and stability. For the purpose of realizing the abovementioned political ideals, Rawls also constructs legal institutions around the regime, state and citizen which are adapted to the“social unity theory”.
Thirdly, this dissertation examines the ultimate authority of the conceptions of justice and the deep roots of social unity and draws the conclusions that differ from some communitarians: Rawls not only regards the democratic society as a society of“social union”with its members taking social cooperation as their inner demand, but also regards it as a society of“social embeddedness”with its members greatly shaped by social forms and social traditions. The ultimate authority of the liberal political conceptions of justice and the deep roots of social unity both take root in the social forms and social traditions which are the results of the collective political and social practice of generations of social members.
Finally, this dissertation deals with the contributions of the“social unity theory”. The argument is that, seen from its own development and self-expectation, Rawls’s“social unity theory”not only responds to the problem that A Theory of Justice can not resolve, but also promotes the paradigm shift of liberalism from certain comprehensive liberalisms to political liberalism. In contrast to the“comprehensive theories”which inquire moral truth and the theory of“modus vivendi”which is the successor of Hobbes, the project of“social unity theory”can be seen as a“realistic utopia”. Implanting the practical concerns in theories, the theory claims that political and legal philosophy is supposed to play a practical role and the roles of orientation and reconciliation. Keeping the most proper balance between ideal and reality, it admits that any political or legal solution is bound to be constrained by the conditions of any given time and space, and it designs a certain“reality-ideal structure”for the process of social unity, with various levels of political goals from the bottom to the top. Furthermore, tamping the moral basis of the political, it aims at the maintenance of the equal moral personality of every citizen through political and legal institutions. The“realistic utopian”face of the“social unity theory”is closely related to Rawls’s“ultimate concerns”throughout his theoretical development: whether and to what extent human life is redeemable? How can we model a“realistic utopia”as an ultimate moral goal for our collective life to banish the dangers of resignation and cynicisms and to enhance the value of our lives?
However, if we leave Rawls’s own question awareness, theoretical presuppositions and logic of argument, we may find that there are still some spaces for the“social unity theory”to develop, especially its moral and philosophical foundations. In these aspects, the critique from Jürgen Habermas and Michael Sandel, and the advancement of Charles Larmore and George Crowder have offered useful directions for the improvement of Rawls’s“social unity theory”.
从问题意识上看,罗尔斯后期的政治自由主义理论旨在回应现代社会的“合理多元论事实”向其正义理论提出的下述挑战:在自由平等的公民因各种虽不相容却合理的宗教、哲学和道德“整全学说”而产生深刻分歧的情况下,合理的社会统一如何可能?进而,该社会如何在共识和统一的基础上实现社会正义、基于正当理由的稳定性和法律合法性?罗尔斯虽然明确提出了“社会统一问题”,但却为此建构了极为抽象、复杂的政治自由主义理念体系。这在很大程度上致使既有讨论因忽视或混淆了“社会统一”这一核心问题意识而误解该理论,甚至低估其理论意义。
有鉴于此,本文采取“基于问题意识的重构性路径”,从罗尔斯的问题意识入手,将罗尔斯围绕“社会统一问题”进行的理论建构称为政治自由主义“社会统一论”,并将其置于问题提出的背景和罗尔斯本人的理论脉络中进行了理论重构,以把握其内在理路;同时,本文还采取了“内部视角与外部视角相结合的路径”探究其理论意义和局限。
通过考察“社会统一论”的出场背景,本文纠正了认为罗尔斯的理论转向是为了回应共同体主义对“正义论”的批判这一通行看法。进而认为:“社会统一论”的提出是为了修正在现代多元社会中“正义论”因预设了某种相对同质的社会而存在的内在理论困境,并回应“正义论”无法解决的“社会统一问题”。
通过考察“社会统一论”的论证基础并对该理论进行重构,本文认为:“社会统一论”将现代社会占支配地位的政治哲学基点从伦理理想层面(即何谓美好生活)“下降”到与法律的基本要求直接相关的、最基本的社会规则层面(即我们应当如何正当地生活在一起),并把围绕自由主义的政治正义观念“扩大共识,缩小分歧”作为基本目标。为此,罗尔斯首先通过将“道德建构主义”改造为“政治建构主义”的理论改造,使其正义观念脱离了康德式整全学说,进而使之成为从现代民主社会“公共政治文化”中提炼出来的、既避免了真理问题的争议又具有某种客观性的独立的“政治正义观念”。在此基础上,罗尔斯在“良序社会”这种社会理想图景的指导下,通过正义观论证、稳定性论证和合法性论证这三个层面的论证,阐明了“社会统一论”旨在基于共识而达致的三重政治价值理想及其实现条件。其中,正义观论证阐明了自由主义的正义观念依凭怎样的条件才能具有道德上的可接受性,因而能够得到不同整全学说的共识;稳定性论证阐明了现实社会中持不同合理整全学说的公民们实际上如何就自由主义的政治正义观念达成“重叠共识”,从而促进正义观念和社会秩序的稳定;合法性论证则阐明了公民们怎样将达成的共识固化为具有合法性的法律法规,从而以法律的方式保障社会的正义和稳定。为了从外部保障“社会统一问题”的解决、良序社会的实现,罗尔斯也从政体、国家(政府)和公民这三个层面建构了“社会统一论”的法律建制。
通过重构罗尔斯的社会观,本文考察了正义观念的终极权威和社会统一的深层根源,并得出了不同于某些共同体主义论者的如下结论:罗尔斯不仅将现代民主社会理解为其成员具有合作需求的“社会联合”社会,而且也将其理解为社会形式和历史传统对其成员的身份具有巨大型构作用的“社会内嵌式”社会。在这种社会观的参照下,自由主义政治正义观念的终极权威和社会统一的深层根源就来源于作为世世代代的社会成员集体政治社会实践结果的社会生活形式和社会生活传统。
通过探究“社会统一论”的理论意义,本文认为:从其自身的理论发展和自我期许来看,罗尔斯“社会统一论”的提出一方面回应了“正义论”无法解答的多元社会如何统一的问题,另一方面也促成了自由主义理论从整全性自由主义到政治自由主义的范式转换。而相较探寻道德真理的“整全理论”和霍布斯式的“权宜之计”论,“社会统一论”对“社会统一问题”的理论求解可谓一种“现实乌托邦式”的探求。它为理论寻求实践关怀,将政治哲学或法哲学应当发挥的作用定位于实践作用、定向作用和调和作用。它在理想与现实之间谋求最佳平衡,承认政治法律解决方案的特定时空性,并为社会统一的实现过程设定了一个由不同层次和梯度组成的“现实—理想结构”,而不是一种终极性的、完备的方案或目标。它也为政治问题探求道德基础,将自身的出发点和目标确定为通过政治法律建制维护并促进每个公民平等的道德人格。“社会统一论”的“现实乌托邦式”探求与贯穿罗尔斯理论发展始终的某种“终极关怀”密不可分,即:人生在多大程度上是可以救赎的?如何构设一种“现实乌托邦”作为我们集体生活的最终道德目标,从而消除放任自流和愤世嫉俗的危险,并提升我们生命的价值?
然而,如果跳出罗尔斯的问题意识、理论预设和论证逻辑,我们会发现:无论是“社会统一论”的道德基础还是其哲学基础都有待发展和拓深。在这些方面,无论是尤尔根·哈贝马斯从“重构论”出发、迈克尔·桑德尔从“自治共和国”出发进行的批判,还是查尔斯·拉莫尔和乔治·克劳德对其道德基础和哲学基础的推进,都为我们进一步反思或推进罗尔斯的“社会统一论”提供了有益的理论努力。
The Project of Justice in a Pluralistic Society: A Research on Rawls’s“Social Unity Theory”of Political Liberalism
Rawls’s political liberalism aims at meeting the following challenge of the“fact of reasonable pluralism”in modern society: how is social unity based on the right reasons possible in a society of free and equal citizens, who remain profoundly divided by reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral“comprehensive doctrines”? Furthermore, how can this society achieve social justice, stability and legal legitimacy on the basis of consensus and social unity? Although Rawls has clearly put forward the issue of social unity, he constructs an extremely abstract and complex system of ideas of political liberalism to resolve this problem. This has led a large part of scholars in this field to misunderstand Rawls’s political liberalism, or even underestimate its theoretical significance inasmuch as they neglected or confused social unity which represents its question awareness.
For this reason, in order to grasp the inner logic of the theory, as a response to the above situations, this dissertation follows“the reconstructive approach based upon Rawls’s question awareness”, starting with the question awareness of Rawls’s political liberalism, referring to his theorization effort around this issue as the“social unity theory”of political liberalism, and reconstructing the theory by putting it into its social background and Rawls’s theoretical context. Moreover, this dissertation also follows“the approach of combining the internal perspectives with the external ones”to inquire its contributions and limits.
First of all, this dissertation examines the theoretical background of the“social unity theory”and points out that the mainstream view that Rawls’s transition to political liberalism is driven by certain communitarian critiques is of no ground. The author maintains that the“social unity theory”can be regarded as a self-adjustment of the inner tension in A Theory of Justice which presupposes that the society is relatively homogeneous, a presupposition which is in conflict with a modern pluralistic society, and as a response to the“social unity problem”in a pluralistic society that A Theory of Justice can not resolve.
Secondly, this dissertation reconstructs the“social unity theory”based on the study of its argumentation basis. The argument is that instead of pursuing the ethical ideal of a good life, the theory deals with the basic social rules about how we can live together, a question closely related to the basic demands of law, and concentrates on how we can“expand our consensus and narrow our differences”on the basis of liberal“political conceptions of justice”. Therefore, based upon the transformation from“moral constructivism”to the“political constructivism”, it converts the conception of justice deeply rooted in the Kantian comprehensive doctrines into a freestanding political conception implicit in the“public political culture”of a democratic society, both avoiding the debates around truth and getting its self-sufficient conception of objectivity. With the“well-ordered society”as its ideal social picture, the theory lays out three levels of argumentation to discuss the political ideals it aims to realize and the approaches to their realization. The argument of justice explains how the liberal conceptions of justice can be affirmed by various comprehensive doctrines on account of moral acceptability. The argument of stability explains how a certain liberal conception of justice can be the focus of an“overlapping consensus”among citizens who adhere to different comprehensive doctrines in real social world, and how this process can enforce a stable conception of justice and a stable social order for the right reasons. The argument of legitimacy explains how the citizens can solidify their consensus as legitimate laws so as to legally protect social justice and stability. For the purpose of realizing the abovementioned political ideals, Rawls also constructs legal institutions around the regime, state and citizen which are adapted to the“social unity theory”.
Thirdly, this dissertation examines the ultimate authority of the conceptions of justice and the deep roots of social unity and draws the conclusions that differ from some communitarians: Rawls not only regards the democratic society as a society of“social union”with its members taking social cooperation as their inner demand, but also regards it as a society of“social embeddedness”with its members greatly shaped by social forms and social traditions. The ultimate authority of the liberal political conceptions of justice and the deep roots of social unity both take root in the social forms and social traditions which are the results of the collective political and social practice of generations of social members.
Finally, this dissertation deals with the contributions of the“social unity theory”. The argument is that, seen from its own development and self-expectation, Rawls’s“social unity theory”not only responds to the problem that A Theory of Justice can not resolve, but also promotes the paradigm shift of liberalism from certain comprehensive liberalisms to political liberalism. In contrast to the“comprehensive theories”which inquire moral truth and the theory of“modus vivendi”which is the successor of Hobbes, the project of“social unity theory”can be seen as a“realistic utopia”. Implanting the practical concerns in theories, the theory claims that political and legal philosophy is supposed to play a practical role and the roles of orientation and reconciliation. Keeping the most proper balance between ideal and reality, it admits that any political or legal solution is bound to be constrained by the conditions of any given time and space, and it designs a certain“reality-ideal structure”for the process of social unity, with various levels of political goals from the bottom to the top. Furthermore, tamping the moral basis of the political, it aims at the maintenance of the equal moral personality of every citizen through political and legal institutions. The“realistic utopian”face of the“social unity theory”is closely related to Rawls’s“ultimate concerns”throughout his theoretical development: whether and to what extent human life is redeemable? How can we model a“realistic utopia”as an ultimate moral goal for our collective life to banish the dangers of resignation and cynicisms and to enhance the value of our lives?
However, if we leave Rawls’s own question awareness, theoretical presuppositions and logic of argument, we may find that there are still some spaces for the“social unity theory”to develop, especially its moral and philosophical foundations. In these aspects, the critique from Jürgen Habermas and Michael Sandel, and the advancement of Charles Larmore and George Crowder have offered useful directions for the improvement of Rawls’s“social unity theory”.
引文
①关于罗尔斯的生平及其正义理论的精彩讨论可参见Thomas Pogge, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, Michelle Kosch (trans.), Oxford University Press, 2007.
③Jürgen Habermas, Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s Political Liberalism, 92 The Journal of Philosophy, 1995, p. 109.
④R. Nozick, Anarchy, state and Utopia, China Social Science Publishing House, 1999, p. 183.
⑤[德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯:《在事实与规范之间:关于法律与民主法治国的商谈理论》,童世骏译,三联书店2003年版,第165页。
①参见姚建宗:《法律的政治逻辑阐释》,载《政治学研究》2010年第2期,第32页。
②姚建宗:《论法律与政治的共生:法律政治学导论》,载《学习与探索》2010年第4期,第62页。
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第3页。
②Robert Reiner, Justice, in James Penner, Richard Nobles and David Schiff (eds.), Introduction to Jurisprudence and Legal Theory: Commentary and Materials, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 720.
③See Donald R. Korobkin, Political Justification and the Law, 94 Columbia Law Review, 1994, pp. 1898-1917.
④参见张文显:《二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究》,法律出版社2006年版,第39-40页。
⑤参见苏力:《从契约理论到社会契约理论——一种国家学说的知识考古学》,载《中国社会科学》1996年第3期,第79-103页。
①Richard Nobles and David Schiff, The Evolution of Natural Law, in James Penner, Richard Nobles and David Schiff (eds.), Introduction to Jurisprudence and Legal Theory: Commentary and Materials, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 43.
②See Richard Nobles and David Schiff, The Evolution of Natural Law, in James Penner, Richard Nobles and David Schiff (eds.), Introduction to Jurisprudence and Legal Theory: Commentary and Materials, Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 43-45.
③参见沈宗灵:《现代西方法理学》,北京大学出版社1992年版,第111-125页;张文显:《二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究》,法律出版社2006年版,第55-57页;张宏生、谷春德主编:《西方法律思想史》,北京大学出版社1990年版,第480-491页。
⑤Ronald Dworkin, Rawls and the Law, 72 Fordham Law Review, 2004, p. 1387.
⑥See Ronald Dworkin, Rawls and the Law, 72 Fordham Law Review, 2004, pp. 1387-1405.
②Ronald Dworkin, Rawls and the Law, 72 Fordham Law Review, 2004, pp. 1388-1399.
①关于此次讨论会的详情,参见William Michael Treanor, Introduction: Rawls and the Law, 72 Fordham Law Review, 2004, pp. 1385-1386.
②Thomas Pogge, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, Michelle Kosch (trans.), Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 4.
③关于罗尔斯如何在其理论生涯的各个阶段将其正义事业贯穿始终,详细而极富针对性的讨论可参见徐清飞:《求索正义:罗尔斯正义理论发展探究》,法律出版社2010年版。
②Shaun P. Young, Beyond Rawls: An Analysis of the Concept of Political Liberalism, University Press of America, 2002, p. 8, n. 20.
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction, pp. xviii, xxv, xxviii; Introduction to the Paperback Edition, pp. xxxviii, xl, xli, lxi.
②参见张文显:《和谐精神的导入与中国法治的转型——从以法而治到良法善治》,载《吉林大学社会科学学报》2010年第3期,第7-8页。
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction, pp. xviii, xxv, xxviii; Introduction to the Paperback Edition, p. xviii.
①Thomas Pogge, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, Michelle Kosch (trans.), Oxford University Press, 2007.该书的中文版目前已经出版,参见[美]涛慕思·博格:《罗尔斯:生平与正义理论》,顾肃等译,中国人民大学出版社2010年版。
②Samuel Freeman, Justice and the Social Contract: Essays on Rawlsian Political Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2007.
③Samuel Freeman, Rawls, Routledge, 2007.
④Shaun P. Young, Beyond Rawls: An Analysis of the Concept of Political Liberalism, University Press of America, 2002.
⑤Catherine Audard, John Rawls, Acumen, 2007.
⑥David Lewis Schaefer, Illiberal Justice: John Rawls vs. The American Political Tradition, University of Missouri Press, 2007.
①Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003.在笔者看来,该文集集中了当代最优秀的伦理学家、政治哲学家和法学家(他们中的大多数同时也是罗尔斯的重要研究者和学生)对罗尔斯不同理论面相的中肯却极富特色的讨论,可谓精华中的精华。
②Thom Brooks and Fabian Freyenhagen (eds.), The Legacy of John Rawls, Continuum, 2005.
③B.N. Ray (ed.), John Rawls and the Agenda of Social Justice, Anamika Publishers & Distributors, 2000.
④Chandran Kukathas (ed.), John Rawls: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers, VolumeⅣ: Political Liberalism and The Law of Peoples , Routledge, 2003.
⑤Victoria Davion and Clark Wolf (eds.), The Idea of a Political Liberalism: Essays on Rawls, Rowman & littlefield Publishers, 2000.该文集是集中讨论罗尔斯政治自由主义理论的文集,对本文论题的讨论而言,针对性极强。
⑥See Samuel Scheffler, The Appeal of Political Liberalism, 105 Ethics, 1994, pp. 4-22.
⑦参见[美]布鲁斯·艾克曼:《政治自由主义种种》,彭国华译,载[美]罗尔斯等:《政治自由主义:批评与辩护》,万俊人等译,广东人民出版社2003年版,第122-153页。
⑧See Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Cambridge University Press, 1991, p. 180.
①Burton Dreben, On Rawls and Political Liberalism, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 316-346.特别需要指出的是,罗尔斯称自己的诸多观点得益于与德雷本的讨论。1999年6月16日,德雷本去世的前夜还在撰写这篇文章。而罗尔斯在他正义理论的封笔之作《作为公平的正义——正义新论》的扉页上也深情地写道:“献给我亲爱的朋友和尊贵的同事波顿·德雷本。我对他的感谢之情难以言表。”
②Leif Wenar, The Unity of Rawls Work, in Thom Brooks and Fabian Freyenhagen (eds.), The Legacy of John Rawls, Continuum, 2005, pp. 22-33.该文章对罗尔斯理论发展及其不同时期不同主题的把握也得到了博格的赞赏。
③David Estlund, The Survival of Egalitarian Justice in John Rawls’s Political Liberalism, in Chandran Kukathas (ed.), John Rawls: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers, Volume IV: Political Liberalism and The Law of Peoples, Routledge, 2003, pp. 380-391.
①Allen Buchanan, Justice, Legitimacy and Human Rights, in Victoria Davion and Clark Wolf (eds.), The Idea of a Political Liberalism: Essays on Rawls, Rowman & littlefield Publishers, 2000, pp. 73-89.
②Charles Larmore, Public Reason, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 368-393.
③Onora O’Neill, Constructivism in Rawls and Kant, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 347-367.
④[英]乔治·克劳德:《自由主义与价值多元论》,应奇等译,江苏人民出版社2006年版。
⑤[美]阿米·古特曼、丹尼斯·汤普森:《民主与分歧》,杨立峰等译,东方出版社2007年版。
①[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《自由主义与正义的局限》,万俊人等译,译林出版社2001年版。
②[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学》,曾纪茂译,江苏人民出版社2008年版。
④Joseph Raz, The Morality of Freedom, Oxford University Press, 1986.
⑤[美]威廉·盖尔斯敦:《自由多元主义》,佟德志译,江苏人民出版社2008年版。
⑥Steven Wall, Liberalism, Perfectionism and Restraint, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
⑦[英]约翰·格雷:《自由主义的两张面孔》,顾爱彬等译,江苏人民出版社2005年版。
②参见张立文:《中国哲学:从“照着讲”、“接着讲”到“自己讲”》,载《中国人民大学学报》2000年第2期,第7-9页。
③周保松:《自由人的平等政治》,三联书店2010年版。
④慈继伟:《正义的两面》,三联书店2001年版。
⑤林火旺:《正义与公民》,吉林出版责任有限公司2008年版。
⑥林火旺:《公共理性的功能及其限制》,载《政治与社会哲学评论》2004年第8期,第47-77页。
①曾国祥:《自由主义与政治的局限》,载《政治与社会哲学评论》2004年第8期,第79-120页。
②颜厥安:《公共理性与法律理论》,载《政治与社会哲学评论》2004年第8期,第1-46页。
③石元康:《交叠共识与民主社会中的政治哲学:罗尔斯理论最近的发展》,载石元康:《当代西方自由主义理论》,上海三联书店2000年版,第197-239页。
④参见曹瑞涛:《多元时代的“正义方舟”——罗尔斯后期政治哲学思想研究》,浙江大学出版社2008年版;徐清飞:《求索正义:罗尔斯正义理论发展探究》,法律出版社2010年版;周濂:《现代政治的正当性基础》,三联书店2008年版。
⑥参见何怀宏:《公平的正义——解读罗尔斯的<正义论>》,山东人民出版社2002年版;龚群:《罗尔斯政治哲学》,商务印书馆2006年版;应奇:《从自由主义到后自由主义》,三联书店2003年版。
①Stephen Holmes, John Rawls and the Limits of Tolerance, 11The New Republic, 1993, p. 39.
②See Brian Barry, John Rawls and the Search for Stability, 105 Ethics, 1995, p. 913.
①[美]布鲁斯·艾克曼:《政治自由主义种种》,彭国华译,载[美]罗尔斯等:《政治自由主义:批评与辩护》,万俊人等译,广东人民出版社2003年版,第136-137页。
②See Samantha Brennan and Robert Noggle, Rawls’s Neglected Childhood, in Victoria Davion and Clark Wolf (eds.), The Idea of a Political Liberalism: Essays on Rawls, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2000, p. 64.
③See Clark Wolf, Fundamental Rights, Moral Pluralism, and the Moral Commitments of Liberalism, in Victoria Davion and Clark Wolf (eds.), The Idea of a Political Liberalism: Essays on Rawls, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2000, p. 124.
④See Bruce Brower, The limits of Public Reason, 91 Journal of Philosophy, 1994, p. 8.
⑤Brian Barry, John Rawls and the Search for Stability, 105 Ethics, 1995, p. 915.
⑥See Perry Anderson, On John Rawls, Dissent, Winter 1994, p. 140.
①See William A. Galston, Pluralism and the Social Unity, 99 Ethics, 1989, pp. 711-726.但该篇文章对罗尔斯关于“社会统一问题”之研究的批判在《政治自由主义》一书中基本得到了罗尔斯的有效回应。
②See A. John Simmons, Justification and Legitimacy, 109 Ethics, 1999, pp. 739-771.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 46.
①Burton Dreben, On Rawls and Political Liberalism, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 320.
①Thomas Pogge, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, Michelle Kosch (trans.), Oxford University Press, 2007, Preface, pp. x-xi.
①有关罗尔斯的理论与美国政治传统之间关系的讨论,可参阅David Lewis Schaefer, Illiberal Justice: John Rawls vs. The American Political Tradition, University of Missouri Press, 2007.
②See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. xvii.
①关于这个问题的精彩而细致的讨论,参见Stephen Mulhall & Adam Swift, Liberals & Communitarians (2nd edn.), Blackwell Publishers, 1996.
②对“正当”和“善”的定义以及“正当优先于善”这一主张的更为详细的讨论,参见本文第2.2.1节和第5.2节。
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction, p. x, n. 6.
③John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction, p. 27.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction, p. 27.
②John Rawls, The Independence of Moral Theory (1975), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 286-287.
③See John Rawls, The Independence of Moral Theory (1975), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 286-302.
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第417页。
②[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第414-415页。
③有关罗尔斯的社会观,本文第6章将给出更为系统的论述。
①何怀宏:《公平的正义——解读罗尔斯的<正义论>》,山东人民出版社2002年版。
③[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第198页。
③[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第199页。
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction, p. x.
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第451页。
②[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第452页。
③[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第336页。
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第452页。
②[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第455页。
①对此的解释亦可参见[美]刘易斯·贝克:《<实践理性批判>通释》,黄涛译,华东师范大学出版社2011年版,第135-136、194-198页。
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction, p. xxviii.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction, p. xviii.
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 13.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 62.
④See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 59.
②See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 36-37.
③See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 37.
④John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 38.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 38, n. 41.
③John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 56.
④John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 56.
⑤John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 56.
⑥John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 56-57.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 57.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 57.
④John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 58.
①See Samuel Freeman, Congruence and the Good of Justice, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 304-305.
②[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第255页。
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 3-4.
②[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第16页。
①对“公共政治文化”这一概念的详细阐释,参见本文第3.2.3节。
②“政治观念适用于我称之为社会基本结构的领域……我将这种社会基本结构看成一种现代立宪民主。”John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 11.
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第5页。
③See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 224.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 156.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 89, 90.
②See Onora O’neill, Constructivism in Rawls and Kant, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 347.
①John Rawls, Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory (1980), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 341.
②See John Rawls, Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory (1980), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 341-342.
①See John Rawls, Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory (1980), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 342.
②See John Rawls, Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory (1980), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 342.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 91.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 92.
③John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 92.
④[英]布莱恩·巴里:《正义诸理论》,孙晓春等译,吉林人民出版社2004年版,第445-446页。
①Onora O’neill, Constructivism in Rawls and Kant, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 348.
②See John Rawls, Outline of a Decision Procedure for Ethics (1951), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 1-19.
④[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,“初版序言”,第1页。
①Ronald Dworkin, The Original Position, 40 University of Chicago University Law Review, 1973, p. 501.
③John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999, p. 34.
④See Onora O’neill, Constructivism in Rawls and Kant, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 350.
②[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第92页。
③[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第93页。
④有关“纯粹程序正义”的详细解释,参见[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第65-69页。
①对这一步骤的详细说明亦可参见Peri Roberts, Political Constructivism, Routledge, 2007, pp. 20-26.
②[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第16页。
②John Rawls, Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory (1980), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman(ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 303-358。
①See John Rawls, Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory (1980), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 304-307, 338-340.结合上文的讨论可以看出:在这两个方面,这种“康德式建构主义”也区别于“正义论”阶段的“康德式建构主义”。
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 89-90.
③在罗尔斯看来,这种区分实际上“本该是1980年的原稿中该做的工作”。John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 90.
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 93-94.
②关于这个问题,也可参见本文第2.3.2节从“政治领域”的角度对“个人”与“公民”的区分。
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 127.
①John Rawls, Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory (1980), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 350.
①参见[法]笛卡尔:《第一哲学沉思集》,庞景仁译,商务印书馆1986年版。
②See John Rawls, The Independence of Moral Theory (1975), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 287.
③John Rawls, The Independence of Moral Theory (1975), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 289-290.
④John Rawls, The Independence of Moral Theory (1975), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 288.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 129.
①Samuel Freeman, Justice and the Social Contract: Essays on Rawlsian Political Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 227.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction, p. xxxii.
②See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 49, n. 1.
③W. M. Sibley, The Rational Versus the Reasonable, 62 The Philosophical Review, 1953, pp. 557-558.
④W. M. Sibley, The Rational Versus the Reasonable, 62 The Philosophical Review, 1953, p. 560.
①See John Rawls, Justice as Reciprocity (1971), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 2007, pp. 190-224.
④John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 54.
①Charles Larmore, Public Reason, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 368.
②参见[英]奥诺拉·奥尼尔:《迈向正义与美德:实践推理的建构性解释》,应奇等译,东方出版社2009年版,第44-55页。
①Burton Dreben, On Rawls and Political Liberalism, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 324.
②参见[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第166-167页。
①Isaiah Berlin, The Crooked Timber of Humanity, Knopf, 1991, p. 5.
②参见[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第169-170页。
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 13-14.
②[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第33页。
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 15-22; [美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第9-13页。
②[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第31页。
③[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第31-32页。
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 108.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 107.
③[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第29-30页。
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 110.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 111.
③John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 111.
④John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 112.
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 119.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 120.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 114-115.
②[美]列奥·施特劳斯:《自然权利与历史》,彭刚译,三联书店2006年版,第5页。
③周保松:《自由人的平等政治》,三联书店2010年版,第109页。
①参见周保松:《自由人的平等政治》,三联书店2010年版,第127-133页。
②See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 121-124.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction to the Paperback Edition, pp. xlix-l.
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p.35; [美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第14-15页。
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 202.
②See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 202-203.
③John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 204.
④John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Erin Kelly (ed.), The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2001, p. 9.
①See John Rawls, The Law of Peoples with“The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”, Harvard University Press, 1999, Introduction, p. 4.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction to the Paperback Edition, p. xlviii.
②对“作为公平的正义”是最合理的正义观的详细论证,参见本文第4.2.1节。
③John Rawls, The Priority of Right and Ideas of the Good (1988), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 466.
①Thomas Pogge, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, Michelle Kosch (trans.), Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 157.
②See Thomas Pogge, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, Michelle Kosch (trans.), Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 157.
①Thomas Nagel, Equality and Partiality, Oxford University Press, 1991, p. 26.
①John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999, p. 5; [美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第4页。
①Thomas Pogge, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, Michelle Kosch (trans.), Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 44.
②对“纯粹接受方导向的”四个要素的详细阐释,参见Thomas Pogge, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, Michelle Kosch (trans.), Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 43-53.
①参见[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第55页。
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 242.
①See John Rawls, Social Unity and Primary Goods (1982), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 362-363.
②John Rawls, Social Unity and Primary Goods (1982), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 361.
④有关这个问题的进一步讨论,也可参见Samuel Freeman, Justice and the Social Contract: Essays on Rawlsian Political Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 195-196.
①Chandran Kukathas and Philip Pettit, Rawls: A Theory of Justice and its Critics, Polity Press, 1990, p. 140.
②Brian Barry, John Rawls and the Search for Stability, in Chandran Kukathas (ed.), John Rawls: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers, VolumeⅣ: Political Liberalism and The Law of Peoples, Routledge, 2003, p. 347.
①具体论证参见周保松:《自由人的平等政治》,三联书店2010年版,第167-173页。
②John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Erin Kelly (ed.), The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2001, p. 181, n. 2.
③具体论述参见John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 140-144; [美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第297-334页。
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第205页。
②John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Erin Kelly (ed.), The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2001, p. 49.
③John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 391, n. 27.
④John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 391, n. 27.
⑤参见[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第78,198,205,206页。
⑥[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第4页。
①周保松:《自由人的平等政治》,三联书店2010年版,第161页。
②Thomas Pogge, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, Michelle Kosch (trans.), Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 37-38.
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 145-146.
①有关罗尔斯对“权宜之计”的详细论述,参见John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 147-149.
②See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 158-159.
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 165.
①参见[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第323-324页。
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 86-87.
①参见[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第324-325页;John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 86.
②参见[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第325-326页。
③参见[英]霍布斯:《利维坦》,黎思复、黎廷弼译,商务印书馆1985年版,第128-142页。
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 15.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 138.
③参见[德]马克斯·韦伯:《韦伯作品集Ⅱ:经济与历史支配的类型》,康乐等译,广西师范大学出版社2004年版,第297页;周濂:《现代政治的正当性基础》,三联书店2008年版,第3页。
①See A. John Simmons, Justification and Legitimacy, 109 Ethics, 1999, pp. 739-771.
②对于西蒙斯的误判,西蒙·库欣做出了较为精当的回应,参见Simon Cushing, Justification, Legitimacy, and Social Embeddedness: Locke and Rawls on Society and the State, 37 The Journal of Value Inquiry, 2003, pp. 217-231.
③Joseph Raz, Disagreement in Politics, 43 American Journal of Jurisprudence, 1998, p. 36.
②有关罗尔斯对“公平游戏义务”的详细阐释,参见John Rawls, Legal Obligation and the Duty of Fair Play(1964), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 117-129.
②参见[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第274-284页。
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第281页。
②[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第284页。
③[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第7页。
①周濂:《现代政治的正当性基础》,三联书店2008年版,第17页。
②罗尔斯区分“正义概念”与“正义观念”的灵感来自哈特,参见H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law, Oxford University Press, 1961, pp. 155-159.
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第5页。
②这意味着,如果纳粹的法律是按照合法程序制定的,那么它是否应当得到遵守这个极端的问题并不在罗尔斯的讨论之列。
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 428.
③See Jürgen Habermas, Legitimation Problems in the Modern State, in Jürgen Habermas, Communication and Evolution of Society, Thomas McCarthy (trans.), Polity Press, 1991, pp. 183-185.
①Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, William Rehg (trans.), MIT Press, 1996, p. 107.
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 430-431.
③John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 137.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 233.
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 231-232.
②[美]阿米·古特曼、达尼斯·汤普森:《民主与分歧》,杨立峰等译,东方出版社2007年版,第25页。
③[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第241-242页。
①[美]阿米·古特曼、达尼斯·汤普森:《民主与分歧》,杨立峰等译,东方出版社2007年版,第32页。
②[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第242页。
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第243页。
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, Introduction to the Paperback Edition, 1996, pp. lx-lxi.
③[美]悉德尼·胡克:《民主与司法审查》,佟德志译,载佟德志编:《宪政与民主》,江苏人民出版社2008年版,第71页。
④Bernard Schwartz, The Supreme Court: Constitutional Revolution in Retrospect, The Ronald Press, 1957, p. 4.
⑤United States vs. Butler, 297 U. S 1, 78-79 (1936).
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 233.
②Samuel Freeman, Justice and the Social Contract: Essays on Rawlsian Political Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 206.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 239-240.
②应奇编:《自由主义中立性及其批评者》,江苏人民出版社2007年版,“封底”。
①[英]乔治·克劳德:《自由主义与价值多元论》,应奇等译,江苏人民出版社2006年版,第31页。
②John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999, p. 25.
③John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999, p. 329.
①Will Kymlicka, Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality, 99 Ethics, 1989, p. 900.
②Will Kymlicka, Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality, 99 Ethics, 1989, p. 900.
③Will Kymlicka, Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality, 99 Ethics, 1989, p. 902.
①Will Kymlicka, Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality, 99 Ethics, 1989, p. 896.
②罗尔斯对这五种“善观念”的详细阐述,参见John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 173-211.
③John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 192-193.
①See William Galston, Defending Liberalism, 72 American Political Science Review, 1982, pp.621-629.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 192.
①拉兹对这两种“中立性”的详细论述,参见Joseph Raz, The Morality of Freedom, Oxford University Press, 1986, pp. 110-157.
②Will Kymlicka, Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality, 99 Ethics, 1989, p. 884.
③See Will Kymlicka, Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality, 99 Ethics, 1989, pp. 884-886.金里卡对罗尔斯“辩护理由的中立性”的理解,也得到了和乔治·克劳德([英]乔治·克劳德:《自由主义与价值多元论》,应奇等译,江苏人民出版社2006年版,第34页)和帕特里克·尼尔(Patrick Neal, Liberalism and its Discontents, New York University Press, 1997, p. 5)的支持。
④John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, China Social Science Publishing House, 1999, p. 94.
①拉兹对这两种“中立性”的详细论述,参见Joseph Raz, The Morality of Freedom, Oxford University Press, 1986, pp. 110-157.
②Will Kymlicka, Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality, 99 Ethics, 1989, p. 884.
④John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, China Social Science Publishing House, 1999, p. 94.
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第13页。
①Charles Larmore, Public Reason, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 370.
③Charles Larmore, Public Reason, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 371.
④[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第138-139页。
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 213; The Law of Peoples with“The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”, Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 133.
②John Rawls, The Law of Peoples with“The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”, Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 133.
②对罗尔斯的“公共政治论坛”与哈贝马斯的“公共领域”之间区别的讨论,可参见李佃来:《公共领域与生活世界:哈贝马斯市民社会理论研究》,人民出版社2006年版,第327-339页。
①[美]布鲁斯·艾克曼:《政治自由主义种种》,彭国华译,载[美]罗尔斯等:《政治自由主义:批评与辩护》,万俊人等译,广东人民出版社2003年版,第126页。
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 227.
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 230-231.
②有关“宪法实质”与“基本正义”问题之间的区别,更为精彩详尽的讨论参见Thomas Pogge, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, Michelle Kosch (trans.), Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 148-154.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 226.
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 247-252.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 253.
②对这个问题的详细而精彩的阐述,参见Samuel Freeman, Justice and the Social Contract: Essays on Rawlsian Political Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 232-235.
①Joseph Raz, Disagreement in Politics, 43 American Journal of Jurisprudence, 1998, p. 28.
③See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 321.
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第414页。
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 42, n. 44.
③[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第417页。
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 205-206.
②“社会内嵌”这一术语的表达来自于西蒙·库欣。See Simon Cushing, Justification, Legitimacy, and Social Embeddedness: Locke and Rawls on Society and the State, 37 The Journal of Value Inquiry, 2003, pp. 217-231.
③See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 136.
④John Rawls, The Independence of Moral Theory (1975), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 300.
⑤针对“占有性主体”和“构成性主体”之间的区别的详细阐释,参见[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《自由主义与正义的局限》,万俊人等译,译林出版社2001年版,第67-74页。
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第414-415页。
①John Rawls, Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory (1980), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 306.
②John Rawls, Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory (1980), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 306.
①See Philip Pettit, Rawls’s Political Ontology, 4 Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 2005, pp. 158-159.
②罗尔斯对此种社会观的具体批判可参见[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第17-22页。
③See Philip Pettit, Rawls’s Political Ontology, 4 Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 2005, pp. 159-163.
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第409页。
②有关这个问题的讨论,参见本文第3.2.3节。
①参见[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第59页。
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 71.
①[美]布鲁斯·艾克曼:《政治自由主义种种》,彭国华译,载[美]罗尔斯等:《政治自由主义:批评与辩护》,万俊人等译,广东人民出版社2003年版,第141页。
②[美]布鲁斯·艾克曼:《政治自由主义种种》,彭国华译,载[美]罗尔斯等:《政治自由主义:批评与辩护》,万俊人等译,广东人民出版社2003年版,第140页。
①Stephen Gardbaum, Liberalism, Autonomy, and Moral Conflict, 48 Stanford Law Review, 1996, p. 409.
②[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第62页。
①[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第63页。
①See George Klosko, Rawls’s“Political”Philosophy and American Democracy, 87 American Political Science Review, 1993, pp. 348-359; Political Constructivism in Rawls’s Political Liberalism, 91 American Political Science Review, 1997, pp. 635-646.
②Leif Wenar, Political Liberalism: An Internal Critique, 106 Ethics, 1995, p. 51.
③William Galston, Moral Personality and Liberal Theory: John Rawls’s“Dewey Lectures”, 10 Political Theory, 1982, p. 519.
④[美]迈克尔·沃尔泽:《正义诸领域:为多元主义与平等一辩》,褚松燕译,译林出版社2002年版,第424页。
①John Rawls, Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory (1980), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 306.
①See John Rawls, The Law of Peoples with“The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”, Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 11-12.
②参见[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第7-8页。
①John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Erin Kelly (ed.), The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2001, p. 4.
②John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Erin Kelly (ed.), The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2001, p. 4.
①[英]约翰·格雷:《自由主义的两张面孔》,顾爱彬等译,江苏人民出版社2005年版,第11页。
①[英]约翰·格雷:《自由主义的两张面孔》,顾爱彬等译,江苏人民出版社2005年版,第177页。
③John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 147.
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第3页。
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第5页。
②[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第6页。
①See Terence Irwin, Classical Thought, Oxford University Press, 1989, esp. Chapter 2, cited in John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction, p. xxiv.
②以上对政治哲学在古代世界与现代世界具有的不同问题意识的归纳,详见John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction, pp. xxi-xxvi.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction, p. xxvi.
①John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Erin Kelly (ed.), The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2001, pp. 42-43.
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第244页。
②邓晓芒:《康德论道德与法的关系》,载《江苏社会科学》2009年第4期,第5页。
③See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 200.
①参见谭安奎:《政治的,抑或道德的——对政治自由主义一个关键悖论的解读》,载《现代哲学》2007年第5期,第99-104页。
②参见姚大志:《何谓正义:当代西方政治哲学研究》,人民出版社2007年版,第74页。
①John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, China Social Science Publishing House, 1999, pp. 494-495.
②慈继伟:《正义的两面》,三联书店2001年版,第154-155页。
①John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Erin Kelly (ed.), The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2001, p. 139.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction to the Paperback Edition, p. lxii.
①Thomas Pogge, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, Michelle Kosch (trans.), Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 27.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction to the Paperback Edition, p. lxii.
③Thomas Pogge, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, Michelle Kosch (trans.), Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 27.
①Jürgen Habermas, Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s Political Liberalism, 92 The Journal of Philosophy, 1995, p. 110.
②Jürgen Habermas, Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s Political Liberalism, 92 The Journal of Philosophy, 1995, p. 112.
①See Jürgen Habermas, Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s Political Liberalism, 92 The Journal of Philosophy, 1995, pp. 119-126.
①Jürgen Habermas, Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s Political Liberalism, 92 The Journal of Philosophy, 1995, p. 128.
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 385-387.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 390.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 416-417.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 402.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 403.
①Thomas McCarthy, Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue, 105 Ethics, 1994, p. 61.
②Jürgen Habermas, Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s Political Liberalism, 92 The Journal of Philosophy, 1995, p. 131.
①Thomas McCarthy, Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue, 105 Ethics, 1994, p. 63.
②Thomas McCarthy, Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue, 105 Ethics, 1994, p. 63.
③[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《自由主义与正义的局限》,万俊人等译,译林出版社2001年版,第239页。
①[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《自由主义与正义的局限》,万俊人等译,译林出版社2001年版,第248页。
①参见[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《自由主义与正义的局限》,万俊人等译,译林出版社2001年版,第257-266页。
①对这个问题的具体分析,参见本文第5.3.2节。
①[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学》,曾纪茂译,江苏人民出版社2008年版。
③[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学》,曾纪茂译,江苏人民出版社2008年版,第27页。
④[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学》,曾纪茂译,江苏人民出版社2008年版,第27页。
⑤[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学》,曾纪茂译,江苏人民出版社2008年版,第414页。
①[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学》,曾纪茂译,江苏人民出版社2008年版,第343页。
②[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学》,曾纪茂译,江苏人民出版社2008年版,第343页。
①[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学》,曾纪茂译,江苏人民出版社2008年版,第29页。
①[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学》,曾纪茂译,江苏人民出版社2008年版,第428页。
②[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学》,曾纪茂译,江苏人民出版社2008年版,第421页。
③[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学》,曾纪茂译,江苏人民出版社2008年版,第428页。
①针对罗尔斯对“公民人文主义”和“古典共和主义”所持态度的讨论,参见本文第6.1.1节。
②[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学》,曾纪茂译,江苏人民出版社2008年版,第422-423页。
①Joseph Raz, Facing Diversity: The Case of Epistemic Abstinence, in Chandran Kukathas (ed.), John Rawls: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers, VolumeⅣ: Political Liberalism and The Law of Peoples, Routledge, 2003, p. 400.
②[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第274页。
①[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第295页。
③[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第274页。
①[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第279页。
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 58.
③[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第280页。
①[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第295页。
②[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第145页。
③[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第145页。
④[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第146页。
①[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第137页。
②参见本文第2.2.2.2节。
①Thomas Nagel, The Fragmentation of Value, in Thomas Nagel, Moral Questions, Cambridge University Press, pp. 128-141, cited in John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 57, n. 10.
②[英]乔治·克劳德:《自由主义与价值多元论》,应奇等译,江苏人民出版社2006年版,第198页。
③John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 197.
④John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 197, n. 32.
⑤[英]乔治·克劳德:《自由主义与价值多元论》,应奇等译,江苏人民出版社2006年版,第199页。
①[英]乔治·克劳德:《自由主义与价值多元论》,应奇等译,江苏人民出版社2006年版,第208页。
②See Jean Hampton, Should Political Philosophy be Done without Metaphysics?, 99 Ethics, pp. 791-814.转引自[英]乔治·克劳德:《自由主义与价值多元论》,应奇等译,江苏人民出版社2006年版,第213页。
①Jean Hampton, Should Political Philosophy be Done without Metaphysics?, 99 Ethics, p. 812.转引自[英]乔治·克劳德:《自由主义与价值多元论》,应奇等译,江苏人民出版社2006年版,第213页。
②Joseph Raz, The Morality of Freedom, Clarendon Press, p. 369.转引自[英]乔治·克劳德:《自由主义与价值多元论》,应奇等译,江苏人民出版社2006年版,第235页。
③[英]乔治·克劳德:《自由主义与价值多元论》,应奇等译,江苏人民出版社2006年版,第245页。
[1]曹瑞涛.多元时代的“正义方舟”——罗尔斯后期政治哲学思想研究[M].杭州:浙江大学出版社,2008.
[2]陈瑞华.看得见的正义[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2000.
[3]程炼.伦理学:关键词[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2007.
[4]程炼.伦理学导论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
[5]慈继伟.正义的两面[M].北京:三联书店,2001.
[6]邓晓芒.康德哲学诸问题[M].北京:三联书店,2006.
[7]邓正来.哈耶克法律哲学[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2009.
[8]邓正来.研究与反思——中国社会科学自主性的思考[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[9]杜宴林.法律的人文主义解释[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2005.
[10]冯友兰.中国现代哲学史[M].广州:广东人民出版社,1999.
[11]葛洪义.法与实践理性[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[12]龚群.罗尔斯政治哲学[M].北京:商务印书馆,2006.
[13]顾肃.自由主义基本理念[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2005.
[14]何怀宏.公平的正义——解读罗尔斯《正义论》[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2002.
[15]何霜梅.正义与社群——社群主义对以罗尔斯为首的新自由主义的批判[M].北京:人民出版社,2009.
[16]黄文艺.全球结构与法律发展[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[17]季卫东.宪政新论:全球化时代的法与社会变迁[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[18]李志江.良序社会的政治哲学——罗尔斯分配正义理论研究[M].北京:人民出版社,2009.
[19]林火旺.正义与公民[M].长春:吉林出版集团有限责任公司,2008.
[20]沈宗灵.现代西方法理学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[21]石元康.罗尔斯[M].桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2004.
[22]童世骏.批判与实践——哈贝马斯的批判理论[M].北京:三联书店,2007.
[23]徐清飞.求索正义:罗尔斯正义理论发展探究[M].北京:法律出版社,2010.
[24]徐向东.自由主义、社会契约与政治辩护[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[25]徐向东.道德哲学与实践理性[M].北京:商务印书馆,2006.
[26]姚大志.何谓正义:当代西方政治哲学研究[M].北京:人民出版社,2007.
[27]姚建宗.法治的生态环境[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2003.
[28]严存生.西方法律思想史[M].北京:法律出版社,2004.
[29]颜厥安.法与实践理性[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[30]应奇.从自由主义到后自由主义[M].北京:三联书店,2003.
[31]应奇,刘训练.共和的黄昏:自由主义、社群主义和共和主义[C].长春:吉林出版集团有限责任公司,2007.
[32]应奇.自由主义中立性及其批评者[C].南京:江苏人民出版社,2007.
[33]张宏生,谷春德.西方法律思想史[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1990.
[34]张文显.法哲学范畴研究(修订版)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001.
[35]张文显.马克思主义法理学——理论、方法和前沿[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2003.
[36]张文显.二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[37]张文显.法哲学通论[M].沈阳:辽宁人民出版社,2009.
[38]郑成良.法律之内的正义[M].北京:法律出版社,2002.
[39]周保松.自由人的平等政治[M].北京:三联书店,2010.
[40]周濂.现代政治的正当性基础[M].北京:三联书店,2008.
[41] [澳]乔德兰·库卡塔斯,菲利普·佩迪特.罗尔斯[M].姚建宗,等译.哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1999.
[42] [德]马克斯·韦伯.韦伯作品集Ⅱ:经济与历史支配的类型[M].康乐,等译.桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2004.
[43] [德]伊曼努尔·康德.纯粹理性批判[M].邓晓芒译.北京:人民出版社,2004.
[44] [德]伊曼努尔·康德.实践理性批判[M].邓晓芒译.北京:人民出版社,2004.
[45] [德]伊曼努尔·康德.判断力批判[M].邓晓芒译.北京:人民出版社,2002.
[46] [德]伊曼努尔·康德.道德形而上学原理[M].苗力田译.上海:上海世纪出版集团,2005.
[47] [德]伊曼努尔·康德.康德著作全集(第6卷)[M].李秋零,等译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[48] [德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯.在事实与规范之间:关于法律和民主法治国的商谈理论[M].童世骏译.北京:三联书店,2003.
[49] [德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯.现代性的哲学话语[M].曹卫东,等译.南京:译林出版社,2004.
[50] [德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯.包容他者[M].曹卫东译.上海:上海人民出版社,2002.
[51] [德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯.后形而上学思想[M].曹卫东,等译.南京:译林出版社,2001.
[52] [法]邦雅曼·贡斯当.古代人的自由与现代人的自由[M].阎克文,等译.上海:上海人民出版社,2005.
[53] [法]笛卡尔.第一哲学沉思集[M].庞景仁译.北京:商务印书馆,1986.
[54] [法]让-雅克·卢梭.社会契约论[M].何兆武译.北京:商务印书馆,2003.
[55] [古希腊]亚里士多德.政治学[M].吴寿彭译.北京:商务印书馆,1964.
[56] [加]查尔斯·泰勒.现代性的隐忧[M].程炼译.北京:中央编译出版社,2001.
[57] [加]丹尼尔·贝尔.社群主义及其批评者[M].李琨译.北京:三联书店,2002.
[58] [加]威尔·金里卡.当代政治哲学(上、下)[M].刘莘译.上海:上海三联书店,2004.
[59] [加]威尔·金里卡.自由主义、社群与文化[M].应奇,等译.上海:上海世纪出版集团,2005.
[60] [美]阿拉斯代尔·麦金太尔.追寻美德:伦理理论研究[M].宋继杰译.南京:译林出版社,2003.
[61] [美]阿米·古特曼,丹尼斯·汤普森.民主与分歧[M].杨立峰,等译.北京:东方出版社,2007.
[62] [美]埃德加·博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法(修订版)[M].邓正来译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[63] [美]芭芭拉·赫尔曼.道德判断的实践[M].陈虎平译.北京:东方出版社,2006.
[64] [美]查尔斯·拉莫尔.现代性的教训[M].刘擎,等译.北京:东方出版社,2010.
[65] [美]杰里米·沃尔德伦.法律与分歧[M].王柱国译.北京:法律出版社,2009.
[66] [美]列奥·施特劳斯.自然权利与历史[M].彭刚译.北京:三联书店,2006.
[67] [美]刘易斯·贝克.《实践理性批判》通释[M].黄涛译.上海:华东师范大学出版社,2011.
[68] [美]罗伯特·诺齐克.无政府、国家和乌托邦[M].姚大志译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2008.
[69] [美]罗纳德·德沃金.认真对待权利[M].信春鹰,等译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1998.
[70] [美]罗纳德·德沃金.至上的美德:平等的理论与实践[M].冯克利译.南京:江苏人民出版社,2007.
[71] [美]罗纳德·德沃金.原则问题[M].张国清译.南京:江苏人民出版社,2008.
[72] [美]罗纳德·德沃金.身披法袍的正义[M].周林刚,等译.北京:北京大学出版社,2010.
[73] [美]罗斯科·庞德.法理学(第一卷)[M].邓正来译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[74] [美]罗素·哈丁.自由主义、宪政主义和民主[M].王欢,等译.北京:商务印书馆,2009.
[75] [美]迈克尔·桑德尔.自由主义与正义的局限[M].万俊人,等译.南京:译林出版社,2001.
[76] [美]迈克尔·桑德尔.民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学[M].曾纪茂译.南京:江苏人民出版社,2008.
[77] [美]迈克尔·沃尔泽.正义诸领域[M].褚松燕译.南京:译林出版社,2002.
[78] [美]乔万尼·萨托利.民主新论[M].冯克利,等译.上海:上海人民出版社,2009.
[79] [美]涛慕思·博格.康德、罗尔斯与全球正义[M].刘莘,等译.上海:上海译文出版社,2010.
[80] [美]涛慕思·博格.罗尔斯:生平与正义理论[M].顾肃,等译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2010.
[81] [美]托马斯·斯坎伦.我们彼此负有什么义务[M].陈代东,等译.北京:人民出版社,2008.
[82] [美]威廉·盖尔斯敦.自由多元主义[M].佟德志译.南京:江苏人民出版社,2008.
[83] [美]希拉里·普特南.事实与价值二分法的崩溃[M].应奇译.北京:东方出版社,2006.
[84] [美]约翰·罗尔斯.正义论[M].何怀宏,等译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988.
[85] [美]约翰·罗尔斯.政治自由主义[M].万俊人译.南京:译林出版社,2000.
[86] [美]约翰·罗尔斯.万民法公共理性观念新论[M].张晓辉,等译.长春:吉林人民出版社,2001.
[87] [美]约翰·罗尔斯.作为公平的正义——正义新论[M].姚大志译.上海:上海三联书店,2002.
[88] [美]约翰·罗尔斯.道德哲学史讲义[M].张国清译.北京:三联书店,2003.
[89] [美]约翰·罗尔斯.正义论(修订版)[M].何怀宏,等译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2009.
[90] [印]阿马蒂亚·森.以自由看待发展[M].任赜,等译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2002.
[91] [英]奥诺拉·奥尼尔.迈向正义与美德:实践推理的建构性解释[M].应奇,等译.北京:东方出版社,2009.
[92] [英]布莱恩·巴里.正义诸理论[M].孙晓春译.长春:吉林人民出版社,2004.
[93] [英]布莱恩·巴里.社会正义论[M].曹海军译.南京:江苏人民出版社,2008.
[94] [英]弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克.自由秩序原理(上、下)[M].邓正来译.北京:三联书店,1997.
[95] [英]霍布斯.利维坦[M].黎思复,等译.北京:商务印书馆,1985.
[96] [英]H. L. A.哈特.法律的概念[M].张文显,等译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1996.
[97] [英]H. L. A.哈特.法理学与哲学论文集[M].支振锋译.北京:法律出版社,2005.
[98] [英]迈克尔·莱斯诺夫.二十世纪的政治哲学家[M].冯克利译.北京:商务印书馆,2002.
[99] [英]乔纳森·沃尔夫.政治哲学导论[M].王涛,等译.长春:吉林出版集团有限责任公司,2009.
[100][英]乔治·克劳德.自由主义与价值多元论[M].应奇,等译.南京:江苏人民出版社,2008.
[101][英]史蒂芬·缪哈尔,亚当·斯威夫特.自由主义者与社群主义者[M].孙晓春译.长春:吉林人民出版社,2007.
[102][英]韦恩·莫里森.法理学[M].李桂林,等译.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2003.
[103][英]以赛亚·伯林.自由论[M].胡传胜译.南京:译林出版社,2003.
[104][英]以赛亚·伯林.扭曲的人性之材[M].岳秀坤译.南京:译林出版社,2009.
[105][英]约翰·格雷.自由主义的两张面孔[M].顾爱彬,等译.南京:江苏人民出版社,2008.
[106][英]约翰·洛克.政府论(下篇)[M].叶启芳,等译.北京:商务印书馆,1964.
[107][英]约翰·穆勒.论自由[M].严复译.上海:上海三联书店,2009.
[108][英]约瑟夫·拉兹.法律体系的概念[M].吴玉章译.北京:中国法制出版社,2003.
[109][英]约瑟夫·拉兹.法律的权威:法律与道德论文集[M].朱峰译.北京:法律出版社,2005.
[110][英]约瑟夫·拉兹.自由的道德[M].孙晓春,等译.长春:吉林人民出版社,2006.
[111]B. N. Ray.John Rawls and the Agenda of Social Justice[C].New Delhi:Anamika Publishers & Distributors,2000.
[112]Catherine Audard.John Rawls[M].Stocksfield:Acumen,2007.
[113]Chandran Kukathas , Philip Pettit . Rawls: A Theory of Justice and its Critics[M].Cambridge,UK:Polity Press,1990.
[114]Charles Larmore.The Autonomy of Morality[M].Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,2008.
[115]Christine M. Korsgaard.The Constitution of Agency: Essays on Practical Reason and Moral Psychology[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2008.
[116]David Lewis Schaefer.Illiberal Justice:John Rawls vs. The American Political Tradition[M].Columbia:University of Missouri Press,2007.
[117]G. E. Moor.Principle Ethica[M].Beijing:China Social Science Publishing House,1999.
[118]Gerald F. Gaus.Contemporary Theory of Liberalism: Public Reason as a Post-Enlightenment Project[M].London:Sage Publications,2003.
[119]Henry Sidgwick.Methods of Ethics (7th edn.) [M].Indiana:Hackett Publishing Comoany,1981.
[120]Henry S. Richardson,Paul Weithman.Philosophy of Rawls (Vol.1): Development and Main Outlines of Rawls’s Theory of Justice[C].New York:Garland Publishing,1999.
[121]Henry S. Richardson,Paul Weithman.Philosophy of Rawls (Vol.2): The Two Principles and Their Justification[C].New York:Garland Publishing,1999.
[122]Henry S. Richardson,Paul Weithman.Philosophy of Rawls (Vol.3): Opponents and Implications of A Theory of Justice[C].New York:Garland Publishing,1999.
[123]Henry S. Richardson,Paul Weithman.Philosophy of Rawls (Vol.4): Moral Psychology and Community[C].New York:Garland Publishing,1999.
[124]Henry S. Richardson,Paul Weithman.Philosophy of Rawls (Vol.5): Reasonable Pluralism[C].New York:Garland Publishing,1999.
[125]Jean- Jacques Rousseau.A Discourse on Inequality[M].Beijing:China Social Science Publishing House,1999.
[126]John Rawls.A Theory of Justice[M].Beijing:China Social Sciences Publishing House,1971.
[127]John Rawls.Political Liberalism[M].New York:Columbia University Press,1996.
[128]John Rawls.A Theory of Justice (Rev. edn.)[M].Cambridge,Mass:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,1999.
[129]John Rawls.The Law of Peoples with“The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”[M].Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,1999.
[130]John Rawls.Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy[M].Cambridge,Mass: Harvard University Press,2000.
[131]John Rawls.Justice as Fairness: A Restatement[M].Cambridge,Mass:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,2001.
[132]John Rawls.Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy[M].Cambridge,Mass:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,2007.
[133]Joseph Raz.The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,1979.
[134]Joseph Raz.The Morality of Freedom[M].Oxford:Clarendon Press,1979.
[135]Jürgen Habermas.Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy[M].William Rehg (trans.).Cambridge,Mass:MIT Press,1996.
[136]Kant.Critique of Practical Reason[M].Beijing:China Social Science Publishing House,1999.
[137]Kant.Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals[M].Beijing:China Social Science Publishing House,1999.
[138]Martha C. Nassbaum.Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership[M].Cambridge,Mass:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,2006.
[139]Micheal J. Sandel.Justice: A Reader[C].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2007.
[140]Mill.Utilitarianism[M].Beijing:China Social Science Publishing House,1999.
[141]Onora O’Neill.Bound of Justice[M].Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,1996.
[142]Patrick Neal.Liberalism and its Discontents[M].New York:New York University Press,1997.
[143]Paul Graham.Rawls[M].Oxford:Oneworld Publications,2007.
[144]Peri Roberts.Political Constructivism[M].Oxon:Routledge,2007.
[145]Rex Martin,David A. Reidy.Rawls’s Law of Peoples: A Realistic Utopia? [C].Oxford:Blackwell Publishing,2006.
[146]Richard Rorty . Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers [M].Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,1991.
[147]Robert Nozick.Anarchy, State and Utopia[M].Beijing:China Social Science Publishing House,1999.
[148]Samuel Freeman.Rawls[M].Oxon:Routledge,2007.
[149]Samuel Freeman.Justice and the Social Contract: Essays on Rawlsian Political Philosophy[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2007.
[150]Shaun P. Young.Beyond Rawls: An Analysis of the Concept of Political Liberalism[M].Lanham:University Press of America,2002.
[151]Shaun P. Young.Reflections on Rawls: An Assessment of his Legacy[C].Hampshire:Ashgate,2009.
[152]Stephen Mulhall,Adam Swift.Liberals & Communitarians (2nd Edn.) [M].Oxford:Blackwell Publishers,1996.
[153]Steven Wall.Liberalism, Perfectionism and Restraint[M].Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,1998.
[154]Thomas Nagel.Equality and Partiality[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,1991.
[155]Thomas Pogge.John Rawls: His Life and Theory of justice[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2007.
[156]Thomas Scanlon . The Difficulty of Tolerance: Essays in Political Philosophy[M].Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,2003.
[157]Ville P?iv?nalo.Balancing Reasonable Justice: John Rawls and Crucial Steps Beyond[M].Hampshire:Ashgate,2007.
[1]曹瑞涛.伯林、罗尔斯与格雷在多元时代对政治制度选择之比较[J].同济大学学报》(社会科学版),2006(5):74-78.
[2]陈肖生.宪政与民主间张力的调解——解读罗尔斯的公共理性理念[J].中共浙江省委党校学报,2008(5):26-31.
[3]戴华.罗尔斯论康德“定言式程序”[J].政治与社会哲学评论,2004(9):79-112.
[4]邓晓芒.康德论道德与法的关系[J].江苏社会科学,2009(4):1-7.
[5]顾肃.重叠共识如何可能——后期罗尔斯的自由主义理念[J].南京大学学报(哲学.人文.社会科学版),1999(3):92-98.
[6]顾肃.从伦理到政治的建构主义——罗尔斯政治哲学的思想逻辑基础[J].马克思主义与现实,2009(3):69-75.
[7]季卫东.法律程序的形式性与实质性——以对程序理论的批判和批判理论的程序化为线索[J].北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006(1):109-131.
[8]李小科.“现实的乌托邦”释义[J].开放时代,2003(4):31-38.
[9]李小科.澄清被混用的“新自由主义”——兼谈对New Liberalism和Neo-Liberalism的翻译[J].复旦学报(社会科学版),2006(1):56-62.
[10]林火旺.公共理性的功能及其限制[J].政治与社会哲学评论,2004(8):47-77.
[11]刘莘.罗尔斯“反思平衡”的前提[J].哲学研究,2007(5):85-91.
[12]刘莘.康德、罗尔斯与全球正义[J].外国哲学,2008(11):88-96.
[13]刘舒适.罗尔斯正义理论的宪政之维——从《正义论》到《政治自由主义》[J].新疆社会科学,2005(6):11-15.
[14]刘雪梅.重叠共识对政治秩序的公共证成[J].马克思主义与现实,2009(3):81-86.
[15]刘永红.政治自由主义发展的逻辑——从洛克和密尔到伯林和罗尔斯[D].北京:中国人民大学哲学院,2005.
[16]齐延平.论社会基本制度的正义——对罗尔斯正义理论的讨论[J].北方法学,2007(4):19-38.
[17]石元康.交叠共识与民主社会中的政治哲学:罗尔斯理论最近的发展[C]//石元康.当代西方自由主义理论.上海:上海三联书店,2000:197-239.
[18]宋显忠.宪政与程序保障[J].法制与社会发展,2006(5):94-101.
[19]宋显忠.程序正义及其局限性[J].法制与社会发展,2004(3):123-133.
[20]苏力.从契约理论到社会契约理论——一种国家学说的知识考古学[J].中国社会科学,1996(3):79-103.
[21]孙国东.合法律性、合道德性与合法性——对哈贝马斯商谈论合法化理论的一种解读[D].长春:吉林大学法学院,2008.
[22]谭安奎.政治的,抑或道德的——对政治自由主义一个关键悖论的解读[J].现代哲学,2007(5):99-104.
[23]万俊人.从政治正义到社会和谐——以罗尔斯为中心的当代政治哲学反思[J].哲学动态,2005(6):3-12.
[24]万俊人.罗尔斯问题[J].求是学刊,2007(1):14-23.
[25]吴福友,吴根友.从一国宪政到万民宪政——罗尔斯“政治自由主义”的逻辑理路浅绎[J].武汉大学学报(人文科学版),2002(6):671-677.
[26]谢世民.罗尔斯与社会正义的场域[J].政治与社会哲学评论,2004(9):1-38.
[27]许纪霖.两个美国与政治自由主义的困境[J].读书,2005(6):89-97.
[28]许纪霖.政治自由主义,还是整全自由主义?[C]//许纪霖.现代性的多元反思.南京:江苏人民出版社,2008:11-23.
[29]颜厥安.公共理性与法律理论[J].政治与社会哲学评论,2004(8):1-46.
[30]姚大志.道德证明与现代性[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,2002(1):5-13.
[31]姚大志.罗尔斯与功利主义[J].社会科学战线,2008(7):13-19.
[32]姚大志.正义的张力:马克思和罗尔斯之比较[J].文史哲,2009(4):130-138.
[33]姚大志.罗尔斯与自由的优先性[C]//邓正来.复旦政治哲学评论.上海:上海人民出版社,2010:25-37.
[34]姚建宗.法律的政治逻辑阐释[J].政治学研究,2010(2):32-40.
[35]姚建宗.论法律与政治的共生:法律政治学导论[J].学习与探索,2010(4):59-63.
[36]袁久红.政治自由主义的政治共识——析罗尔斯后期的政治正义论[J].江苏行政学院学报,2003(3):100-106.
[37]曾国祥.自由主义与政治的局限[J].政治与社会哲学评论,2004(8):79-120.
[38]张立文.中国哲学:从“照着讲”、“接着讲”到“自己讲”[J].中国人民大学学报,2000(2):7-9.
[39]张文显.和谐精神的导入与中国法治的转型——从以法而治到良法善治[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,2010(3):5-14.
[40]赵汀阳.哲学的政治学转向[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,2006(2):5-11.
[41]周保松.罗尔斯《正义论》(1971)[C]//应奇.当代政治哲学名著导读.南京:江苏人民出版社,2010:1-36.
[42]周濂.最可欲的与最相关的:今日语境下如何做政治哲学[C]//许纪霖.现代性的多元反思.南京:江苏人民出版社,2008:58-69.
[43] [加]查尔斯·泰勒.善的多元性[C] //[美]马克·里拉,罗纳德·德沃金,罗伯特·希尔维斯.以赛亚·伯林的遗产.刘擎,等译.北京:新星出版社,2009:83-88.
[44] [美]伯纳德·威廉姆斯.自由主义与损失[C] // [美]马克·里拉,罗纳德·德沃金,罗伯特·希尔维斯.以赛亚·伯林的遗产.刘擎,等译.北京:新星出版社,2009:69-77.
[45] [美]布鲁斯·艾克曼.政治自由主义种种[C].彭国华译//[美]罗尔斯等.政治自由主义:批评与辩护.万俊人,等译.广州:广东人民出版社,2003:122-153.
[46] [美]H. L. A.哈特.罗尔斯论自由及其优先性[C].邓正来译//复旦政治哲学评论.上海:上海人民出版社,2010:3-24.
[47] [美]罗纳德·德沃金.自由主义[C].张国清译//应奇.自由主义中立性及其批判者.南京:江苏人民出版社,2007:37-52.
[48] [美]罗纳德·德沃金.自由的各种价值冲突吗?[C] // [美]马克·里拉,罗纳德·德沃金,罗伯特·希尔维斯.以赛亚·伯林的遗产.刘擎,等译.北京:新星出版社,2009:55-68.
[49] [美]迈克尔·桑德尔.程序共和国和无牵无挂的自我[C].柴宝勇译//应奇,刘训练.公民共和主义.北京:东方出版社,2006:334-354.
[50] [美]托马斯·内格尔.多元主义与一致性[C] //[美]马克·里拉,罗纳德·德沃金,罗伯特·希尔维斯.以赛亚·伯林的遗产.刘擎,等译.北京:新星出版社,2009:78-82.
[51] [美]悉德尼·胡克.民主与司法审查[C].佟德志译//[美]罗伯特·达尔,沃尔特·墨菲等.《宪政与民主》.南京:江苏人民出版社,2008:68-112.
[52] [英]奥诺拉·奥尼尔.政治自由主义与公共理性——对罗尔斯《政治自由主义》的一个批判性评论[J].秦兴译.马克思主义与现实,2009(3):87-93.
[53] Allen Buchanan.Justice, Legitimacy and Human Rights[C] // Victoria Davion,Clark Wolf.The Idea of a Political Liberalism:Essays on Rawls.Lanham:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,2000:73-89.
[54] Allan Gibbard.Constructing Justice[J].Philosophy and Public Affairs,1991,20(3):264-279.
[55] Amy Gutmann.On Rawls and Political Liberalism[C] // Samuel Freeman.The Cambridge Companion to Rawls.Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,2003:168-199.
[56] A. John Simmons.Justification and Legitimacy[J].Ethics,1999,109(4):739-771.
[57] Brian Barry.John Rawls and the Search for Stability[J].Ethics,1995,105(4):874-915.
[58] Brain Barry.How not to Defend Liberal Institutions[J].British Journal of Political Science,1991,20:1-14.
[59] Bruce A. Ackerman.The Storrs Lectures: Discovering the Consitution[J].Yale Law Journal,1984,93:1013-1072.
[60] Bruce Brower.The Limits of Public Reason[J].Journal of Philosophy,1994,91:5-26.
[61] Burton Dreben.On Rawls and Political Liberalism[C] // Samuel Freeman.The Cambridge Companion to Rawls.Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,2003:316-346.
[62] Charles Larmore.The Moral Basis of Political Liberalism[J].The Journal of Philosophy,1999,96(12):599-625.
[63] Charles Larmore.Public Reason[C] // Samuel Freeman.The Cambridge Companion to Rawls.Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,2003:368-393.
[64] Clark Wolf.Fundamental Rights, Moral Pluralism, and the Moral Commitments of Liberalism[C] // Victoria Davion,Clark Wolf.The Idea of a Political Liberalism:Essays on Rawls.Lanham:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,2000:102-126.
[65] David A. Reidy.Rawls’s Wide View of Public Reason: Not Wide Enough[J].Res Publica,2000,6:49-72.
[66] David Estlund.The Insularity of the Reasonable: Why Political Liberalism Must Admit the Truth[C] // Chandran Kukathas.John Rawls: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers (Vol.Ⅳ): Political Liberalism and The Law of Peoples.Oxon:Routledge,2003:86-109.
[67] David Estlund.The Survival of Egalitarian Justice in John Rawls’s Political Liberalism[C] // Chandran Kukathas.John Rawls: Critical Assessments ofLeading Political Philosophers (Vol.Ⅳ): Political Liberalism and The Law of Peoples.Oxon:Routledge,2003:380-391.
[68] Dennis F. Thompson.Public Reason and Precluded Reasons[J].Fordham Law Review,2004,7:2073-2088.
[69] Donald R. Korobkin.Political Justification and the Law[J].Columbia Law Review,1994,94(6):1898-1917.
[70] George Klosko . Rawls’s“Political”Philosophy and American Democracy[J].American Political Science Review,1993,87(2):348-359.
[71] George Klosko. Political Constructivism in Rawls’s Political Liberalism[J].American Political Science Review,1997,91(3):635-646.
[72] Frank I. Michelman.Rawls on Constitutionalism and Constitutional Law[C] // Samuel Freeman.The Cambridge Companion to Rawls.Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,2003:394-425.
[73] Frank I. Michelman.Justice as Fairness, Legitimacy, and the Question of Judicial Review: A Comment[J].Fordham Law Review,2004,7:1407-1420.
[74] H. L. A. Hart.Rawls on Liberty and its Priority[C] // Chandran Kukathas.John Rawls: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers (Vol.Ⅱ): Principles of JusticeⅠ.Oxon:Routledge,2003:35-54.
[75] Iris Marion Young.Rawls’s Political Liberalism[C] // Chandran Kukathas.John Rawls: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers (Vol.Ⅳ): Political Liberalism and The Law of Peoples.Oxon:Routledge,2003:20-29.
[76] Jeremy Waldron.Judicial Review and the Conditions of Democray[J].The Journal of Politcal Philosophy,1998,6(4):335-355.
[77] John Rawls.Outline of a Decision Procedure for Ethics (1951)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:1-19.
[78] John Rawls.Two Concept of Rules (1955)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:1-19.
[79] John Rawls . Justice as Fairness (1958)[C] // John Rawls . Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:20-46.
[80] John Rawls.Constitutional Liberty and the Concept of Justice (1963)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:73-95.
[81] John Rawls.The Sense of Justice (1963)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:96-116.
[82] John Rawls.Legal Obligation and the Duty of Fair Play(1964)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:117-129.
[83] John Rawls . Distributive Justice (1967)[C] // John Rawls . Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:130-153.
[84] John Rawls . Distributive Justice: Some Addenda (1968)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:154-175.
[85] John Rawls . The Justification of Civil Disobedience (1969)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:176-189.
[86] John Rawls.Justice as Reciprocity (1971)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:190-224.
[87] John Rawls . The Independence of Moral Theory (1975)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:225-231.
[88] John Rawls.Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory (1980)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:303-358.
[89] John Rawls.Social Unity and Primary Goods (1982)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:359-387.
[90] John Rawls.Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical (1985)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:388-414.
[91] John Rawls.The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus (1987)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:421-448.
[92] John Rawls.The Priority of Right and Ideas of the Good (1988)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:449-472.
[93] John Rawls.The Domain of the Political and Overlapping Consensus (1989)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:473-496.
[94] John Rawls . Themes in Kant’s Moral Philosophy (1989)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:497-528.
[95] Joseph Raz . Liberalism, Autonomy, and the Politics of Neutral Concern[J].Midwest Studies in Philosophy,1982,7(1):89-120.
[96] Joseph Raz.Disagreement in Politics[J].American Journal of Jurisprudence,1998,43:25-52.
[97] Joseph Raz.Facing Diversity: The Case of Epistemic Abstinence[C] // Chandran Kukathas.John Rawls: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers (Vol.Ⅳ): Political Liberalism and The Law of Peoples.Oxon:Routledge,2003:395-341.
[98] Jürgen Habermas.Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s Political Liberalism[J].The Journal of Philosophy,1995,92(3):109-131.
[99] Jürgen Habermas.Legitimation Problems in the Modern State[C] //Jürgen Habermas . Communication and Evolution of Society . Thomas McCarthy(trans.).Cambridge:Polity Press,1991:178-205.
[100]Leif Wenar . The Unity of Rawls Work[C] // Thom Brooks , Fabian Freyenhagen.The Legacy of John Rawls.London:Continuum,2005:22-33.
[101]Leif Wenar . Political Liberalism: An Internal Critique[C] // Chandran Kukathas.John Rawls: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers (Vol.Ⅳ): Political Liberalism and The Law of Peoples.Oxon:Routledge,2003:57-85.
[102]Marcus Singer.The Methods of Justice: Reflections of Rawls[J].Journal of Value Inquiry,1976,10(4):286-316.
[103]Michael Sandel. The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self [J].Political Theory,1984,12(1):81-96.
[104]Norman Daniels.Democratic Equality: Rawls’s Complex Egalitarianism [C] // Samuel Freeman.The Cambridge Companion to Rawls.Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,2003:241-276.
[105]Onora O’Neill.Constructivism in Rawls and Kant [C] // Samuel Freeman.The Cambridge Companion to Rawls.Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,2003:347-367.
[106]Perry Anderson. On John Rawls[J].Dissent,1994,Winter:139-144.
[107]Philip Pettit.Rawls’s Political Ontology[J].Politics, Philosophy & Economics,2005,4(2):157-174.
[108]Richard Nobles,David Schiff.The Evolution of Natural Law[C] // James Penner,Richard Nobles,David Schiff.Introduction to Jurisprudence and Legal Theory: Commentary and Materials.Oxford:Oxford University Press,2005: 35-90.
[109]Richard Rorty.The Priority of Democracy to Philosophy[C] // Chandran Kukathas.John Rawls: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers (Vol.Ⅲ): Principles of JusticeⅡ.Oxon:Routledge,2003:289-311.
[110]Robert Reiner . Justice[C] // James Penner , Richard Nobles , DavidSchiff.Introduction to Jurisprudence and Legal Theory: Commentary and Materials.Oxford:Oxford University Press,2005:719-777.
[111]Ronald Dworkin.Rawls and the Law[J].Fordham Law Review,2004,7:1387-1405.
[112]Ronald Dworkin.The Original Position[J].University of Chicago Law Review,1973,40(3):500-533.
[113]Ronald Dworkin.Constitutionalism and Democracy[J].European Journal of Philosophy,1995,3:2-11.
[114]Samantha Brennan,Robert Noggle.Rawls’s Neglected Childhood[C] // Victoria Davion , Clark Wolf . The Idea of a Political Liberalism : Essays on Rawls.Lanham:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,2000:46-72.
[115]Samuel Freeman . Congruence and the Good of Justice[C] // Samuel Freeman.The Cambridge Companion to Rawls.Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,2003:277-315.
[116]Samuel Scheffler.The Appeal of Political Liberalism[J].Ethics,1994,105(1): 4-22.
[117]Simon Cushing.Justification, Legitimacy, and Social Embeddedness: Locke and Rawls on Society and the State[J].The Journal of Value Inquiry,2003,37:217-231.
[118]Spencer Carr.Contractarianism, and Our Moral Intuitions[J].The Personalist, 1975,56:83-95.
[119]Stephen Gardbaum.Liberalism, Autonomy, and Moral Conflict[J].Stanford Law Review,1996,48(2):385-417.
[120]Stephen Holmes.John Rawls and the Limits of Tolerance[J].The New Republic, 1993,11:39-47.
[121]Stephen Mulhall,Adam Swift.Rawls and Communitarianism[C] // Samuel Freeman.The Cambridge Companion to Rawls.Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,2003:460-487.
[122]Thomas McCarthy.Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue[J].Ethics,1994,105(1):44-63.
[123]Thomas Nagel.Moral Conflict and Political Legitimacy[J].Philosophy and Public Affairs,1987,16(3):215-240.
[124]Thomas Nagel.Rawls on Justice[C] // Chandran Kukathas.John Rawls: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers (Vol.Ⅰ): Foundations and Method.Oxon:Routledge,2003:38-52.
[125]William Galston.Pluralism and the Social Unity[J].Ethics,1989,99(3):711-726.
[126]William Galston.Defending Liberalism[J].American Political Science Review, 1982,76(3):621-629.
[127]William Galston.Moral Personality and Liberal Theory: John Rawls’s“Dewey Lectures”[J].Political Theory,1982,10(4):492-519.
[128]W. M. Sibley.The Rational Versus the Reasonable[J].The Philosophical Review,1953,62(4):554-560.
[129]William Michael Treanor.Introduction: Rawls and the Law[J].Fordham Law Review,2004,72:1385-1386.
[130]Will Kymlicka.Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality[J].Ethics,1989,99(4):883-905.
③Jürgen Habermas, Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s Political Liberalism, 92 The Journal of Philosophy, 1995, p. 109.
④R. Nozick, Anarchy, state and Utopia, China Social Science Publishing House, 1999, p. 183.
⑤[德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯:《在事实与规范之间:关于法律与民主法治国的商谈理论》,童世骏译,三联书店2003年版,第165页。
①参见姚建宗:《法律的政治逻辑阐释》,载《政治学研究》2010年第2期,第32页。
②姚建宗:《论法律与政治的共生:法律政治学导论》,载《学习与探索》2010年第4期,第62页。
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第3页。
②Robert Reiner, Justice, in James Penner, Richard Nobles and David Schiff (eds.), Introduction to Jurisprudence and Legal Theory: Commentary and Materials, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 720.
③See Donald R. Korobkin, Political Justification and the Law, 94 Columbia Law Review, 1994, pp. 1898-1917.
④参见张文显:《二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究》,法律出版社2006年版,第39-40页。
⑤参见苏力:《从契约理论到社会契约理论——一种国家学说的知识考古学》,载《中国社会科学》1996年第3期,第79-103页。
①Richard Nobles and David Schiff, The Evolution of Natural Law, in James Penner, Richard Nobles and David Schiff (eds.), Introduction to Jurisprudence and Legal Theory: Commentary and Materials, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 43.
②See Richard Nobles and David Schiff, The Evolution of Natural Law, in James Penner, Richard Nobles and David Schiff (eds.), Introduction to Jurisprudence and Legal Theory: Commentary and Materials, Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 43-45.
③参见沈宗灵:《现代西方法理学》,北京大学出版社1992年版,第111-125页;张文显:《二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究》,法律出版社2006年版,第55-57页;张宏生、谷春德主编:《西方法律思想史》,北京大学出版社1990年版,第480-491页。
⑤Ronald Dworkin, Rawls and the Law, 72 Fordham Law Review, 2004, p. 1387.
⑥See Ronald Dworkin, Rawls and the Law, 72 Fordham Law Review, 2004, pp. 1387-1405.
②Ronald Dworkin, Rawls and the Law, 72 Fordham Law Review, 2004, pp. 1388-1399.
①关于此次讨论会的详情,参见William Michael Treanor, Introduction: Rawls and the Law, 72 Fordham Law Review, 2004, pp. 1385-1386.
②Thomas Pogge, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, Michelle Kosch (trans.), Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 4.
③关于罗尔斯如何在其理论生涯的各个阶段将其正义事业贯穿始终,详细而极富针对性的讨论可参见徐清飞:《求索正义:罗尔斯正义理论发展探究》,法律出版社2010年版。
②Shaun P. Young, Beyond Rawls: An Analysis of the Concept of Political Liberalism, University Press of America, 2002, p. 8, n. 20.
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction, pp. xviii, xxv, xxviii; Introduction to the Paperback Edition, pp. xxxviii, xl, xli, lxi.
②参见张文显:《和谐精神的导入与中国法治的转型——从以法而治到良法善治》,载《吉林大学社会科学学报》2010年第3期,第7-8页。
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction, pp. xviii, xxv, xxviii; Introduction to the Paperback Edition, p. xviii.
①Thomas Pogge, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, Michelle Kosch (trans.), Oxford University Press, 2007.该书的中文版目前已经出版,参见[美]涛慕思·博格:《罗尔斯:生平与正义理论》,顾肃等译,中国人民大学出版社2010年版。
②Samuel Freeman, Justice and the Social Contract: Essays on Rawlsian Political Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2007.
③Samuel Freeman, Rawls, Routledge, 2007.
④Shaun P. Young, Beyond Rawls: An Analysis of the Concept of Political Liberalism, University Press of America, 2002.
⑤Catherine Audard, John Rawls, Acumen, 2007.
⑥David Lewis Schaefer, Illiberal Justice: John Rawls vs. The American Political Tradition, University of Missouri Press, 2007.
①Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003.在笔者看来,该文集集中了当代最优秀的伦理学家、政治哲学家和法学家(他们中的大多数同时也是罗尔斯的重要研究者和学生)对罗尔斯不同理论面相的中肯却极富特色的讨论,可谓精华中的精华。
②Thom Brooks and Fabian Freyenhagen (eds.), The Legacy of John Rawls, Continuum, 2005.
③B.N. Ray (ed.), John Rawls and the Agenda of Social Justice, Anamika Publishers & Distributors, 2000.
④Chandran Kukathas (ed.), John Rawls: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers, VolumeⅣ: Political Liberalism and The Law of Peoples , Routledge, 2003.
⑤Victoria Davion and Clark Wolf (eds.), The Idea of a Political Liberalism: Essays on Rawls, Rowman & littlefield Publishers, 2000.该文集是集中讨论罗尔斯政治自由主义理论的文集,对本文论题的讨论而言,针对性极强。
⑥See Samuel Scheffler, The Appeal of Political Liberalism, 105 Ethics, 1994, pp. 4-22.
⑦参见[美]布鲁斯·艾克曼:《政治自由主义种种》,彭国华译,载[美]罗尔斯等:《政治自由主义:批评与辩护》,万俊人等译,广东人民出版社2003年版,第122-153页。
⑧See Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Cambridge University Press, 1991, p. 180.
①Burton Dreben, On Rawls and Political Liberalism, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 316-346.特别需要指出的是,罗尔斯称自己的诸多观点得益于与德雷本的讨论。1999年6月16日,德雷本去世的前夜还在撰写这篇文章。而罗尔斯在他正义理论的封笔之作《作为公平的正义——正义新论》的扉页上也深情地写道:“献给我亲爱的朋友和尊贵的同事波顿·德雷本。我对他的感谢之情难以言表。”
②Leif Wenar, The Unity of Rawls Work, in Thom Brooks and Fabian Freyenhagen (eds.), The Legacy of John Rawls, Continuum, 2005, pp. 22-33.该文章对罗尔斯理论发展及其不同时期不同主题的把握也得到了博格的赞赏。
③David Estlund, The Survival of Egalitarian Justice in John Rawls’s Political Liberalism, in Chandran Kukathas (ed.), John Rawls: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers, Volume IV: Political Liberalism and The Law of Peoples, Routledge, 2003, pp. 380-391.
①Allen Buchanan, Justice, Legitimacy and Human Rights, in Victoria Davion and Clark Wolf (eds.), The Idea of a Political Liberalism: Essays on Rawls, Rowman & littlefield Publishers, 2000, pp. 73-89.
②Charles Larmore, Public Reason, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 368-393.
③Onora O’Neill, Constructivism in Rawls and Kant, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 347-367.
④[英]乔治·克劳德:《自由主义与价值多元论》,应奇等译,江苏人民出版社2006年版。
⑤[美]阿米·古特曼、丹尼斯·汤普森:《民主与分歧》,杨立峰等译,东方出版社2007年版。
①[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《自由主义与正义的局限》,万俊人等译,译林出版社2001年版。
②[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学》,曾纪茂译,江苏人民出版社2008年版。
④Joseph Raz, The Morality of Freedom, Oxford University Press, 1986.
⑤[美]威廉·盖尔斯敦:《自由多元主义》,佟德志译,江苏人民出版社2008年版。
⑥Steven Wall, Liberalism, Perfectionism and Restraint, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
⑦[英]约翰·格雷:《自由主义的两张面孔》,顾爱彬等译,江苏人民出版社2005年版。
②参见张立文:《中国哲学:从“照着讲”、“接着讲”到“自己讲”》,载《中国人民大学学报》2000年第2期,第7-9页。
③周保松:《自由人的平等政治》,三联书店2010年版。
④慈继伟:《正义的两面》,三联书店2001年版。
⑤林火旺:《正义与公民》,吉林出版责任有限公司2008年版。
⑥林火旺:《公共理性的功能及其限制》,载《政治与社会哲学评论》2004年第8期,第47-77页。
①曾国祥:《自由主义与政治的局限》,载《政治与社会哲学评论》2004年第8期,第79-120页。
②颜厥安:《公共理性与法律理论》,载《政治与社会哲学评论》2004年第8期,第1-46页。
③石元康:《交叠共识与民主社会中的政治哲学:罗尔斯理论最近的发展》,载石元康:《当代西方自由主义理论》,上海三联书店2000年版,第197-239页。
④参见曹瑞涛:《多元时代的“正义方舟”——罗尔斯后期政治哲学思想研究》,浙江大学出版社2008年版;徐清飞:《求索正义:罗尔斯正义理论发展探究》,法律出版社2010年版;周濂:《现代政治的正当性基础》,三联书店2008年版。
⑥参见何怀宏:《公平的正义——解读罗尔斯的<正义论>》,山东人民出版社2002年版;龚群:《罗尔斯政治哲学》,商务印书馆2006年版;应奇:《从自由主义到后自由主义》,三联书店2003年版。
①Stephen Holmes, John Rawls and the Limits of Tolerance, 11The New Republic, 1993, p. 39.
②See Brian Barry, John Rawls and the Search for Stability, 105 Ethics, 1995, p. 913.
①[美]布鲁斯·艾克曼:《政治自由主义种种》,彭国华译,载[美]罗尔斯等:《政治自由主义:批评与辩护》,万俊人等译,广东人民出版社2003年版,第136-137页。
②See Samantha Brennan and Robert Noggle, Rawls’s Neglected Childhood, in Victoria Davion and Clark Wolf (eds.), The Idea of a Political Liberalism: Essays on Rawls, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2000, p. 64.
③See Clark Wolf, Fundamental Rights, Moral Pluralism, and the Moral Commitments of Liberalism, in Victoria Davion and Clark Wolf (eds.), The Idea of a Political Liberalism: Essays on Rawls, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2000, p. 124.
④See Bruce Brower, The limits of Public Reason, 91 Journal of Philosophy, 1994, p. 8.
⑤Brian Barry, John Rawls and the Search for Stability, 105 Ethics, 1995, p. 915.
⑥See Perry Anderson, On John Rawls, Dissent, Winter 1994, p. 140.
①See William A. Galston, Pluralism and the Social Unity, 99 Ethics, 1989, pp. 711-726.但该篇文章对罗尔斯关于“社会统一问题”之研究的批判在《政治自由主义》一书中基本得到了罗尔斯的有效回应。
②See A. John Simmons, Justification and Legitimacy, 109 Ethics, 1999, pp. 739-771.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 46.
①Burton Dreben, On Rawls and Political Liberalism, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 320.
①Thomas Pogge, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, Michelle Kosch (trans.), Oxford University Press, 2007, Preface, pp. x-xi.
①有关罗尔斯的理论与美国政治传统之间关系的讨论,可参阅David Lewis Schaefer, Illiberal Justice: John Rawls vs. The American Political Tradition, University of Missouri Press, 2007.
②See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. xvii.
①关于这个问题的精彩而细致的讨论,参见Stephen Mulhall & Adam Swift, Liberals & Communitarians (2nd edn.), Blackwell Publishers, 1996.
②对“正当”和“善”的定义以及“正当优先于善”这一主张的更为详细的讨论,参见本文第2.2.1节和第5.2节。
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction, p. x, n. 6.
③John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction, p. 27.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction, p. 27.
②John Rawls, The Independence of Moral Theory (1975), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 286-287.
③See John Rawls, The Independence of Moral Theory (1975), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 286-302.
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第417页。
②[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第414-415页。
③有关罗尔斯的社会观,本文第6章将给出更为系统的论述。
①何怀宏:《公平的正义——解读罗尔斯的<正义论>》,山东人民出版社2002年版。
③[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第198页。
③[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第199页。
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction, p. x.
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第451页。
②[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第452页。
③[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第336页。
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第452页。
②[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第455页。
①对此的解释亦可参见[美]刘易斯·贝克:《<实践理性批判>通释》,黄涛译,华东师范大学出版社2011年版,第135-136、194-198页。
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction, p. xxviii.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction, p. xviii.
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 13.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 62.
④See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 59.
②See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 36-37.
③See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 37.
④John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 38.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 38, n. 41.
③John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 56.
④John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 56.
⑤John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 56.
⑥John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 56-57.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 57.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 57.
④John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 58.
①See Samuel Freeman, Congruence and the Good of Justice, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 304-305.
②[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第255页。
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 3-4.
②[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第16页。
①对“公共政治文化”这一概念的详细阐释,参见本文第3.2.3节。
②“政治观念适用于我称之为社会基本结构的领域……我将这种社会基本结构看成一种现代立宪民主。”John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 11.
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第5页。
③See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 224.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 156.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 89, 90.
②See Onora O’neill, Constructivism in Rawls and Kant, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 347.
①John Rawls, Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory (1980), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 341.
②See John Rawls, Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory (1980), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 341-342.
①See John Rawls, Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory (1980), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 342.
②See John Rawls, Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory (1980), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 342.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 91.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 92.
③John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 92.
④[英]布莱恩·巴里:《正义诸理论》,孙晓春等译,吉林人民出版社2004年版,第445-446页。
①Onora O’neill, Constructivism in Rawls and Kant, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 348.
②See John Rawls, Outline of a Decision Procedure for Ethics (1951), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 1-19.
④[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,“初版序言”,第1页。
①Ronald Dworkin, The Original Position, 40 University of Chicago University Law Review, 1973, p. 501.
③John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999, p. 34.
④See Onora O’neill, Constructivism in Rawls and Kant, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 350.
②[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第92页。
③[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第93页。
④有关“纯粹程序正义”的详细解释,参见[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第65-69页。
①对这一步骤的详细说明亦可参见Peri Roberts, Political Constructivism, Routledge, 2007, pp. 20-26.
②[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第16页。
②John Rawls, Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory (1980), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman(ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 303-358。
①See John Rawls, Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory (1980), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 304-307, 338-340.结合上文的讨论可以看出:在这两个方面,这种“康德式建构主义”也区别于“正义论”阶段的“康德式建构主义”。
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 89-90.
③在罗尔斯看来,这种区分实际上“本该是1980年的原稿中该做的工作”。John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 90.
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 93-94.
②关于这个问题,也可参见本文第2.3.2节从“政治领域”的角度对“个人”与“公民”的区分。
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 127.
①John Rawls, Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory (1980), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 350.
①参见[法]笛卡尔:《第一哲学沉思集》,庞景仁译,商务印书馆1986年版。
②See John Rawls, The Independence of Moral Theory (1975), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 287.
③John Rawls, The Independence of Moral Theory (1975), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 289-290.
④John Rawls, The Independence of Moral Theory (1975), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 288.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 129.
①Samuel Freeman, Justice and the Social Contract: Essays on Rawlsian Political Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 227.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction, p. xxxii.
②See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 49, n. 1.
③W. M. Sibley, The Rational Versus the Reasonable, 62 The Philosophical Review, 1953, pp. 557-558.
④W. M. Sibley, The Rational Versus the Reasonable, 62 The Philosophical Review, 1953, p. 560.
①See John Rawls, Justice as Reciprocity (1971), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 2007, pp. 190-224.
④John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 54.
①Charles Larmore, Public Reason, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 368.
②参见[英]奥诺拉·奥尼尔:《迈向正义与美德:实践推理的建构性解释》,应奇等译,东方出版社2009年版,第44-55页。
①Burton Dreben, On Rawls and Political Liberalism, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 324.
②参见[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第166-167页。
①Isaiah Berlin, The Crooked Timber of Humanity, Knopf, 1991, p. 5.
②参见[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第169-170页。
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 13-14.
②[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第33页。
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 15-22; [美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第9-13页。
②[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第31页。
③[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第31-32页。
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 108.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 107.
③[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第29-30页。
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 110.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 111.
③John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 111.
④John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 112.
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 119.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 120.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 114-115.
②[美]列奥·施特劳斯:《自然权利与历史》,彭刚译,三联书店2006年版,第5页。
③周保松:《自由人的平等政治》,三联书店2010年版,第109页。
①参见周保松:《自由人的平等政治》,三联书店2010年版,第127-133页。
②See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 121-124.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction to the Paperback Edition, pp. xlix-l.
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p.35; [美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第14-15页。
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 202.
②See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 202-203.
③John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 204.
④John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Erin Kelly (ed.), The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2001, p. 9.
①See John Rawls, The Law of Peoples with“The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”, Harvard University Press, 1999, Introduction, p. 4.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction to the Paperback Edition, p. xlviii.
②对“作为公平的正义”是最合理的正义观的详细论证,参见本文第4.2.1节。
③John Rawls, The Priority of Right and Ideas of the Good (1988), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 466.
①Thomas Pogge, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, Michelle Kosch (trans.), Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 157.
②See Thomas Pogge, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, Michelle Kosch (trans.), Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 157.
①Thomas Nagel, Equality and Partiality, Oxford University Press, 1991, p. 26.
①John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999, p. 5; [美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第4页。
①Thomas Pogge, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, Michelle Kosch (trans.), Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 44.
②对“纯粹接受方导向的”四个要素的详细阐释,参见Thomas Pogge, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, Michelle Kosch (trans.), Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 43-53.
①参见[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第55页。
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 242.
①See John Rawls, Social Unity and Primary Goods (1982), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 362-363.
②John Rawls, Social Unity and Primary Goods (1982), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 361.
④有关这个问题的进一步讨论,也可参见Samuel Freeman, Justice and the Social Contract: Essays on Rawlsian Political Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 195-196.
①Chandran Kukathas and Philip Pettit, Rawls: A Theory of Justice and its Critics, Polity Press, 1990, p. 140.
②Brian Barry, John Rawls and the Search for Stability, in Chandran Kukathas (ed.), John Rawls: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers, VolumeⅣ: Political Liberalism and The Law of Peoples, Routledge, 2003, p. 347.
①具体论证参见周保松:《自由人的平等政治》,三联书店2010年版,第167-173页。
②John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Erin Kelly (ed.), The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2001, p. 181, n. 2.
③具体论述参见John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 140-144; [美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第297-334页。
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第205页。
②John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Erin Kelly (ed.), The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2001, p. 49.
③John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 391, n. 27.
④John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 391, n. 27.
⑤参见[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第78,198,205,206页。
⑥[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第4页。
①周保松:《自由人的平等政治》,三联书店2010年版,第161页。
②Thomas Pogge, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, Michelle Kosch (trans.), Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 37-38.
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 145-146.
①有关罗尔斯对“权宜之计”的详细论述,参见John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 147-149.
②See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 158-159.
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 165.
①参见[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第323-324页。
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 86-87.
①参见[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第324-325页;John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 86.
②参见[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第325-326页。
③参见[英]霍布斯:《利维坦》,黎思复、黎廷弼译,商务印书馆1985年版,第128-142页。
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 15.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 138.
③参见[德]马克斯·韦伯:《韦伯作品集Ⅱ:经济与历史支配的类型》,康乐等译,广西师范大学出版社2004年版,第297页;周濂:《现代政治的正当性基础》,三联书店2008年版,第3页。
①See A. John Simmons, Justification and Legitimacy, 109 Ethics, 1999, pp. 739-771.
②对于西蒙斯的误判,西蒙·库欣做出了较为精当的回应,参见Simon Cushing, Justification, Legitimacy, and Social Embeddedness: Locke and Rawls on Society and the State, 37 The Journal of Value Inquiry, 2003, pp. 217-231.
③Joseph Raz, Disagreement in Politics, 43 American Journal of Jurisprudence, 1998, p. 36.
②有关罗尔斯对“公平游戏义务”的详细阐释,参见John Rawls, Legal Obligation and the Duty of Fair Play(1964), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 117-129.
②参见[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第274-284页。
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第281页。
②[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第284页。
③[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第7页。
①周濂:《现代政治的正当性基础》,三联书店2008年版,第17页。
②罗尔斯区分“正义概念”与“正义观念”的灵感来自哈特,参见H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law, Oxford University Press, 1961, pp. 155-159.
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第5页。
②这意味着,如果纳粹的法律是按照合法程序制定的,那么它是否应当得到遵守这个极端的问题并不在罗尔斯的讨论之列。
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 428.
③See Jürgen Habermas, Legitimation Problems in the Modern State, in Jürgen Habermas, Communication and Evolution of Society, Thomas McCarthy (trans.), Polity Press, 1991, pp. 183-185.
①Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, William Rehg (trans.), MIT Press, 1996, p. 107.
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 430-431.
③John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 137.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 233.
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 231-232.
②[美]阿米·古特曼、达尼斯·汤普森:《民主与分歧》,杨立峰等译,东方出版社2007年版,第25页。
③[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第241-242页。
①[美]阿米·古特曼、达尼斯·汤普森:《民主与分歧》,杨立峰等译,东方出版社2007年版,第32页。
②[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第242页。
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第243页。
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, Introduction to the Paperback Edition, 1996, pp. lx-lxi.
③[美]悉德尼·胡克:《民主与司法审查》,佟德志译,载佟德志编:《宪政与民主》,江苏人民出版社2008年版,第71页。
④Bernard Schwartz, The Supreme Court: Constitutional Revolution in Retrospect, The Ronald Press, 1957, p. 4.
⑤United States vs. Butler, 297 U. S 1, 78-79 (1936).
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 233.
②Samuel Freeman, Justice and the Social Contract: Essays on Rawlsian Political Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 206.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 239-240.
②应奇编:《自由主义中立性及其批评者》,江苏人民出版社2007年版,“封底”。
①[英]乔治·克劳德:《自由主义与价值多元论》,应奇等译,江苏人民出版社2006年版,第31页。
②John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999, p. 25.
③John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999, p. 329.
①Will Kymlicka, Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality, 99 Ethics, 1989, p. 900.
②Will Kymlicka, Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality, 99 Ethics, 1989, p. 900.
③Will Kymlicka, Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality, 99 Ethics, 1989, p. 902.
①Will Kymlicka, Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality, 99 Ethics, 1989, p. 896.
②罗尔斯对这五种“善观念”的详细阐述,参见John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 173-211.
③John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 192-193.
①See William Galston, Defending Liberalism, 72 American Political Science Review, 1982, pp.621-629.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 192.
①拉兹对这两种“中立性”的详细论述,参见Joseph Raz, The Morality of Freedom, Oxford University Press, 1986, pp. 110-157.
②Will Kymlicka, Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality, 99 Ethics, 1989, p. 884.
③See Will Kymlicka, Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality, 99 Ethics, 1989, pp. 884-886.金里卡对罗尔斯“辩护理由的中立性”的理解,也得到了和乔治·克劳德([英]乔治·克劳德:《自由主义与价值多元论》,应奇等译,江苏人民出版社2006年版,第34页)和帕特里克·尼尔(Patrick Neal, Liberalism and its Discontents, New York University Press, 1997, p. 5)的支持。
④John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, China Social Science Publishing House, 1999, p. 94.
①拉兹对这两种“中立性”的详细论述,参见Joseph Raz, The Morality of Freedom, Oxford University Press, 1986, pp. 110-157.
②Will Kymlicka, Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality, 99 Ethics, 1989, p. 884.
④John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, China Social Science Publishing House, 1999, p. 94.
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第13页。
①Charles Larmore, Public Reason, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 370.
③Charles Larmore, Public Reason, in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 371.
④[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第138-139页。
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 213; The Law of Peoples with“The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”, Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 133.
②John Rawls, The Law of Peoples with“The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”, Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 133.
②对罗尔斯的“公共政治论坛”与哈贝马斯的“公共领域”之间区别的讨论,可参见李佃来:《公共领域与生活世界:哈贝马斯市民社会理论研究》,人民出版社2006年版,第327-339页。
①[美]布鲁斯·艾克曼:《政治自由主义种种》,彭国华译,载[美]罗尔斯等:《政治自由主义:批评与辩护》,万俊人等译,广东人民出版社2003年版,第126页。
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 227.
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 230-231.
②有关“宪法实质”与“基本正义”问题之间的区别,更为精彩详尽的讨论参见Thomas Pogge, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, Michelle Kosch (trans.), Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 148-154.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 226.
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 247-252.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 253.
②对这个问题的详细而精彩的阐述,参见Samuel Freeman, Justice and the Social Contract: Essays on Rawlsian Political Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 232-235.
①Joseph Raz, Disagreement in Politics, 43 American Journal of Jurisprudence, 1998, p. 28.
③See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 321.
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第414页。
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 42, n. 44.
③[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第417页。
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 205-206.
②“社会内嵌”这一术语的表达来自于西蒙·库欣。See Simon Cushing, Justification, Legitimacy, and Social Embeddedness: Locke and Rawls on Society and the State, 37 The Journal of Value Inquiry, 2003, pp. 217-231.
③See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 136.
④John Rawls, The Independence of Moral Theory (1975), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 300.
⑤针对“占有性主体”和“构成性主体”之间的区别的详细阐释,参见[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《自由主义与正义的局限》,万俊人等译,译林出版社2001年版,第67-74页。
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第414-415页。
①John Rawls, Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory (1980), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 306.
②John Rawls, Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory (1980), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 306.
①See Philip Pettit, Rawls’s Political Ontology, 4 Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 2005, pp. 158-159.
②罗尔斯对此种社会观的具体批判可参见[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第17-22页。
③See Philip Pettit, Rawls’s Political Ontology, 4 Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 2005, pp. 159-163.
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》(修订版),何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社2009年版,第409页。
②有关这个问题的讨论,参见本文第3.2.3节。
①参见[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第59页。
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 71.
①[美]布鲁斯·艾克曼:《政治自由主义种种》,彭国华译,载[美]罗尔斯等:《政治自由主义:批评与辩护》,万俊人等译,广东人民出版社2003年版,第141页。
②[美]布鲁斯·艾克曼:《政治自由主义种种》,彭国华译,载[美]罗尔斯等:《政治自由主义:批评与辩护》,万俊人等译,广东人民出版社2003年版,第140页。
①Stephen Gardbaum, Liberalism, Autonomy, and Moral Conflict, 48 Stanford Law Review, 1996, p. 409.
②[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第62页。
①[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第63页。
①See George Klosko, Rawls’s“Political”Philosophy and American Democracy, 87 American Political Science Review, 1993, pp. 348-359; Political Constructivism in Rawls’s Political Liberalism, 91 American Political Science Review, 1997, pp. 635-646.
②Leif Wenar, Political Liberalism: An Internal Critique, 106 Ethics, 1995, p. 51.
③William Galston, Moral Personality and Liberal Theory: John Rawls’s“Dewey Lectures”, 10 Political Theory, 1982, p. 519.
④[美]迈克尔·沃尔泽:《正义诸领域:为多元主义与平等一辩》,褚松燕译,译林出版社2002年版,第424页。
①John Rawls, Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory (1980), in John Rawls, Collected Papers, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 306.
①See John Rawls, The Law of Peoples with“The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”, Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 11-12.
②参见[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第7-8页。
①John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Erin Kelly (ed.), The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2001, p. 4.
②John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Erin Kelly (ed.), The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2001, p. 4.
①[英]约翰·格雷:《自由主义的两张面孔》,顾爱彬等译,江苏人民出版社2005年版,第11页。
①[英]约翰·格雷:《自由主义的两张面孔》,顾爱彬等译,江苏人民出版社2005年版,第177页。
③John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 147.
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第3页。
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第5页。
②[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第6页。
①See Terence Irwin, Classical Thought, Oxford University Press, 1989, esp. Chapter 2, cited in John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction, p. xxiv.
②以上对政治哲学在古代世界与现代世界具有的不同问题意识的归纳,详见John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction, pp. xxi-xxvi.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction, p. xxvi.
①John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Erin Kelly (ed.), The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2001, pp. 42-43.
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯:《作为公平的正义——正义新论》,姚大志译,上海三联书店2002年版,第244页。
②邓晓芒:《康德论道德与法的关系》,载《江苏社会科学》2009年第4期,第5页。
③See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 200.
①参见谭安奎:《政治的,抑或道德的——对政治自由主义一个关键悖论的解读》,载《现代哲学》2007年第5期,第99-104页。
②参见姚大志:《何谓正义:当代西方政治哲学研究》,人民出版社2007年版,第74页。
①John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, China Social Science Publishing House, 1999, pp. 494-495.
②慈继伟:《正义的两面》,三联书店2001年版,第154-155页。
①John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Erin Kelly (ed.), The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2001, p. 139.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction to the Paperback Edition, p. lxii.
①Thomas Pogge, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, Michelle Kosch (trans.), Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 27.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, Introduction to the Paperback Edition, p. lxii.
③Thomas Pogge, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, Michelle Kosch (trans.), Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 27.
①Jürgen Habermas, Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s Political Liberalism, 92 The Journal of Philosophy, 1995, p. 110.
②Jürgen Habermas, Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s Political Liberalism, 92 The Journal of Philosophy, 1995, p. 112.
①See Jürgen Habermas, Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s Political Liberalism, 92 The Journal of Philosophy, 1995, pp. 119-126.
①Jürgen Habermas, Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s Political Liberalism, 92 The Journal of Philosophy, 1995, p. 128.
①See John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 385-387.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 390.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 416-417.
①John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 402.
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 403.
①Thomas McCarthy, Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue, 105 Ethics, 1994, p. 61.
②Jürgen Habermas, Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s Political Liberalism, 92 The Journal of Philosophy, 1995, p. 131.
①Thomas McCarthy, Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue, 105 Ethics, 1994, p. 63.
②Thomas McCarthy, Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue, 105 Ethics, 1994, p. 63.
③[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《自由主义与正义的局限》,万俊人等译,译林出版社2001年版,第239页。
①[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《自由主义与正义的局限》,万俊人等译,译林出版社2001年版,第248页。
①参见[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《自由主义与正义的局限》,万俊人等译,译林出版社2001年版,第257-266页。
①对这个问题的具体分析,参见本文第5.3.2节。
①[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学》,曾纪茂译,江苏人民出版社2008年版。
③[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学》,曾纪茂译,江苏人民出版社2008年版,第27页。
④[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学》,曾纪茂译,江苏人民出版社2008年版,第27页。
⑤[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学》,曾纪茂译,江苏人民出版社2008年版,第414页。
①[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学》,曾纪茂译,江苏人民出版社2008年版,第343页。
②[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学》,曾纪茂译,江苏人民出版社2008年版,第343页。
①[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学》,曾纪茂译,江苏人民出版社2008年版,第29页。
①[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学》,曾纪茂译,江苏人民出版社2008年版,第428页。
②[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学》,曾纪茂译,江苏人民出版社2008年版,第421页。
③[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学》,曾纪茂译,江苏人民出版社2008年版,第428页。
①针对罗尔斯对“公民人文主义”和“古典共和主义”所持态度的讨论,参见本文第6.1.1节。
②[美]迈克尔·桑德尔:《民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学》,曾纪茂译,江苏人民出版社2008年版,第422-423页。
①Joseph Raz, Facing Diversity: The Case of Epistemic Abstinence, in Chandran Kukathas (ed.), John Rawls: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers, VolumeⅣ: Political Liberalism and The Law of Peoples, Routledge, 2003, p. 400.
②[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第274页。
①[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第295页。
③[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第274页。
①[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第279页。
②John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 58.
③[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第280页。
①[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第295页。
②[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第145页。
③[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第145页。
④[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第146页。
①[美]查尔斯·拉莫尔:《现代性的教训》,刘擎等译,东方出版社2010年版,第137页。
②参见本文第2.2.2.2节。
①Thomas Nagel, The Fragmentation of Value, in Thomas Nagel, Moral Questions, Cambridge University Press, pp. 128-141, cited in John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 57, n. 10.
②[英]乔治·克劳德:《自由主义与价值多元论》,应奇等译,江苏人民出版社2006年版,第198页。
③John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 197.
④John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 197, n. 32.
⑤[英]乔治·克劳德:《自由主义与价值多元论》,应奇等译,江苏人民出版社2006年版,第199页。
①[英]乔治·克劳德:《自由主义与价值多元论》,应奇等译,江苏人民出版社2006年版,第208页。
②See Jean Hampton, Should Political Philosophy be Done without Metaphysics?, 99 Ethics, pp. 791-814.转引自[英]乔治·克劳德:《自由主义与价值多元论》,应奇等译,江苏人民出版社2006年版,第213页。
①Jean Hampton, Should Political Philosophy be Done without Metaphysics?, 99 Ethics, p. 812.转引自[英]乔治·克劳德:《自由主义与价值多元论》,应奇等译,江苏人民出版社2006年版,第213页。
②Joseph Raz, The Morality of Freedom, Clarendon Press, p. 369.转引自[英]乔治·克劳德:《自由主义与价值多元论》,应奇等译,江苏人民出版社2006年版,第235页。
③[英]乔治·克劳德:《自由主义与价值多元论》,应奇等译,江苏人民出版社2006年版,第245页。
[1]曹瑞涛.多元时代的“正义方舟”——罗尔斯后期政治哲学思想研究[M].杭州:浙江大学出版社,2008.
[2]陈瑞华.看得见的正义[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2000.
[3]程炼.伦理学:关键词[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2007.
[4]程炼.伦理学导论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
[5]慈继伟.正义的两面[M].北京:三联书店,2001.
[6]邓晓芒.康德哲学诸问题[M].北京:三联书店,2006.
[7]邓正来.哈耶克法律哲学[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2009.
[8]邓正来.研究与反思——中国社会科学自主性的思考[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[9]杜宴林.法律的人文主义解释[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2005.
[10]冯友兰.中国现代哲学史[M].广州:广东人民出版社,1999.
[11]葛洪义.法与实践理性[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[12]龚群.罗尔斯政治哲学[M].北京:商务印书馆,2006.
[13]顾肃.自由主义基本理念[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2005.
[14]何怀宏.公平的正义——解读罗尔斯《正义论》[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2002.
[15]何霜梅.正义与社群——社群主义对以罗尔斯为首的新自由主义的批判[M].北京:人民出版社,2009.
[16]黄文艺.全球结构与法律发展[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[17]季卫东.宪政新论:全球化时代的法与社会变迁[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[18]李志江.良序社会的政治哲学——罗尔斯分配正义理论研究[M].北京:人民出版社,2009.
[19]林火旺.正义与公民[M].长春:吉林出版集团有限责任公司,2008.
[20]沈宗灵.现代西方法理学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[21]石元康.罗尔斯[M].桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2004.
[22]童世骏.批判与实践——哈贝马斯的批判理论[M].北京:三联书店,2007.
[23]徐清飞.求索正义:罗尔斯正义理论发展探究[M].北京:法律出版社,2010.
[24]徐向东.自由主义、社会契约与政治辩护[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[25]徐向东.道德哲学与实践理性[M].北京:商务印书馆,2006.
[26]姚大志.何谓正义:当代西方政治哲学研究[M].北京:人民出版社,2007.
[27]姚建宗.法治的生态环境[M].济南:山东人民出版社,2003.
[28]严存生.西方法律思想史[M].北京:法律出版社,2004.
[29]颜厥安.法与实践理性[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[30]应奇.从自由主义到后自由主义[M].北京:三联书店,2003.
[31]应奇,刘训练.共和的黄昏:自由主义、社群主义和共和主义[C].长春:吉林出版集团有限责任公司,2007.
[32]应奇.自由主义中立性及其批评者[C].南京:江苏人民出版社,2007.
[33]张宏生,谷春德.西方法律思想史[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1990.
[34]张文显.法哲学范畴研究(修订版)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001.
[35]张文显.马克思主义法理学——理论、方法和前沿[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2003.
[36]张文显.二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[37]张文显.法哲学通论[M].沈阳:辽宁人民出版社,2009.
[38]郑成良.法律之内的正义[M].北京:法律出版社,2002.
[39]周保松.自由人的平等政治[M].北京:三联书店,2010.
[40]周濂.现代政治的正当性基础[M].北京:三联书店,2008.
[41] [澳]乔德兰·库卡塔斯,菲利普·佩迪特.罗尔斯[M].姚建宗,等译.哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1999.
[42] [德]马克斯·韦伯.韦伯作品集Ⅱ:经济与历史支配的类型[M].康乐,等译.桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2004.
[43] [德]伊曼努尔·康德.纯粹理性批判[M].邓晓芒译.北京:人民出版社,2004.
[44] [德]伊曼努尔·康德.实践理性批判[M].邓晓芒译.北京:人民出版社,2004.
[45] [德]伊曼努尔·康德.判断力批判[M].邓晓芒译.北京:人民出版社,2002.
[46] [德]伊曼努尔·康德.道德形而上学原理[M].苗力田译.上海:上海世纪出版集团,2005.
[47] [德]伊曼努尔·康德.康德著作全集(第6卷)[M].李秋零,等译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[48] [德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯.在事实与规范之间:关于法律和民主法治国的商谈理论[M].童世骏译.北京:三联书店,2003.
[49] [德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯.现代性的哲学话语[M].曹卫东,等译.南京:译林出版社,2004.
[50] [德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯.包容他者[M].曹卫东译.上海:上海人民出版社,2002.
[51] [德]尤尔根·哈贝马斯.后形而上学思想[M].曹卫东,等译.南京:译林出版社,2001.
[52] [法]邦雅曼·贡斯当.古代人的自由与现代人的自由[M].阎克文,等译.上海:上海人民出版社,2005.
[53] [法]笛卡尔.第一哲学沉思集[M].庞景仁译.北京:商务印书馆,1986.
[54] [法]让-雅克·卢梭.社会契约论[M].何兆武译.北京:商务印书馆,2003.
[55] [古希腊]亚里士多德.政治学[M].吴寿彭译.北京:商务印书馆,1964.
[56] [加]查尔斯·泰勒.现代性的隐忧[M].程炼译.北京:中央编译出版社,2001.
[57] [加]丹尼尔·贝尔.社群主义及其批评者[M].李琨译.北京:三联书店,2002.
[58] [加]威尔·金里卡.当代政治哲学(上、下)[M].刘莘译.上海:上海三联书店,2004.
[59] [加]威尔·金里卡.自由主义、社群与文化[M].应奇,等译.上海:上海世纪出版集团,2005.
[60] [美]阿拉斯代尔·麦金太尔.追寻美德:伦理理论研究[M].宋继杰译.南京:译林出版社,2003.
[61] [美]阿米·古特曼,丹尼斯·汤普森.民主与分歧[M].杨立峰,等译.北京:东方出版社,2007.
[62] [美]埃德加·博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法(修订版)[M].邓正来译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[63] [美]芭芭拉·赫尔曼.道德判断的实践[M].陈虎平译.北京:东方出版社,2006.
[64] [美]查尔斯·拉莫尔.现代性的教训[M].刘擎,等译.北京:东方出版社,2010.
[65] [美]杰里米·沃尔德伦.法律与分歧[M].王柱国译.北京:法律出版社,2009.
[66] [美]列奥·施特劳斯.自然权利与历史[M].彭刚译.北京:三联书店,2006.
[67] [美]刘易斯·贝克.《实践理性批判》通释[M].黄涛译.上海:华东师范大学出版社,2011.
[68] [美]罗伯特·诺齐克.无政府、国家和乌托邦[M].姚大志译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2008.
[69] [美]罗纳德·德沃金.认真对待权利[M].信春鹰,等译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1998.
[70] [美]罗纳德·德沃金.至上的美德:平等的理论与实践[M].冯克利译.南京:江苏人民出版社,2007.
[71] [美]罗纳德·德沃金.原则问题[M].张国清译.南京:江苏人民出版社,2008.
[72] [美]罗纳德·德沃金.身披法袍的正义[M].周林刚,等译.北京:北京大学出版社,2010.
[73] [美]罗斯科·庞德.法理学(第一卷)[M].邓正来译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[74] [美]罗素·哈丁.自由主义、宪政主义和民主[M].王欢,等译.北京:商务印书馆,2009.
[75] [美]迈克尔·桑德尔.自由主义与正义的局限[M].万俊人,等译.南京:译林出版社,2001.
[76] [美]迈克尔·桑德尔.民主的不满——美国在寻求一种公共哲学[M].曾纪茂译.南京:江苏人民出版社,2008.
[77] [美]迈克尔·沃尔泽.正义诸领域[M].褚松燕译.南京:译林出版社,2002.
[78] [美]乔万尼·萨托利.民主新论[M].冯克利,等译.上海:上海人民出版社,2009.
[79] [美]涛慕思·博格.康德、罗尔斯与全球正义[M].刘莘,等译.上海:上海译文出版社,2010.
[80] [美]涛慕思·博格.罗尔斯:生平与正义理论[M].顾肃,等译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2010.
[81] [美]托马斯·斯坎伦.我们彼此负有什么义务[M].陈代东,等译.北京:人民出版社,2008.
[82] [美]威廉·盖尔斯敦.自由多元主义[M].佟德志译.南京:江苏人民出版社,2008.
[83] [美]希拉里·普特南.事实与价值二分法的崩溃[M].应奇译.北京:东方出版社,2006.
[84] [美]约翰·罗尔斯.正义论[M].何怀宏,等译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988.
[85] [美]约翰·罗尔斯.政治自由主义[M].万俊人译.南京:译林出版社,2000.
[86] [美]约翰·罗尔斯.万民法公共理性观念新论[M].张晓辉,等译.长春:吉林人民出版社,2001.
[87] [美]约翰·罗尔斯.作为公平的正义——正义新论[M].姚大志译.上海:上海三联书店,2002.
[88] [美]约翰·罗尔斯.道德哲学史讲义[M].张国清译.北京:三联书店,2003.
[89] [美]约翰·罗尔斯.正义论(修订版)[M].何怀宏,等译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2009.
[90] [印]阿马蒂亚·森.以自由看待发展[M].任赜,等译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2002.
[91] [英]奥诺拉·奥尼尔.迈向正义与美德:实践推理的建构性解释[M].应奇,等译.北京:东方出版社,2009.
[92] [英]布莱恩·巴里.正义诸理论[M].孙晓春译.长春:吉林人民出版社,2004.
[93] [英]布莱恩·巴里.社会正义论[M].曹海军译.南京:江苏人民出版社,2008.
[94] [英]弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克.自由秩序原理(上、下)[M].邓正来译.北京:三联书店,1997.
[95] [英]霍布斯.利维坦[M].黎思复,等译.北京:商务印书馆,1985.
[96] [英]H. L. A.哈特.法律的概念[M].张文显,等译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1996.
[97] [英]H. L. A.哈特.法理学与哲学论文集[M].支振锋译.北京:法律出版社,2005.
[98] [英]迈克尔·莱斯诺夫.二十世纪的政治哲学家[M].冯克利译.北京:商务印书馆,2002.
[99] [英]乔纳森·沃尔夫.政治哲学导论[M].王涛,等译.长春:吉林出版集团有限责任公司,2009.
[100][英]乔治·克劳德.自由主义与价值多元论[M].应奇,等译.南京:江苏人民出版社,2008.
[101][英]史蒂芬·缪哈尔,亚当·斯威夫特.自由主义者与社群主义者[M].孙晓春译.长春:吉林人民出版社,2007.
[102][英]韦恩·莫里森.法理学[M].李桂林,等译.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2003.
[103][英]以赛亚·伯林.自由论[M].胡传胜译.南京:译林出版社,2003.
[104][英]以赛亚·伯林.扭曲的人性之材[M].岳秀坤译.南京:译林出版社,2009.
[105][英]约翰·格雷.自由主义的两张面孔[M].顾爱彬,等译.南京:江苏人民出版社,2008.
[106][英]约翰·洛克.政府论(下篇)[M].叶启芳,等译.北京:商务印书馆,1964.
[107][英]约翰·穆勒.论自由[M].严复译.上海:上海三联书店,2009.
[108][英]约瑟夫·拉兹.法律体系的概念[M].吴玉章译.北京:中国法制出版社,2003.
[109][英]约瑟夫·拉兹.法律的权威:法律与道德论文集[M].朱峰译.北京:法律出版社,2005.
[110][英]约瑟夫·拉兹.自由的道德[M].孙晓春,等译.长春:吉林人民出版社,2006.
[111]B. N. Ray.John Rawls and the Agenda of Social Justice[C].New Delhi:Anamika Publishers & Distributors,2000.
[112]Catherine Audard.John Rawls[M].Stocksfield:Acumen,2007.
[113]Chandran Kukathas , Philip Pettit . Rawls: A Theory of Justice and its Critics[M].Cambridge,UK:Polity Press,1990.
[114]Charles Larmore.The Autonomy of Morality[M].Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,2008.
[115]Christine M. Korsgaard.The Constitution of Agency: Essays on Practical Reason and Moral Psychology[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2008.
[116]David Lewis Schaefer.Illiberal Justice:John Rawls vs. The American Political Tradition[M].Columbia:University of Missouri Press,2007.
[117]G. E. Moor.Principle Ethica[M].Beijing:China Social Science Publishing House,1999.
[118]Gerald F. Gaus.Contemporary Theory of Liberalism: Public Reason as a Post-Enlightenment Project[M].London:Sage Publications,2003.
[119]Henry Sidgwick.Methods of Ethics (7th edn.) [M].Indiana:Hackett Publishing Comoany,1981.
[120]Henry S. Richardson,Paul Weithman.Philosophy of Rawls (Vol.1): Development and Main Outlines of Rawls’s Theory of Justice[C].New York:Garland Publishing,1999.
[121]Henry S. Richardson,Paul Weithman.Philosophy of Rawls (Vol.2): The Two Principles and Their Justification[C].New York:Garland Publishing,1999.
[122]Henry S. Richardson,Paul Weithman.Philosophy of Rawls (Vol.3): Opponents and Implications of A Theory of Justice[C].New York:Garland Publishing,1999.
[123]Henry S. Richardson,Paul Weithman.Philosophy of Rawls (Vol.4): Moral Psychology and Community[C].New York:Garland Publishing,1999.
[124]Henry S. Richardson,Paul Weithman.Philosophy of Rawls (Vol.5): Reasonable Pluralism[C].New York:Garland Publishing,1999.
[125]Jean- Jacques Rousseau.A Discourse on Inequality[M].Beijing:China Social Science Publishing House,1999.
[126]John Rawls.A Theory of Justice[M].Beijing:China Social Sciences Publishing House,1971.
[127]John Rawls.Political Liberalism[M].New York:Columbia University Press,1996.
[128]John Rawls.A Theory of Justice (Rev. edn.)[M].Cambridge,Mass:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,1999.
[129]John Rawls.The Law of Peoples with“The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”[M].Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,1999.
[130]John Rawls.Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy[M].Cambridge,Mass: Harvard University Press,2000.
[131]John Rawls.Justice as Fairness: A Restatement[M].Cambridge,Mass:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,2001.
[132]John Rawls.Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy[M].Cambridge,Mass:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,2007.
[133]Joseph Raz.The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,1979.
[134]Joseph Raz.The Morality of Freedom[M].Oxford:Clarendon Press,1979.
[135]Jürgen Habermas.Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy[M].William Rehg (trans.).Cambridge,Mass:MIT Press,1996.
[136]Kant.Critique of Practical Reason[M].Beijing:China Social Science Publishing House,1999.
[137]Kant.Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals[M].Beijing:China Social Science Publishing House,1999.
[138]Martha C. Nassbaum.Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership[M].Cambridge,Mass:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,2006.
[139]Micheal J. Sandel.Justice: A Reader[C].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2007.
[140]Mill.Utilitarianism[M].Beijing:China Social Science Publishing House,1999.
[141]Onora O’Neill.Bound of Justice[M].Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,1996.
[142]Patrick Neal.Liberalism and its Discontents[M].New York:New York University Press,1997.
[143]Paul Graham.Rawls[M].Oxford:Oneworld Publications,2007.
[144]Peri Roberts.Political Constructivism[M].Oxon:Routledge,2007.
[145]Rex Martin,David A. Reidy.Rawls’s Law of Peoples: A Realistic Utopia? [C].Oxford:Blackwell Publishing,2006.
[146]Richard Rorty . Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers [M].Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,1991.
[147]Robert Nozick.Anarchy, State and Utopia[M].Beijing:China Social Science Publishing House,1999.
[148]Samuel Freeman.Rawls[M].Oxon:Routledge,2007.
[149]Samuel Freeman.Justice and the Social Contract: Essays on Rawlsian Political Philosophy[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2007.
[150]Shaun P. Young.Beyond Rawls: An Analysis of the Concept of Political Liberalism[M].Lanham:University Press of America,2002.
[151]Shaun P. Young.Reflections on Rawls: An Assessment of his Legacy[C].Hampshire:Ashgate,2009.
[152]Stephen Mulhall,Adam Swift.Liberals & Communitarians (2nd Edn.) [M].Oxford:Blackwell Publishers,1996.
[153]Steven Wall.Liberalism, Perfectionism and Restraint[M].Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,1998.
[154]Thomas Nagel.Equality and Partiality[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,1991.
[155]Thomas Pogge.John Rawls: His Life and Theory of justice[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2007.
[156]Thomas Scanlon . The Difficulty of Tolerance: Essays in Political Philosophy[M].Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,2003.
[157]Ville P?iv?nalo.Balancing Reasonable Justice: John Rawls and Crucial Steps Beyond[M].Hampshire:Ashgate,2007.
[1]曹瑞涛.伯林、罗尔斯与格雷在多元时代对政治制度选择之比较[J].同济大学学报》(社会科学版),2006(5):74-78.
[2]陈肖生.宪政与民主间张力的调解——解读罗尔斯的公共理性理念[J].中共浙江省委党校学报,2008(5):26-31.
[3]戴华.罗尔斯论康德“定言式程序”[J].政治与社会哲学评论,2004(9):79-112.
[4]邓晓芒.康德论道德与法的关系[J].江苏社会科学,2009(4):1-7.
[5]顾肃.重叠共识如何可能——后期罗尔斯的自由主义理念[J].南京大学学报(哲学.人文.社会科学版),1999(3):92-98.
[6]顾肃.从伦理到政治的建构主义——罗尔斯政治哲学的思想逻辑基础[J].马克思主义与现实,2009(3):69-75.
[7]季卫东.法律程序的形式性与实质性——以对程序理论的批判和批判理论的程序化为线索[J].北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006(1):109-131.
[8]李小科.“现实的乌托邦”释义[J].开放时代,2003(4):31-38.
[9]李小科.澄清被混用的“新自由主义”——兼谈对New Liberalism和Neo-Liberalism的翻译[J].复旦学报(社会科学版),2006(1):56-62.
[10]林火旺.公共理性的功能及其限制[J].政治与社会哲学评论,2004(8):47-77.
[11]刘莘.罗尔斯“反思平衡”的前提[J].哲学研究,2007(5):85-91.
[12]刘莘.康德、罗尔斯与全球正义[J].外国哲学,2008(11):88-96.
[13]刘舒适.罗尔斯正义理论的宪政之维——从《正义论》到《政治自由主义》[J].新疆社会科学,2005(6):11-15.
[14]刘雪梅.重叠共识对政治秩序的公共证成[J].马克思主义与现实,2009(3):81-86.
[15]刘永红.政治自由主义发展的逻辑——从洛克和密尔到伯林和罗尔斯[D].北京:中国人民大学哲学院,2005.
[16]齐延平.论社会基本制度的正义——对罗尔斯正义理论的讨论[J].北方法学,2007(4):19-38.
[17]石元康.交叠共识与民主社会中的政治哲学:罗尔斯理论最近的发展[C]//石元康.当代西方自由主义理论.上海:上海三联书店,2000:197-239.
[18]宋显忠.宪政与程序保障[J].法制与社会发展,2006(5):94-101.
[19]宋显忠.程序正义及其局限性[J].法制与社会发展,2004(3):123-133.
[20]苏力.从契约理论到社会契约理论——一种国家学说的知识考古学[J].中国社会科学,1996(3):79-103.
[21]孙国东.合法律性、合道德性与合法性——对哈贝马斯商谈论合法化理论的一种解读[D].长春:吉林大学法学院,2008.
[22]谭安奎.政治的,抑或道德的——对政治自由主义一个关键悖论的解读[J].现代哲学,2007(5):99-104.
[23]万俊人.从政治正义到社会和谐——以罗尔斯为中心的当代政治哲学反思[J].哲学动态,2005(6):3-12.
[24]万俊人.罗尔斯问题[J].求是学刊,2007(1):14-23.
[25]吴福友,吴根友.从一国宪政到万民宪政——罗尔斯“政治自由主义”的逻辑理路浅绎[J].武汉大学学报(人文科学版),2002(6):671-677.
[26]谢世民.罗尔斯与社会正义的场域[J].政治与社会哲学评论,2004(9):1-38.
[27]许纪霖.两个美国与政治自由主义的困境[J].读书,2005(6):89-97.
[28]许纪霖.政治自由主义,还是整全自由主义?[C]//许纪霖.现代性的多元反思.南京:江苏人民出版社,2008:11-23.
[29]颜厥安.公共理性与法律理论[J].政治与社会哲学评论,2004(8):1-46.
[30]姚大志.道德证明与现代性[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,2002(1):5-13.
[31]姚大志.罗尔斯与功利主义[J].社会科学战线,2008(7):13-19.
[32]姚大志.正义的张力:马克思和罗尔斯之比较[J].文史哲,2009(4):130-138.
[33]姚大志.罗尔斯与自由的优先性[C]//邓正来.复旦政治哲学评论.上海:上海人民出版社,2010:25-37.
[34]姚建宗.法律的政治逻辑阐释[J].政治学研究,2010(2):32-40.
[35]姚建宗.论法律与政治的共生:法律政治学导论[J].学习与探索,2010(4):59-63.
[36]袁久红.政治自由主义的政治共识——析罗尔斯后期的政治正义论[J].江苏行政学院学报,2003(3):100-106.
[37]曾国祥.自由主义与政治的局限[J].政治与社会哲学评论,2004(8):79-120.
[38]张立文.中国哲学:从“照着讲”、“接着讲”到“自己讲”[J].中国人民大学学报,2000(2):7-9.
[39]张文显.和谐精神的导入与中国法治的转型——从以法而治到良法善治[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,2010(3):5-14.
[40]赵汀阳.哲学的政治学转向[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,2006(2):5-11.
[41]周保松.罗尔斯《正义论》(1971)[C]//应奇.当代政治哲学名著导读.南京:江苏人民出版社,2010:1-36.
[42]周濂.最可欲的与最相关的:今日语境下如何做政治哲学[C]//许纪霖.现代性的多元反思.南京:江苏人民出版社,2008:58-69.
[43] [加]查尔斯·泰勒.善的多元性[C] //[美]马克·里拉,罗纳德·德沃金,罗伯特·希尔维斯.以赛亚·伯林的遗产.刘擎,等译.北京:新星出版社,2009:83-88.
[44] [美]伯纳德·威廉姆斯.自由主义与损失[C] // [美]马克·里拉,罗纳德·德沃金,罗伯特·希尔维斯.以赛亚·伯林的遗产.刘擎,等译.北京:新星出版社,2009:69-77.
[45] [美]布鲁斯·艾克曼.政治自由主义种种[C].彭国华译//[美]罗尔斯等.政治自由主义:批评与辩护.万俊人,等译.广州:广东人民出版社,2003:122-153.
[46] [美]H. L. A.哈特.罗尔斯论自由及其优先性[C].邓正来译//复旦政治哲学评论.上海:上海人民出版社,2010:3-24.
[47] [美]罗纳德·德沃金.自由主义[C].张国清译//应奇.自由主义中立性及其批判者.南京:江苏人民出版社,2007:37-52.
[48] [美]罗纳德·德沃金.自由的各种价值冲突吗?[C] // [美]马克·里拉,罗纳德·德沃金,罗伯特·希尔维斯.以赛亚·伯林的遗产.刘擎,等译.北京:新星出版社,2009:55-68.
[49] [美]迈克尔·桑德尔.程序共和国和无牵无挂的自我[C].柴宝勇译//应奇,刘训练.公民共和主义.北京:东方出版社,2006:334-354.
[50] [美]托马斯·内格尔.多元主义与一致性[C] //[美]马克·里拉,罗纳德·德沃金,罗伯特·希尔维斯.以赛亚·伯林的遗产.刘擎,等译.北京:新星出版社,2009:78-82.
[51] [美]悉德尼·胡克.民主与司法审查[C].佟德志译//[美]罗伯特·达尔,沃尔特·墨菲等.《宪政与民主》.南京:江苏人民出版社,2008:68-112.
[52] [英]奥诺拉·奥尼尔.政治自由主义与公共理性——对罗尔斯《政治自由主义》的一个批判性评论[J].秦兴译.马克思主义与现实,2009(3):87-93.
[53] Allen Buchanan.Justice, Legitimacy and Human Rights[C] // Victoria Davion,Clark Wolf.The Idea of a Political Liberalism:Essays on Rawls.Lanham:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,2000:73-89.
[54] Allan Gibbard.Constructing Justice[J].Philosophy and Public Affairs,1991,20(3):264-279.
[55] Amy Gutmann.On Rawls and Political Liberalism[C] // Samuel Freeman.The Cambridge Companion to Rawls.Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,2003:168-199.
[56] A. John Simmons.Justification and Legitimacy[J].Ethics,1999,109(4):739-771.
[57] Brian Barry.John Rawls and the Search for Stability[J].Ethics,1995,105(4):874-915.
[58] Brain Barry.How not to Defend Liberal Institutions[J].British Journal of Political Science,1991,20:1-14.
[59] Bruce A. Ackerman.The Storrs Lectures: Discovering the Consitution[J].Yale Law Journal,1984,93:1013-1072.
[60] Bruce Brower.The Limits of Public Reason[J].Journal of Philosophy,1994,91:5-26.
[61] Burton Dreben.On Rawls and Political Liberalism[C] // Samuel Freeman.The Cambridge Companion to Rawls.Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,2003:316-346.
[62] Charles Larmore.The Moral Basis of Political Liberalism[J].The Journal of Philosophy,1999,96(12):599-625.
[63] Charles Larmore.Public Reason[C] // Samuel Freeman.The Cambridge Companion to Rawls.Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,2003:368-393.
[64] Clark Wolf.Fundamental Rights, Moral Pluralism, and the Moral Commitments of Liberalism[C] // Victoria Davion,Clark Wolf.The Idea of a Political Liberalism:Essays on Rawls.Lanham:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,2000:102-126.
[65] David A. Reidy.Rawls’s Wide View of Public Reason: Not Wide Enough[J].Res Publica,2000,6:49-72.
[66] David Estlund.The Insularity of the Reasonable: Why Political Liberalism Must Admit the Truth[C] // Chandran Kukathas.John Rawls: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers (Vol.Ⅳ): Political Liberalism and The Law of Peoples.Oxon:Routledge,2003:86-109.
[67] David Estlund.The Survival of Egalitarian Justice in John Rawls’s Political Liberalism[C] // Chandran Kukathas.John Rawls: Critical Assessments ofLeading Political Philosophers (Vol.Ⅳ): Political Liberalism and The Law of Peoples.Oxon:Routledge,2003:380-391.
[68] Dennis F. Thompson.Public Reason and Precluded Reasons[J].Fordham Law Review,2004,7:2073-2088.
[69] Donald R. Korobkin.Political Justification and the Law[J].Columbia Law Review,1994,94(6):1898-1917.
[70] George Klosko . Rawls’s“Political”Philosophy and American Democracy[J].American Political Science Review,1993,87(2):348-359.
[71] George Klosko. Political Constructivism in Rawls’s Political Liberalism[J].American Political Science Review,1997,91(3):635-646.
[72] Frank I. Michelman.Rawls on Constitutionalism and Constitutional Law[C] // Samuel Freeman.The Cambridge Companion to Rawls.Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,2003:394-425.
[73] Frank I. Michelman.Justice as Fairness, Legitimacy, and the Question of Judicial Review: A Comment[J].Fordham Law Review,2004,7:1407-1420.
[74] H. L. A. Hart.Rawls on Liberty and its Priority[C] // Chandran Kukathas.John Rawls: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers (Vol.Ⅱ): Principles of JusticeⅠ.Oxon:Routledge,2003:35-54.
[75] Iris Marion Young.Rawls’s Political Liberalism[C] // Chandran Kukathas.John Rawls: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers (Vol.Ⅳ): Political Liberalism and The Law of Peoples.Oxon:Routledge,2003:20-29.
[76] Jeremy Waldron.Judicial Review and the Conditions of Democray[J].The Journal of Politcal Philosophy,1998,6(4):335-355.
[77] John Rawls.Outline of a Decision Procedure for Ethics (1951)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:1-19.
[78] John Rawls.Two Concept of Rules (1955)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:1-19.
[79] John Rawls . Justice as Fairness (1958)[C] // John Rawls . Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:20-46.
[80] John Rawls.Constitutional Liberty and the Concept of Justice (1963)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:73-95.
[81] John Rawls.The Sense of Justice (1963)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:96-116.
[82] John Rawls.Legal Obligation and the Duty of Fair Play(1964)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:117-129.
[83] John Rawls . Distributive Justice (1967)[C] // John Rawls . Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:130-153.
[84] John Rawls . Distributive Justice: Some Addenda (1968)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:154-175.
[85] John Rawls . The Justification of Civil Disobedience (1969)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:176-189.
[86] John Rawls.Justice as Reciprocity (1971)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:190-224.
[87] John Rawls . The Independence of Moral Theory (1975)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:225-231.
[88] John Rawls.Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory (1980)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:303-358.
[89] John Rawls.Social Unity and Primary Goods (1982)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:359-387.
[90] John Rawls.Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical (1985)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:388-414.
[91] John Rawls.The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus (1987)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:421-448.
[92] John Rawls.The Priority of Right and Ideas of the Good (1988)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:449-472.
[93] John Rawls.The Domain of the Political and Overlapping Consensus (1989)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:473-496.
[94] John Rawls . Themes in Kant’s Moral Philosophy (1989)[C] // John Rawls.Collected Papers.Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,2007:497-528.
[95] Joseph Raz . Liberalism, Autonomy, and the Politics of Neutral Concern[J].Midwest Studies in Philosophy,1982,7(1):89-120.
[96] Joseph Raz.Disagreement in Politics[J].American Journal of Jurisprudence,1998,43:25-52.
[97] Joseph Raz.Facing Diversity: The Case of Epistemic Abstinence[C] // Chandran Kukathas.John Rawls: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers (Vol.Ⅳ): Political Liberalism and The Law of Peoples.Oxon:Routledge,2003:395-341.
[98] Jürgen Habermas.Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s Political Liberalism[J].The Journal of Philosophy,1995,92(3):109-131.
[99] Jürgen Habermas.Legitimation Problems in the Modern State[C] //Jürgen Habermas . Communication and Evolution of Society . Thomas McCarthy(trans.).Cambridge:Polity Press,1991:178-205.
[100]Leif Wenar . The Unity of Rawls Work[C] // Thom Brooks , Fabian Freyenhagen.The Legacy of John Rawls.London:Continuum,2005:22-33.
[101]Leif Wenar . Political Liberalism: An Internal Critique[C] // Chandran Kukathas.John Rawls: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers (Vol.Ⅳ): Political Liberalism and The Law of Peoples.Oxon:Routledge,2003:57-85.
[102]Marcus Singer.The Methods of Justice: Reflections of Rawls[J].Journal of Value Inquiry,1976,10(4):286-316.
[103]Michael Sandel. The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self [J].Political Theory,1984,12(1):81-96.
[104]Norman Daniels.Democratic Equality: Rawls’s Complex Egalitarianism [C] // Samuel Freeman.The Cambridge Companion to Rawls.Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,2003:241-276.
[105]Onora O’Neill.Constructivism in Rawls and Kant [C] // Samuel Freeman.The Cambridge Companion to Rawls.Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,2003:347-367.
[106]Perry Anderson. On John Rawls[J].Dissent,1994,Winter:139-144.
[107]Philip Pettit.Rawls’s Political Ontology[J].Politics, Philosophy & Economics,2005,4(2):157-174.
[108]Richard Nobles,David Schiff.The Evolution of Natural Law[C] // James Penner,Richard Nobles,David Schiff.Introduction to Jurisprudence and Legal Theory: Commentary and Materials.Oxford:Oxford University Press,2005: 35-90.
[109]Richard Rorty.The Priority of Democracy to Philosophy[C] // Chandran Kukathas.John Rawls: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers (Vol.Ⅲ): Principles of JusticeⅡ.Oxon:Routledge,2003:289-311.
[110]Robert Reiner . Justice[C] // James Penner , Richard Nobles , DavidSchiff.Introduction to Jurisprudence and Legal Theory: Commentary and Materials.Oxford:Oxford University Press,2005:719-777.
[111]Ronald Dworkin.Rawls and the Law[J].Fordham Law Review,2004,7:1387-1405.
[112]Ronald Dworkin.The Original Position[J].University of Chicago Law Review,1973,40(3):500-533.
[113]Ronald Dworkin.Constitutionalism and Democracy[J].European Journal of Philosophy,1995,3:2-11.
[114]Samantha Brennan,Robert Noggle.Rawls’s Neglected Childhood[C] // Victoria Davion , Clark Wolf . The Idea of a Political Liberalism : Essays on Rawls.Lanham:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,2000:46-72.
[115]Samuel Freeman . Congruence and the Good of Justice[C] // Samuel Freeman.The Cambridge Companion to Rawls.Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,2003:277-315.
[116]Samuel Scheffler.The Appeal of Political Liberalism[J].Ethics,1994,105(1): 4-22.
[117]Simon Cushing.Justification, Legitimacy, and Social Embeddedness: Locke and Rawls on Society and the State[J].The Journal of Value Inquiry,2003,37:217-231.
[118]Spencer Carr.Contractarianism, and Our Moral Intuitions[J].The Personalist, 1975,56:83-95.
[119]Stephen Gardbaum.Liberalism, Autonomy, and Moral Conflict[J].Stanford Law Review,1996,48(2):385-417.
[120]Stephen Holmes.John Rawls and the Limits of Tolerance[J].The New Republic, 1993,11:39-47.
[121]Stephen Mulhall,Adam Swift.Rawls and Communitarianism[C] // Samuel Freeman.The Cambridge Companion to Rawls.Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,2003:460-487.
[122]Thomas McCarthy.Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue[J].Ethics,1994,105(1):44-63.
[123]Thomas Nagel.Moral Conflict and Political Legitimacy[J].Philosophy and Public Affairs,1987,16(3):215-240.
[124]Thomas Nagel.Rawls on Justice[C] // Chandran Kukathas.John Rawls: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers (Vol.Ⅰ): Foundations and Method.Oxon:Routledge,2003:38-52.
[125]William Galston.Pluralism and the Social Unity[J].Ethics,1989,99(3):711-726.
[126]William Galston.Defending Liberalism[J].American Political Science Review, 1982,76(3):621-629.
[127]William Galston.Moral Personality and Liberal Theory: John Rawls’s“Dewey Lectures”[J].Political Theory,1982,10(4):492-519.
[128]W. M. Sibley.The Rational Versus the Reasonable[J].The Philosophical Review,1953,62(4):554-560.
[129]William Michael Treanor.Introduction: Rawls and the Law[J].Fordham Law Review,2004,72:1385-1386.
[130]Will Kymlicka.Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality[J].Ethics,1989,99(4):883-905.