正义的张力:戴维·米勒论社会正义与全球正义
|
摘要
戴维·米勒早期关注社会正义,随着全球化的进程推进,后期则关注全球正义。米勒全球正义思想的前提就是批判全球平等主义。全球平等主义理念来源于世界主义,它主张国家边界内的社会正义可以扩充至全球层面以实现全球正义。米勒认为全球正义与社会正义在背景条件、适用范围和责任主体等都不尽相同,全球正义不是社会正义的扩展版,国内社会正义原则不适用于全球领域。米勒在国内领域坚持多元主义的社会正义原则,在全球领域坚持保障基本人权的底线原则和民族责任原则,但保障基本人权的底线原则支持的是"弱式的世界主义",实际上认肯了某种形式的全球平等主义,这凸显了米勒共同体主义正义思想的困境。米勒的社会正义与全球正义观点的矛盾反映了道德情境主义与普遍主义正义之间存在内在张力,立足于现实乌托邦的共同体主义全球正义与立足于道德乌托邦的世界主义全球正义思想存在冲突与对抗,充满了内在思辨张力,而"人类命运共同体"新理念是走出这个困局的现实途径。
David Miller focused early on social justice, later on global justice with the process of globalization. The premise of Miller's global justice thought is to criticize global egalitarianism. The idea of global egalitarianism comes from Cosmopolitanism, which advocates that social justice within national boundaries can be extended to the global level to achieve global justice. Miller believes that global justice and social justice are different in terms of background conditions, scope of application and subject of responsibility. Global justice is not an expanded version of social justice, and the principle of domestic social justice is not applicable to the global field. Miller adheres to the principle of pluralism of social justice in the domestic field, while insists on the principle of the bottom line guaranteeing basic human rights and national responsibility principle in the global field. But the principle of the bottom line guaranteeing basic human rights supports "weak cosmopolitanism", which actually agrees some sort of global egalitarianism, highlighting the plight of Miller's communitariarism justice idea. The contradiction between social justice and global justice view of Miller reflects the inherent tension of justice between the contextualism and universalism, and the conflicts and confrontation of the global justice between communitariarism based on the reality and cosmopolitanism based on utopian community. It is full of intrinsic tension of speculative, and the new concept "human destiny community" is the realistic way to solve this dilemma.
David Miller focused early on social justice, later on global justice with the process of globalization. The premise of Miller's global justice thought is to criticize global egalitarianism. The idea of global egalitarianism comes from Cosmopolitanism, which advocates that social justice within national boundaries can be extended to the global level to achieve global justice. Miller believes that global justice and social justice are different in terms of background conditions, scope of application and subject of responsibility. Global justice is not an expanded version of social justice, and the principle of domestic social justice is not applicable to the global field. Miller adheres to the principle of pluralism of social justice in the domestic field, while insists on the principle of the bottom line guaranteeing basic human rights and national responsibility principle in the global field. But the principle of the bottom line guaranteeing basic human rights supports "weak cosmopolitanism", which actually agrees some sort of global egalitarianism, highlighting the plight of Miller's communitariarism justice idea. The contradiction between social justice and global justice view of Miller reflects the inherent tension of justice between the contextualism and universalism, and the conflicts and confrontation of the global justice between communitariarism based on the reality and cosmopolitanism based on utopian community. It is full of intrinsic tension of speculative, and the new concept "human destiny community" is the realistic way to solve this dilemma.
引文
[1]Helder De Schuttera,Ronald Tinnevelt.“David Miller’s theory of global justice.A brief overview”,Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy Vol.11,No.4,2008:369-381.
[2]Brian Barry.“Statism and Nationalism:a Cosmoplitan Critique”,in Ian Shapiro and Lea Brilmayer(eds.),Nomos:Global Justice,NewYork:New York University Press,1999.
[3](美)科克-肖·谭:《没有国界的正义:世界主义、民族主义与爱国主义》,杨通进译,重庆:重庆出版社2014年版。
[4]John Rawls.The Law of Peoples,Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1999.
[5](英)戴维·米勒:《社会正义原则》,应奇译,南京:江苏人民出版社2008年版。
[6] Darrell Moellendorf.Cosmopolitan Justice,Westview Press,2002.
[7](英)戴维·米勒:《民族责任与全球正义》,杨通进、李广博译,重庆:重庆出版社2014年版。
[8]David Miller.Social justice versus global justice?Justice for Earthlings Essays in Political Philosophy,Cambridge university press,2012.
[9]龚群:《世界主义与全球正义》,载《中国人民大学学报》2013年第5期。
[10]俞丽霞:《全球正义:国家主义与全球平等主义》,上海:上海社会科学院出版社2018年版。
[11] Simon Caney.“Global Distributive Justice and the State”,in Political Studies,2008.
[12]杨通进:《社群主义的全球正义困境——以戴维·米勒为中心的讨论》,载《马克思主义与现实》2016年第3期。
(1)如希拉韦特认为人们之间的休戚与共的圈子是弹性的、是动态的,距离不会成为影响人们履行责任的原因。参考Shue H.“Mediating Duties”,Ethics,1988,98(4):693.
(2)米勒对基本人权的理解没有包括阿玛蒂亚·森以及玛莎·努斯鲍姆对能力人权的理解,即处于饥饿状态下的贫民,使他们有维持生存的能力。
[2]Brian Barry.“Statism and Nationalism:a Cosmoplitan Critique”,in Ian Shapiro and Lea Brilmayer(eds.),Nomos:Global Justice,NewYork:New York University Press,1999.
[3](美)科克-肖·谭:《没有国界的正义:世界主义、民族主义与爱国主义》,杨通进译,重庆:重庆出版社2014年版。
[4]John Rawls.The Law of Peoples,Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1999.
[5](英)戴维·米勒:《社会正义原则》,应奇译,南京:江苏人民出版社2008年版。
[6] Darrell Moellendorf.Cosmopolitan Justice,Westview Press,2002.
[7](英)戴维·米勒:《民族责任与全球正义》,杨通进、李广博译,重庆:重庆出版社2014年版。
[8]David Miller.Social justice versus global justice?Justice for Earthlings Essays in Political Philosophy,Cambridge university press,2012.
[9]龚群:《世界主义与全球正义》,载《中国人民大学学报》2013年第5期。
[10]俞丽霞:《全球正义:国家主义与全球平等主义》,上海:上海社会科学院出版社2018年版。
[11] Simon Caney.“Global Distributive Justice and the State”,in Political Studies,2008.
[12]杨通进:《社群主义的全球正义困境——以戴维·米勒为中心的讨论》,载《马克思主义与现实》2016年第3期。
(1)如希拉韦特认为人们之间的休戚与共的圈子是弹性的、是动态的,距离不会成为影响人们履行责任的原因。参考Shue H.“Mediating Duties”,Ethics,1988,98(4):693.
(2)米勒对基本人权的理解没有包括阿玛蒂亚·森以及玛莎·努斯鲍姆对能力人权的理解,即处于饥饿状态下的贫民,使他们有维持生存的能力。