自由主义与正义的局限

Philosophy distances us from conventions, from established assumptions, and from settled beliefs. Those are the risks, personal and political. And in the face of these risks, there is a characteristic evasion. The name of the evasion is skepticism, it’s the idea –well, it goes something like this –we didn’t resolve once and for all either the cases or the principles we were arguing when we began and if Aristotle and Locke and Kant and Mill haven’t solved these questions after all of these years, who are we to think that we, here in Anders Theatre, over the course of a semester, can resolve them? And so, maybe it’s just a matter of each person having his or her own principles and there’s nothing more to be said about it, no way of reasoning. That’s the evasion, the evasion of skepticism, to which I would offer the following reply. It’s true, these questions have been debated for a very long time but the very fact that they have recurred and persisted may suggest that though they’re impossible in one sense, they’re unavoidable in another. And the reason they’re unavoidable, the reason they’re inescapable is that we live some answer to these questions every day. So skepticism, just throwing up your hands and giving up on moral reflection is no solution. Immanuel Kant described very well the problem with skepticism when he wrote When we first came together some 13 weeks ago, I spoke of the exhilaration of political philosophy and also of its dangers. About how philosophy works and has always worked by estranging us from the familiar by unsettling our settled assumptions. And I tried to warn you that once the familiar turns strange, once we begin to reflect on our circumstance, it's never quite the same again. I hope you have by now experienced at least a little of this unease because this is the tension that animates critical reflection and political improvement and maybe even the moral life as well. And so our argument comes to an end, in a sense, but in another sense goes on. Why, we asked at the outset, why did these arguments keep going even if they raise questions that are impossible ever, finally, to resolve? The reason is that we live some answer to these questions all the time. In our public life, and in our personal lives, philosophy is inescapable even if it sometimes seems impossible. We began with the thought of Kant,that skepticism is a resting place for human reason. Where it can reflect upon its dogmatic wanderings, but it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement. To allow ourselves simply to acquiescence in skepticism or in complacence, Kant wrote, can never suffice to overcome the restlessness of reason. The aim of this course has been to awaken the restlessness of reason and to see where it might lead. And if we had done at least that, and if the restlessness continues to afflict you in the days and years to come, then we together have achieved no small thing.

本来准备看书，但是这么难的书，据说中文版的翻译很悲催，英文版实在难啃，先找个同款视频打打底。写个只有自己能看清楚脉络的读书笔记。 1. Dilemma 救1个还是救5个？ 火车司机，面对两个轨道，一个有一个工人，一个有五个工人？ 医生，手术，会选择救五个去牺牲另一个？ 2.Two different modes of moral reasoning 2.1 Consequentialist moral reasoning结果主义 locates morality in the consequences of an act The most influential example of consequential moral reasoning is Utilitarianism, a doctrine invented by Jeremy Bentham, the 18th century English political philosopher 结果主义最著名的例子是功利主义，由边沁提出，他是18世纪英国的一名政治哲学家。 2.2 Categorical moral reasonin绝对主义 locates morality in certain categorical duties and rights 道德有其绝对的道德原则，有明确的职责好，明确的权利，不论后果是怎样 The most important philosopher of categorically moral reasoningis the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant 18世纪德国的哲学家，康德 3.课程内容： Book list : Aristotle亚里士多德, John Locke洛克, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill约翰.密尔 Take up contemporary political and legal controversy tat raise philosophical questions 讨论当代政治和法律争议,讨论它们背后的哲学问题 Debate equality and inequality, affirmative action平权行动， free speech vs hate speech言论自由， 攻击性言论，same sex marriage， military conscription征兵。 4.Risks: Philosophy teaches us and unsettles us by confronting us with what we already know Philosophy distances us from conventions, from estabilished assumptions , from settle beliefs (哲学确实会让我们疏远我们过去的惯例习俗，预定的假设，固有的观念) At the face of these risks, there's a characteristic evasion. The name of the evasion is scepticsm面对这些风险，我们有一个特别的回避方式。回避方式叫怀疑主义。 We didn't resolve once for all 我们不会彻底地解决问题。 But these questions are unavoidable. Scepticism just throwig up your hands, and given up by moral reflection is no solution 因此，怀疑主义只是让你放手，放弃思考道德问题并不是问题的答案。 Scepticism is a resting place for human reasonin where it can relect on dogmatic wandering, but it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement. Simply to asquiesce, scepticism can't never suffice to overcome the recklessness f reason 它只是让我们在一些教条之间徘徊，它不是我们最好的安息之。怀疑主义只是简单的默许，它不足以经受住“鲁莽”的推理。 5. 课程目的： The end of this course is to awaken recklessnes of reason and to see where I might lead 本课程的目的是唤醒我们鲁莽的推理，然后看看我们最后会走到哪里。

我们需要一个“阿基米德点”，才能评价社会的基本结构……如果正义原则得自于社会上流行的诸价值观和善观念，那么就无法保证正义原则所提供的批判立场比其所要规划的善观念更为有效。这样，作为那些价值的产物，正义也将具有同样的偶然性。另一种标准看起来好像在某种程度上外在于社会上流行的诸价值和善观念。但是，如果我们的经验完全被排除在正义原则的来源之外，那么，这种标准似乎就得依赖于一种看起来同样可疑的先验假设。

……预期的立足点，“不是一个来自与世界之外的视角，也不是一个超验存在者的观点，而是在世界之内的、有理性的个人能够接受的某种思想和情感形式”。

……正义的优先性部分地体现在这样一个主张里，即那些需要违反正义才能获得的利益本身毫无价值。由于这些利益一开始就毫无价值，它们就不可能逾越正义的要求。

假如大多数人的强烈信念确实仅仅是偏好，而没有任何先已确定的正义原则作为基础，这种信念就不足以作为前提。这些情感的满足就不具有可以与平等自由的要求相匹敌的价值……在这些原则面前，无论是情感的强烈程度或是这种情感为大多数人所持有，都算不了什么。按照契约论的观点，自由的基础是完全独立于各种现存偏好的。

如果说权利（正当）只具有工具价值，只是为了推进一些先在的目的的话，那么，以高于一切的善的名义就可以得到否定他人自由的合法性了。

我们不应该企图通过首先关注被独立界定的善，来赋予我们的生活以形式。……不是那些从根本上展示我们本性的目标，而是这样的一些原则，这些原则支配着人们借以形成其目标的背景条件，和人们追求这些目标的方式。……

自我优先于目的，目的由自我确认。

任何在形式上采取“我是X, Y, Z”而非“我拥有X，Y，Z”（在此，X，Y，Z是欲望、目的等等）的关于自我的理论，都消弭了主体与情境之间的距离。……这一距离……对于任何连贯的自我概念的不可消除的拥有性来说是必不可少的。自我的拥有性意味着我的属性对于构成自我而言从来就不是充分的，总有些属性是我所有而并非我是（它们）。……没有主体与占有对象之间的区别，就不可能把我是什么与什么是我的这两个问题区分开，而只能留给我们一个完全被环境决定了的主体。

在这里想到《武林外传》里吕秀才逼死姬无命的一系列诘问，其实就是这样的一个终极问题：“我是谁？” 姬无命没有认清楚“姓名”、“称号”、“社会关系”与“我”之间的关系，因此当这些属性被剥离后，他对自己的认识就成为了“无”，从而失去了继续自我存在的意义。 而桑德尔提出的“没有主体与占有对象之间的区别，就不可能把我是什么与什么是我的这两个问题区分开，而只能留给我们一个完全被环境决定了的主体。”也是一个需要警惕的陷阱。执政者的各种宣传口径，都致力于赋予民众一个“‘我’即‘某种属性’”的深刻认识：“我是医生，我应该不顾一切救死扶伤。”、“我是教师，我应该全心全意教书育人。”等等，如果一个主体不能认识到自己首先是“我”，其次才是某个“属性”，那么这个主体就不能决定自我，他/她的自我是被这个属性决定的，而这个属性又是被把握着话语权的定义者决定的。 主体需要先认知自我的存在。

自我的先行统一意味着，尽管主体在很大程度上受其环境的限制，但他总是不可还原地要优先于其价值和目的，这些价值和目的从来就不能充分地建构一个主体。

在认识了自我的存在之后，就可以继续讨论正义的重要性。

若只把正义感看作是与其他欲望相当的欲望，我们便不能依靠这项计划来表现我们的本性。……这种情操展现着人格内容，放弃人格内容就不再是为自我争得自由的统治，而是给世界的偶然性和巧合让路。

……当社会由这些不预设任何特殊善观念的原则来支配时，它就可以得到最好的安排，因为任何别的安排都不可能把个人作为能够选择的主体来尊重……

个人的存在，他/她的身体与意志，首先是他/她个人本身，其次才是实现某种目的的手段（也可以称之为载体）。因此，目的应该从主体本身出发，主体的存在不是为了某种目的，主体的存在是目的，然后再寻找目的。 如果一个人要问人活着的意义是什么，如果没有意义，是否就不需要活着。或许可以以此再降一级作为回答：活着才有目的。

主体的优越性不是说我们为自我利益所支配，而只是说，无论我们拥有什么样的利益，这些利益都属于某个主体。