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。

1.共同体主义错在哪里？

共同体主义：权利依赖于既定共同体中占支配地位的那些价值。

争论：个人自由的价值（自由主义）VS共同体的意志（共同体主义）

争论关键：权利是否优先于善？

也就是，正义原则是否能在公民所信奉的相互竞争的道德确信和宗教确信中保持中立。

2. 正义与善的关联：

第一种观点：共同体的价值决定了何为正义--共同体主义

第二种观点：正义原则取决于它们所服务的目的的道德价值或内在善。--非共同体主义，目的论的

重点！！作者观点：权利的正当性依赖于它们所服务的那些目的的［道德重要性］。

3. 宗教自由的权利

宗教自由是不是选择自己价值的自由（后者是自由主义者的主张）？

不仅仅是偏好，更是良心的要求（无法拒绝的义务）。

宗教自由不能被同化为普遍自由。

保护宗教自由是因为，是因为他们他们培养了好公民的必备品质。

4.言论自由的权利

自由主义者认为，政府要对公民所信奉的各种意见保持中立。

作者：要重视言语的道德重要性

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。

在认识了自我的存在之后，就可以继续讨论正义的重要性。