论孟子“推恩”说的现实性、困境及出路——以列维纳斯伦理学为参照  

The Feasibility,Dilemma and Outlet of Mencius' Theory of "Extending Affection"——Taking the Levinas' Ethnics as Frame of Reference

作　　者：李凯[1] 

机构地区：[1]西南大学哲学系,重庆400715

出　　处：《齐鲁学刊》2012年第5期15-19,共5页Qilu Journal

基　　金：国家社科基金青年项目"孟子伦理思想与列维纳斯伦理学之比较研究"(12CZX057);中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助"孟子伦理思想研究--以列维纳斯伦理学为参照"(SWU1109002)

摘　　要：孟子的"推恩"说以恻隐之情为泛爱的基础,以差等之爱为追求的目标,以事亲从兄为实践的起点,这些均体现了其现实性。然而,"瞽瞍杀人"的案例却说明在亲情与公义间的两难选择前,"推恩"之法必然陷入困境,在列维纳斯的"第三方"概念的参照之下,孟子舍公义而全亲情的价值选择也充分显示出其不合理性。摆脱"推恩"困境的出路并不是"大义灭亲",而是要建构起完善的亲属回避制度。In Mencius＇ theory of ＂extending affection＂, the gentler emotions is the base of universal love, the discriminatory af fection is what to go after, and serving parents and brothers is the starting point of practice, all of which give expression to the theory ＇ s feasibility. However, the example of case of ＂Gu Sou killed a person＂ shows that the method of ＂extending affection＂ would get into trouble in the face of dilemmas between family love and justice. Referring to Levinas＇ notion of ＂the third party＂, Mencius＇ value op tion giving up justice and keeping family love intact shows its irrationality adequately. Nevertheless, the outlet stepping out of the di lemmas of ＂extending affection＂ isn＇ t placing righteousness above family loyalty, but constructing perfect system that relatives should evite in some case.

关 键 词：孟子 推恩 列维纳斯 

分 类 号：B222.5[哲学宗教—中国哲学]