公平游戏理论与政治义务  

The Theory of Fair Play and Political Obligation

作　　者：徐百军[1] 

机构地区：[1]曲阜师范大学政治与公共管理学院,山东日照276826

出　　处：《甘肃行政学院学报》2014年第2期30-41,126,共12页Journal of Gansu Administration Institute

基　　金：国家社会科学基金重大项目"中国特色社会主义政治发展道路的理论阐释与实践路径研究"(12&ZD058)阶段性成果;曲阜师范大学博士科研启动基金资助

摘　　要：随着公民个体政治权利意识的觉醒和提升,政治共同体在向其施加政治义务时必须提供正当性的道德理由。在处理政治义务的证成问题上,自愿主义理论曾发挥着最为重要的解释功能,但是它本身存在着无法自我辩护的致命性缺陷,这也迫使人们寻求其他新的政治义务证成路径。在其中,或许当属公平游戏理论最有理论希望来夺取政治义务话语主导权。具体来说,公平游戏理论具有两个不同但有关联的版本:一个是哈特-罗尔斯版本的公平游戏理论;一个是克洛斯科-阿尼森版本的公平游戏理论。通过对两个版本公平游戏理论的政治义务证成能力进行检视,我们发现公平游戏理论根本无法替代自愿主义理论而承担证成政治义务的理论重任,甚至在一定程度上它还要假借自愿主义理论的辅助来达到对政治义务的证成成效。不过,在我们看来政治义务问题其实最终不是关乎证成路径之争,而是关乎意识形态之争。As the awakening and advancing of political rights consciousness,the political community must provide the moral justification when it imposes political obligation on its individual citizens. The voluntary theory has played an important interpretive role in handling the justification of political obligation problem. But it has fatal defects that are not self-defense,which forces people to seek other new justificatory path to political obligation. Maybe the theory of fair play has theoretical chance to capture the dominant discourse power of political obligation. Specifically speaking,the theory of fair play has two different but related versions: one is Hart-Rawls version; another is Klosko-Arneson version. After examining the justificatory capacity of two versions of fair play theory,we find that the theory of fair play can't replace voluntary theory to undertake the heavy theoretical responsibility to justify political obligation. Even more,the fair play theory needs help of the voluntary theory to obtain the justificatory effectiveness of political obligation to some extent. However,in our view,the problem of political obligation eventually is not about the battle of justificatory paths,but rather the ideological battle.

关 键 词：公平游戏理论 政治义务 自愿主义 

分 类 号：D601[政治法律—政治学]