义利之辨的困境与出路  

On the Solutions to the Dilemma of Righteousness and Personal Welfare

作　　者：任丑[1] 

机构地区：[1]西南大学哲学系,重庆400715

出　　处：《晋阳学刊》2016年第4期73-78,共6页Academic Journal of Jinyang

基　　金：国家社科基金项目"祛弱权视阈的生命伦理问题研究"(项目编号:11BZX073);中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金重大培育项目"道德形态学视阈的生命伦理学"(项目编号:SWU1409106);重庆市第四批高等学校优秀人才项目"生命伦理有机体"阶段性研究成果

摘　　要：义利之辨和其他判断一样,要么是分析的,要么是综合的。换言之,义利之辨有两种基本模式:分析判断和综合判断。义利之辨的分析判断和综合判断在理论上催生了其极端形式:道禅两家既不重利、也不崇义,把义利之辨由虚无推进到涅槃,从而否定了义利之辨的可能性和必要性。义利之辨的寂灭只是一种自我陶醉的幻相,透过幻相就可以探求到它潜藏着自由法则的重生因素。义利之辨的先天综合判断扬弃了其分析判断与综合判断,完成了由自然法则向自由法则的历史转变,也在某种程度上综合并超越了功利论和义务论。The debate between righteousness and personal welfare can fall into two categories, either being analytic of synthetic. In another word, there are basically two patterns concerning this issue, and they can be named as analytic judgment and synthetic judgment respectively, according to Immanuel Kan＇s perspective. Theoretically speaking, these two kinds of judgments have triggered off some other ways out of this debate, but they have gone to the extreme. We can call them Taoism and Chinese Chan Buddhism. Nevertheless, those philosophers belonging to these two schools do not attach great importance to personal welfare, nor do they pay homage to the ultimate rule of righteousness. Consequently, they have pushed, and finally in this way, they have denied the necessity and possibility of this debate. However, the cessation of the debate is merely a self-enclosed illusion, and as a matter of fact, it has already harbored the Law of Freedom ready to be regenerated again. Departing from these two judgments, a priori synthetic judgmeng has brought about some historical transformations, and most importantly, from the Law of Nature to the Law of Freedom, and it has eventually integrated and even gone beyond Utilitarianism and Deontology.

关 键 词：义利之辨 分析判断 综合判断 先天综合判断 

分 类 号：B089[哲学宗教—哲学理论]