现代道德关系中的差异与认同——从伦理的“本真性”到道德的“商谈性”  

Difference and identity in modern moral relations:ethical“authenticity”and moral“communication”

作　　者：陈太明 CHEN Tai-ming

机构地区：[1]山东财经大学马克思主义学院,山东济南250014

出　　处：《东南大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2023年第3期31-40,146,共11页Journal of Southeast University(Philosophy and Social Science)

基　　金：国家社会科学后期资助一般项目“哈贝马斯‘道德证立’逻辑研究”(20FZXB056);教育部人文社会科学青年项目“对话伦理学的‘应用’转向研究”(20YJC720003)阶段性成果。

摘　　要：现代道德哲学承担了在差异语境下建立认同的基本任务。基于同样的问题意识,泰勒和哈贝马斯皆意图从道德的私人领域和政治的公共领域这两个具有内在关联的维度重思启蒙所规划的认同使命。泰勒通过将伦理的“本真性”导入法律条文对之直接确认方式进行论证,哈贝马斯则诉诸道德的“商谈性”及在商谈意义上与法律的同源互补关系为之奠基。前者将差异视为需得到例外保护的特殊的善而有悖于现代道德的认同要求,后者则通过道德的普遍化原则在承认差异的前提下寻求交往式认同的可能性。原则导向的道德虽具有知识形式,但借由法律的外在强制对知识化道德之行动软弱性的补救,兼容了差异的道德原则,因而不仅是得到论证的普遍知识,而且同时是能落实为现实的道德行动,从而使认同实现在现实的道德行动而非仅仅是知识论证中。Modern moral philosophy is believed to be responsible for establishing identity in diverse contexts.Given this,Taylor and Habermas reconsidered the mission of identity envisaged in the Enlightenment from two intrinsically related dimensions:privacy of morality and publicity of politics.Taylor argues for the consistency between ethical“authenticity”and legal provisions.He considers differences as special goods that require exceptional protection and thus is contrary to the modern morality.However,Habermas relies on the“communicative”nature of morality and its complementary relationship with law as the foundation.He seeks the possibility of communicative identity while recognizing differences through the principle of universalism.Binding laws remedies the weakness of principle-oriented morality,the morality of a knowledge form,thus making it the morality that accommodates differences and can be realized in reality.

关 键 词：自我认同 集体认同 本真性 商谈性 泰勒 哈贝马斯 

分 类 号：B82-0[哲学宗教—伦理学]