罗尔斯、孟子美德政治观的比较与融通  

A Comparative Study of Rawls’ and Mencius’ Political View of Virtue

作　　者：王志伟 WANG Zhiwei(School of Political Science and Public Administration,Shandong University,Qingdao 266000,China)

机构地区：[1]山东大学政治学与公共管理学院,山东青岛266000

出　　处：《太原师范学院学报（社会科学版）》2023年第4期8-16,共9页Journal of Taiyuan Normal University:Social Science Edition

基　　金：山东大学2022年度人文社科研究重大项目“儒家德性政治基础理论建构研究”(22RWZD15);山东大学政治学与公共管理学院研究生科研基金资助(SDZG2022020115)。

摘　　要：原初状态下,罗尔斯无知之幕加相互冷淡的情境限制,事实上是一种道德假设,使得通情达理的人(Rational and Reasonable Beings)依据其道德本性选择正义原则。孟子从乍见孺子入井的心理实验出发指出人皆有善端。二人都强调“人性有善”的人性观。从相同的人性假设出发,罗尔斯走上了由制度美德矫正个体美德的正义进路,而孟子却走上由个体美德匡正制度美德的正义进路。二人之所以有此差别,盖因二人主体思维的差异。罗尔斯坚持主客体分裂的认识方法,采用逻辑建构和理性推导向外探求事物的客观性;孟子坚持主客体统一的认识方法,认为天道寓于人道,采用慎独修身的修炼进路反身向内探求人之价值所在,实现人道即是在践行天道。主体思维方法的不同使得二人的政治哲学都存在内在的缺陷,但也为彼此不同程度的理论互补提供了契机。In the original position,Rawls’ignorance and indifference of situational restrictions are in fact a kind of moral hypothesis,which makes rational and reasonable beings choose the principle of justice according to their moral nature.Mencius pointed out that everyone has a good nature from his psychological experiment,and both of them emphasize that human nature is born good.Based on the same hypothesis of human nature,Rawls tried the approach of correcting individual virtue by institutional virtue,while Mencius did the opposite.Their disparity resulted from their subjective thinking.Rawls adheres to the cognitive method of the division of subject and object,uses logical construction and rational derivation to explore the objectivity of things while Mencius insists on the cognitive method of the unity of subject and object.Mencius believes that the way of heaven lies in humanity,adopts the way of self-cultivation to explore the value of man inward,and to realize humanity is to practice the way of heaven.The different way of thinking of the subject leads to inherent defects in their political philosophy,meanwhile,it also provides an opportunity for theoretical complementation.

关 键 词：罗尔斯 孟子 人性观 制度美德 个人美德 

分 类 号：B712[哲学宗教—外国哲学] B222.5