人类命运共同体理念与罗尔斯全球正义观的阐释与比较  

The explanation and comparison between the idea of a community with a shared future for mankind and Rawls’s view of global justice

作　　者：葛宇宁[1] GE Yuning(School of Marxism,Henan Polytechnic University,Jiaozuo 454003,Henan,China)

机构地区：[1]河南理工大学马克思主义学院,河南焦作454000

出　　处：《河南理工大学学报（社会科学版）》2024年第5期46-51,共6页Journal of Henan Polytechnic University:Social Sciences

基　　金：河南省高等学校哲学社会科学基础研究重大项目(2023-JCZD-01);河南理工大学专项项目(SJDZXYB2023-05)。

摘　　要：在全球正义的适宜主体问题上,罗尔斯全球正义观选定的是“人民”,这一概念过于模糊,其包容性也有限,而人类命运共同体理念则立足于民族与国家,就有效避免了这一问题,同时它以“人类”为价值主体又超越了世界主义和社群主义。罗尔斯的全球正义观放弃了分配正义,把组织良好的社会对负担沉重社会的义务界定为援助义务,削弱了义务的强制性;同时,其对贫穷国家的贫穷根源的分析也是片面的,而人类命运共同体理念则包含着多维度的分配正义考量。对世界文明多样性并存问题,罗尔斯全球正义观的立场是西方自由主义,而人类命运共同体理念则尊重文明的多样性,主张文明和谐论,倡导各文明之间的交流互鉴。In terms of the practical subject of global justice,Rawls chooses“the people”,but this concept is too vague and lacks inclusiveness.The choice of a community with a shared future for mankind is based on the nation and the state,which can effectively avoid this problem.At the same time,it regards“humanity”as the value subject and transcends cosmopolitanism and communitarianism.Rawls’s view of global justice abandons distributive justice and defines the obligation of well-organized societies to burdensome societies as aid obligations,weakening the compulsion of obligations.Meanwhile,its analysis of the root causes of poverty in poor countries is also one-sided,while the concept of a community with a shared future for mankind contains multidimensional considerations of distributive justice.Regarding the issue of the coexistence of diversity in world civilizations,Rawls’s global justice perspective is based on western liberalism,while the concept of a community with a shared future for mankind respects the diversity of civilizations,advocates for the harmony of civilizations,and calls for exchange and mutual learning among civilizations.

关 键 词：人类命运共同体 全球正义 正义论 

分 类 号：B27[哲学宗教—中国哲学]