罗尔斯“分配的正义观”与诺齐克“持有的正义观”对照研究  

Comparison and Investigation of Nozick's Holding Justice Thought and Rawls' Distributive Justice Thought

作　　者：刘须宽[1] 

机构地区：[1]北京师范大学哲学与社会学学院,北京100875

出　　处：《伦理学研究》2004年第2期104-110,共7页Studies in Ethics

摘　　要：分配正当性的根据是什么 ?人的基本权利与平等的要件如何分配才是符合正义的 ?罗尔斯和诺齐克从两个向度上对此作了深入研究。罗尔斯从平等的权利出发 ,主张用“公平正义的两个原则”来取代功利主义 ,认为除非有充足理由证明应当不平等 ,否则就应当平等。并要求依据“公平的正义原则”分配公共资源和自由体系 ;诺齐克从人的不可剥夺的权利出发 ,认为除非有充足理由证明应当平等 ,否则就应当不平等 ,通过“资格”理论确立“持有”的正当性。在功利主义、财产权、国家的作用、自由平等、分配模式和社会稳定的意义等方面 ,罗尔斯与诺齐克的观点也各有契合与对立。What are the standards that ensure just distribution? If distribution must accord with just distributive principles,how to distribute the basic rights and elements of equality? Rawls and Nozick deeply investigate distributive justice in different directions. Starting from the right of equality, Rawls animadverts utilitarianism and substitutes it with 'two principles as fairness and justice', and thinks everyone should be equal and people should distribute wealth according to 'the principle of justice as fairness', unless we have the enough reasons that can justify everyone should be unequal. He requires distributing public resources and systems of liberty by the principle of justice as fairness. Starting from inalienable rights of man, Nozick thinks that everyone should be unequal, unless we have sufficient reasons that can justify everyone should be equal and without the consent of the individual, others can not infringe upon his property and rights with any excuses. He advances the justice of 'holding' with a theory of qualification and entitlement, and maintains individual economic and free rights and the right of property. This thesis also differentiates and compares between Rawls and Nozick in the following important aspects: utilitarianism, the right of property, the national function, liberty and equality, and the significance of social stability, etc.

关 键 词：正义观 分配的正义 持有的正义 权利 平等 

分 类 号：F091.3[经济管理—政治经济学]