論儲蓄原則的推導與證立

On the Inference and Justification of the Savings Principle

10.7065/MRPC.200707.0155

楊士奇(Shi-Chi Yang)

羅爾斯 ； 契約論 ； 儲蓄原則 ； 代間正義 ； Rawls ； Contractualism ； Savings Principle ； Inter-generational Justice

哲學與文化

34卷7期（2007 / 07 / 01）

155 - 173

繁體中文

John Rawls在其成名作品《正義論》(A Theory of Justice)中，以儲蓄原則(savings Principle)說明代間正義的問題，並將它納入正義二原則之中，成為建構社會憑本體制的基本原則之一。然而，Rawls解釋與證成儲蓄原則的理據，亦即，動機假定與家族模式，卻遭到學者Jane English與de-Shalit等人的質疑，認為這項解釋與原初位置中的理性者特徵相衝突，並且會衍生關於家庭正義觀點的詮釋困難。 Rawls在1993年的《政治自由主義》(Political Liberalism)中對此做出回應，並將關切下一代的動機假定，修正為「要求前代也承諾遵守他們所遵守的儲蓄原則，無論向前或向後追溯多遠」。本文檢視Rawls在《正義論》與《政治自由主義》中關於儲蓄原則論述的差異，並且論證，Rawls未必要採取家族模式來解釋儲蓄原則的證成，根據《政治自由主義》中的修正，Rawls可以採用小中取大規則(maximin rule)來說明儲蓄原則的證立。

In the work that won him fame, A Theory of Justice, John Rawls took the ”savings principle” to explain the ”intergenerational justice” and included it as one of the two principles of justice and therefore part of the fundamental principles whereupon to construct the basic system of the society. But Rawls's arguments to explicate and justify the savings principle-the motivation assumption and the family mode-are challenged by scholars, such as Jane English and de-Shalit. They considered Rawls's explanation to be in conflict with the reasonable characteristics in the original position and cause difficulties in interpreting the justice about family. Rawls responded to such a challenge in Political Liberalism published in 1993, and somewhat revised his motivation assumption of caring about the next generation. In this paper, we review the different statements about the saving s principle in A Theory of Justice and Political Liberalism; we also intend to argue that Rawls not necessarily had to employ the family mode to explain the justification of the savings principle. According to the revision he made in Political Liberalism, Rawls could take advantage of the ”maximin rule” to explicate the justification of the savings principle.