羅爾斯論多元社會政治共識的證成

Rawls on the Justification of Political Consensus in a Pluralistic Society

10.6166/TJPS.66(1-40)

王冠生(Kuan-Sheng Wang)

羅爾斯 ； 政治自由主義 ； 公共理性 ； 交疊共識 ； 羅爾斯式審議理論 ； John Rawls ； Political Liberalism ； Public Reason ； Overlapping Consensus ； Rawlsian Deliberative Theory

政治科學論叢

66期（2015 / 12 / 01）

1 - 40

繁體中文

本文探討羅爾斯對於多元社會政治共識的證成。羅爾斯主張在面對憲政核心爭議與基本正義問題時，講理的公民能夠擱置具爭議性的整全性學說，遵循公共理性的理念，根據同一套政治性正義觀所提供的政治價值與正義原則來解決爭議、凝聚共識、證成決策。不過，羅爾斯的公共理性論至少面臨「完備性」、「公平性」、「單一性」「公共性」四方面的質疑，針對這些挑戰，羅爾斯對其理論進行了三項主要修正：第一，以「寬觀點公共理性」與「包含式公共理性」補充「排除式公共理性」。第二，公共理性的內容是由一整套「自由主義政治性正義觀之族系」所給定，「作為公平的正義」也只是諸多合理的政治性正義觀之一。第三，羅爾斯承認公共理性的侷限，然而在必要時，得以「基於公共理性的投票」做出決策。根據這些修正，筆者認為羅爾斯的公共理性論能夠回應「完備性」、「公平性」、「單一性」三方面的挑戰，但是仍無法完全解決「完備性」的問題。因此在本文中，筆者試圖以「寬觀點公共理性」與「廣泛的反思均衡」證成「羅爾斯式審議理論」，以突破公共理性的限制。筆者認為，以公共審議詮釋公共理性，將有助於強化羅爾斯公共理性論的功能，也有助於多元社會中政治共識的證成。

This paper explores Rawls’s justification for political consensus in a pluralistic society. Rawls argues that although value diversity is the fact of a modern democratic society, reasonable citizens would follow a political conception of justice endorsed by the overlapping consensus between different kinds of comprehensive doctrines to resolve fundamental constitutional conflicts and conflicts about basic justice. However, his idea of public reason could be challenged from four aspects, namely completeness, fairness, uniqueness and publicity. Facing these criticisms, Rawls has revised his theory in three aspects. First, he supplemented his idea of exclusive view of public reason with an inclusive view of public reason and a wide view of public reason. Secondly, he argued that public reason is determined by a family of liberal political conceptions of justice, and fairness is just one of them. Finally, in accordance with the idea of public reason, he asserted that we can make a political decision by voting if it is necessary. By reviewing the challenges to and revisions of Rawls’s public reason theory, this paper argues that Rawlsian deliberative theory, justified by the wide view of public reason and the wide reflective equilibrium, could further amend Rawls’ revisions. It could enhance the capability of Rawls’s public reason theory and the justification of public consensus in a pluralistic society by interpreting public reason through public deliberation.

1. 江宜樺(2005)。西方「政治」概念之分析。政治與社會科學評論，12，1-57。
   連結：
2. 林火旺(2004)。公共理性的功能及其限制。政治與社會科學評論，8，47-77。
   連結：
3. 曾國祥(2004)。自由主義與政治的侷限。政治與社會科學評論，8，79-120。
   連結：
4. Benhabib, Seyla(ed.)(1996).Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political.Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University Press.
5. Bohman, James(1995).Public Reason and Cultural Pluralism: Political Liberalism and the Problem of Moral Conflict.Political Theory,23(2),253-279.
6. Bohman, James(2003).Deliberative Toleration.Political Theory,31(6),757-779.
7. Bohman, James(ed.),Rehg, William(ed.)(1997).Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics.Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
8. Chambers, Simone(2004).Behind Closed Doors: Publicity, Secrecy, and the Quality of Deliberation.The Journal of Political Philosophy,12(4),389-410.
9. Elster, Jon(ed.)(1998).Deliberative Democracy.New York:Cambridge University Press.
10. Freeman, Samuel Richard(2000).Deliberative Democracy: A Sympathetic Comment.Philosophy and Public Affairs,29(4),371-418.
11. Freeman, Samuel(ed.)(2003).The Cambridge Companion to Rawls.New York:Cambridge University Press.
12. George, Robert P.(ed.),Wolfe, Christopher(ed.)(2000).Natural Law and Public Reason.Washington, D.C.:Georgetown University Press.
13. Greenawalt, Kent(1994).On Public Reason.Chicago-Kent Law Review,69,669-689.
14. Gutmann, Amy,Thompson, Dennis(1996).Democracy and Disagreement.Cambridge, MA:Belknap.
15. Gutmann, Amy,Thompson, Dennis(2000).Why Deliberative Democracy is Different.Social Philosophy and Policy,17(1),161-180.
16. Horton, John(2003).Rawls, Public Reason and the Limits of Liberal Justification.Contemporary Political Theory,2,5-23.
17. Kymlicka, Will(2002).Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
18. Rawls, John(1993).Political Liberalism.New York:Columbia University Press.
19. Rawls, John(1999).The Law of Peoples: with, The Idea of Public Reason Revisited.Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
20. Rawls, John(1996).Political Liberalism.New York:Columbia University Press.
21. Rawls, John(2001).Justice As Fairness: A Restatement.Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
22. Reidy, David A.,Rawls, John(2000).Rawls's Wide View of Public Reason: Not Wide Enough.Res Publica,6(1),49-72.
23. Sandel, Michael J.(ed.)(1998).Liberalism and the Limits of Justice.Cambridge, Mass.:Cambridge University Press.
24. Schwartzman, Micah(2004).The Completeness of Public Reason.Politics, Philosophy & Economics,3(2),191-220.
25. Solum, Lawrence B.(1994).Inclusive Public Reason.Pacific Philosophical Quarterly,75(3-4),217-231.
26. Waldron, Jeremy(ed.)(1993).Liberal Rights: Collected Papers, 1981-1991.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
27. 陳宜中(2001)。羅爾斯與政治哲學的實際任務。社會科學論叢，14，47-74。
28. 謝世民(2003)。後啟蒙的哲學計劃：羅爾斯的政治自由主義。二十一世紀，75，10-17。
29. 羅爾斯、李國維譯、珂洛緹譯、汪慶華譯(2005)。萬民法：與公共理性觀重探。台北:聯經。

1. 鄧育仁(2018)。新啟蒙：對美國政治言說的認知與跨文化分析。歐美研究，48(3)，429-480。