广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版） ›› 2019, Vol. 55 ›› Issue (4): 49-57.doi: 10.16088/j.issn.1001-6597.2019.04.007

• 哲学研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

罗尔斯政治自由主义的“完整性”问题及其修正:一个宗教批评

夏庆波   

  1. 安徽工业大学马克思主义学院,安徽马鞍山243002
  • 出版日期:2019-07-25 发布日期:2019-07-25
  • 作者简介:夏庆波(1972- ),男,安徽肥东人,安徽工业大学副教授,外国哲学专业博士后,美国亚利桑那大学哲学系访问学者,主要从事西方政治哲学研究。
  • 基金资助:
    教育部高校示范马克思主义学院和优秀教学科研团队重点建设项目(19JDSZK002);安徽省高校人文社会科学研究重点项目“宗教在公共理性中的作用问题研究”(SK2019A0080)

The “Integrity” of Rawls’ Political Liberalism and Its Amendment: A Religious Criticism

XIA Qing-bo   

  1. School of Marxism, Anhui University of Technology, Ma’anshan 243002, China
  • Online:2019-07-25 Published:2019-07-25

PDF (PC)

161

摘要： 以“共识观念”为基础,罗尔斯政治自由主义的“正当性原则”预设了一种“宗教约束观点”。在批评者看来,这种宗教约束观点必然导致“完整性”问题:由于宗教理由遭到“括置”,信教人士的宗教完整生活被“一分为二”。罗尔斯通过放宽对宗教理由的限制来回应批评,但是他的回应难以令批评者满意。批评者认为“聚合观念”更能包容宗教,尽管存在诸多困难。总的来说,我们应当尊重信教人士的宗教完整性,但是这不意味着“怎么都行”,另外,不宜夸大政治自由主义及其批评者之间关于“完整性”问题的冲突。

关键词: 罗尔斯, 政治自由主义, 完整性, 宗教批评

Abstract: Rawls’ “principle of legitimacy of political liberalism”, based on “the concept of consensus”, presupposes “a view of religious restraint”. To his critics, this view of religious restraint inevitably leads to the problem of “integrity” religious integrity of believers, as religious reasons are “enclosed”, is “divided into two parts”. Rawls responds to criticism by relaxing restrictions on religious reasons, but such response is far from satisfactory to critics; the “convergent concept”, though with difficulties of all sorts, is more inclusive of religion. Generally speaking, we should respect the religious integrity of believers, but this does not mean “Non-boundary freedom”. In addition, it is not appropriate to exaggerate the division between political liberalism and its critics.

Key words: Rawls, political Liberalism, integrity problem, religious criticism

中图分类号: 

  • B712.5
[1] Leo Strauss. Preface to Hobbes politische Wissenshaft[M]// In Kenneth Hart Green, ed. Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity. Albany, NY: SUNY Press,1997.
[2] 夏庆波.罗尔斯宗教思想研究述评[C]//徐以骅. 宗教与美国社会(第12辑).北京:时事出版社,2015:211-212.
[3] John Rawls. Political Liberalism[M]. New York: Columbia University Press,1996.
[4] Patrick Neal. Is Political Liberalism hostile to Religion[M]// In Shaun P. Young, (eds), Reflections on Rawls: an Assessment of His Legacy, Burlington: Ashgate, 2009.
[5] Gerald Gaus, Kevin Vallier. The Roles of Religion in a Publicly Justified Polity: The Implications of Convergence, Asymmetry, and Political Institutions[J]. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 2009(35).
[6] Kevin Vallier. Convergence and Consensus in Public Reason[J]. Public Affairs Quarterly, 2011(25).
[7] Richard Rorty. Philosophy and Social Hope[M]. New York: Penguin, 1999.
[8] Stephen Macedo. In Defense of Liberal Public Reason: Are Slavery and Abortion Hard Cases[M]// in Robert George and Christopher Wolfe(eds.), Natural Law and Public Reason,Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2000.
[9] Kevin Vallier. Liberalism, Religion and Integrit[J]. Australian Journal of Philosophy, 2012(90).
[10] Melissa Yates. Rawls and Habermas on religion in the public sphere[J]. Philospphy and Social Criticism, 2007(33).
[11] Nicholas Wolterstorff. The Role of Religion in Decision and Discussion of Political Issues[M]// in Robert Audi and Nicholas Wolterstorff, Religion in the Public Square: The Place of Religious Convictions in Political Debate. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997.
[12] Michael Perry. Morality, Politics, and Law: A Bicentennial Essay[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
[13] Charles. Larmore. The Autonomy of Morality[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
[14] Christopher Eberle, T.erence Cuneo. Religion and Political Theory[EB/OL]. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/religion-politics/>.
[15] Gerald Gaus. The Order of Public Reason[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
[16] Nicholas Wolterstorff. Justice: Rights and Wrongs, Princeton[M]. NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008.
[17] Paul Weithman. Religion and Obligations of Citizenship[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
[18] [美]约翰·罗尔斯. 公共理性理念新探[M]//谭安奎.公共理性. 谭安奎,译.杭州:浙江大学出版社,2011.
[19] Gerald Gaus. The Place of Religious Belief in Public Reason Liberalism[M]// In MariaDimovia-Cookson and P.M.R. Stirk (eds), Multiculturalism and Moral Conflict. London: Routledge, 2009.
[20] Kent Greenawalt. On Public Reason[J]. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 1993(69).
[21] [德]尤根·哈贝马斯. 公共领域里的宗教:宗教公民与世俗公民的“公共理性运用”诸认知预设[M]//张庆熊,林子淳. 哈贝马斯的宗教观及其反思.郁喆隽,译.上海:三联书店,2011.
[22] James Boettcher. Strong inclusionist accounts of the role of religion in political decisionmaking[J]. Journal of Social Philosophy, 2005(36).
[23] Jonathan Quong. Liberalism without perfection[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
[24] Christopher Eberle. Religious Conviction in Liberal Politics[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
[25] Michael Perry. Under God?[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
[1] 凌加英. 从自由原则表述的变化探讨罗尔斯对自由的理解[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(4): 49-54.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 陈延斌, 王伟. 传统家礼文献整理、研究的学术史梳理与评析[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(3): 1 -10 .
[2] 李冰, 陈姝瑾. 《郑氏家仪》研究[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(3): 11 -17 .
[3] 周良书, 郭文杰. 中共开展党内政治生活的历史与经验[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(3): 25 -30 .
[4] 张乾元, 朱倩倩. 习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想的核心要旨[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(3): 31 -36 .
[5] 潘瑾菁. 习近平新时代网络意识形态工作思想研究[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(3): 37 -41 .
[6] 瞿久淞, 靳书君. 习近平新时代中国特色社会主义话语研究[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(3): 42 -47 .
[7] 温锁林. 汉语中的非量化名词[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(3): 67 -75 .
[8] 储泽祥, 王艳. OV语序里状语、补语的一种作用[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(3): 76 -80 .
[9] 曹爽. 抽象名词的确定标准及原型效应[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(3): 103 -108 .
[10] 黄启兵. 中国近代教育主权问题的流变[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(3): 109 -114 .
版权所有 © 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）编辑部
地址：广西桂林市三里店育才路15号　邮编：541004
电话：0773-5857325　E-mail: xbgj@mailbox.gxnu.edu.cn
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发