Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/94505| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 孫善豪 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | 陳俊宇 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator | 陳俊宇 | zh_TW |
| dc.date | 2006 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2016-05-06T08:44:55Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2016-05-06T08:44:55Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2016-05-06T08:44:55Z | - |
| dc.identifier | G0912520171 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/94505 | - |
| dc.description | 碩士 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 國立政治大學 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 政治學系 | zh_TW |
| dc.description | 91252017 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | 本論文之首要目標在於針對Rawls後期思想體系的核心，亦即「公共理性之理念」的意涵與理論地位，以及他將「整全性的學說」排除於公共論理之外此一作法，透過提出三種詮釋觀點予以逐步釐清，並嘗試為Rawls加以辯護。第一章藉由說明Rawls以六個基本理念建構而成的基本理念體系，在其整體正義理論中將「公共理性之理念」予以初步定位。為了要進一步理解此一理念之主要特徵，以及它在當代政治哲學的中所扮演的角色與可能引發的相關爭議，在第二章中對於Habermas與審議式民主理論略作介紹，以作為理解Rawls的適當脈絡。第二章首先介紹Habermas對於「人權」與「人民主權」之緊張關係的分析，並將他用以解決此一爭議的理論設計，亦視為一種廣義的「公共理性之理念」來略加說明。至於第二章的末兩節，則以審議式民主理論內部的「實質性」與「程序性」之爭議為焦點，並指出「審議的無窮回歸」此一審議式民主理論無法解決的難題，以作為理解Rawls的「公共理性之理念」的線索。餘下的三至五章，依序提出了三種不同的詮釋觀點。第一種詮釋觀點將「公共理性之理念」理解為一種以審議式民主為理想藍圖的民主改革方案；第二種詮釋觀點則將該理念視為Rawls針對「自由憲政民主之理念」所提出的辯護方案：至於在第三種詮釋觀點中，「公共理性之理念」成為針對在TJ中仍有疏漏之證成策略的一種修正方案。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 導論…………………………………………………………………………… - 1 -\n一、Rawls的基本理念體系………………………………………………… - 9 -\n1.1 良序社會：一個可實現的民主烏托邦 ………………………………… - 9 -\n1.1.1 Rawls的根本理念體系………………………………………………… - 9 -\n1.1.2 前三個根本理念構成Rawls的民主烏托邦之基本藍圖……………… - 10 -\n1.2 社會基本結構、原初情境與政治性的正義觀…………………………… - 15 -\n1.2.1 「社會基本結構之理念」與「原初情境之理念」…………………… - 15 -\n1.2.2 政治性的正義觀 …………………………………………………………- 17 -\n1.2.3 公共證成與公共理性之關係…………………………………………… - 22 -\n二、Habermas與審議式民主………………………………………………… - 35 -\n2.1 Habermas的調和工作 ……………………………………………………- 35 -\n2.1.1 自然法與實證法：規範上的有效性與事實上的強制性……………… - 35 -\n2.1.2 兩種民主模式：人權優先或人民主權優先…………………………… - 38 -\n2.2 Habermas的公共理性之理念……………………………………………… - 43 -\n2.2.1 Habermas的溝通理性…………………………………………………… - 43 -\n2.2.2 Habermas的審議式政治………………………………………………… - 45 -\n2.2.3 Habermas的公共理性之理念…………………………………………… - 49 -\n2.3 審議式民主………………………………………………………………… - 54 -\n2.3.1 審議式民主的源起與主要意涵………………………………………… - 54 -\n2.3.2 審議式民主理論的主要難題：如何解決道德衝突…………………… - 59 -\n2.4 Amy Gutmann與Dennis Thompson的審議式民主理論………………… - 62 -\n2.4.1 Gutmann與Thompson的基本立場與作法 ………………………………- 62 -\n2.4.2 審議式民主理論的侷限性：審議的無窮回歸………………………… - 64 -\n三、將「公共理性之理念」詮釋為一種審議式民主的改革方案……………- 71 -\n3.1 將Rawls的公共理性之理念視為一種審議式民主理論的原因……………- 71 -\n3.1.1 將「公共證成」視為一種「規範性審議」…………………………… - 71 -\n3.1.2 在審議式民主中調和實質原則與民主權威的種種作法……………… - 73 -\n3.2 Rawls排除「整全性的學說」之作法與審議式民主之關連性……………- 76 -\n3.2.1 Rawls的公共理性之限制（區分公共理性與非公共理性）……………- 76 -\n3.2.2 「原初情境」是為「正義兩原則」量身訂作的證成方案…………… - 79 -\n3.2.3 「公共政治文化」作為最後的固定點………………………………… - 86 -\n3.3 Rawls式的審議式民主…………………………………………………… - 90 -\n3.3.1 Hegel式的轉向…………………………………………………………… - 90 -\n3.3.2 Rawls式實質性審議式民主的特色…………………………………… - 91 -\n3.3.3 對於排除「整全性的學說」之作法的批評…………………………… - 93 -\n四、將「公共理性之理念」詮釋為對自由憲政民主的一種辯護方案………- 99 -\n4.1 「公共理性之理念」並非審議式民主理論 ………………………………- 99 -\n4.1.1 在「適用人員」上的規定…………………………………………………- 99 -\n4.1.2 公共理性是個人理性反思而非實際審議……………………………….- 104 -\n4.2 公共理性是一種反向回溯的個人理性反思………………………………- 107 -\n4.2.1 「四階段論」不是一種實際的民主政治過程，亦不是一種制憲工程 - 107 -\n4.2.2 反向回溯的四階段論 ……………………………………………………- 110 -\n4.3 對於自由憲政民主之信念的重新理解……………………………………- 114 -\n4.3.1 在自由憲政民主之信念的內部找到一種融貫一致的觀念………………- 114 -\n4.3.2「公共政治文化」與「合理的整全性的學說」之關係…………………- 121 -\n4.3.3 「合理的整全性的學說」就是能夠支持「政治性的價值」的學說……- 127 -\n4.4 合理的民主政治：介於「合法的」與「理性的」之間…………………- 130 -\n五、將「公共理性之理念」詮釋為對「正義兩原則」之證成策略的修正方案 ………………………………………………………………………………- 139 -\n5.1 提出第三種詮釋的必要性…………………………………………………- 139 -\n5.1.1 本章架構…………………………………………………………………- 139 -\n5.1.2前兩種詮釋的缺陷………………………………………………………..- 141 -\n5.2 TJ的證成策略………………………………………………………………- 147 -\n5.2.1 TJ的證成策略無法在內部維持融貫一致…………………………………- 147 -\n5.2.2 無法迴避認識論論證責任是失敗的根本原因 …………………………- 151 -\n5.3 「判斷的負擔」與「交疊性的共識」………………………………………- 158 -\n5.3.1 「有效性宣稱」與「理性共識」…………………………………………- 158 -\n5.3.2 「交疊性的共識」是證成特殊正義原則的最低共識要求………………- 163 -\n5.4 小結 …………………………………………………………………………- 171 -\n5.4.1 對宗教的寬容………………………………………………………………- 171 -\n5.4.2 可實現的民主烏托邦 ……………………………………………………- 172 -\n結論 ………………………………………………………………………………- 177 -\n參考資料 …………………………………………………………………………- 183 - | zh_TW |
| dc.source.uri | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0912520171 | en_US |
| dc.subject | 公共理性 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 審議式民主 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Rawls | en_US |
| dc.subject | Habermas | en_US |
| dc.title | 論Rawls的公共理性之理念：以Rawls與Habermas之對比所展開的三種詮釋探討該理念在Rawls理論中的位置 | zh_TW |
| dc.type | thesis | en_US |
| dc.relation.reference | （一）縮寫表\n\nHabermas原典\n\n BFN Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Trans. By William Rehg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.\n IO The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. Ed. by Ciaran Cronin and Pablo De Greiff, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.\n\nRawls原典\n CP Collected Papers. Ed. By Samuel Freeman, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.\nHMP Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.\n JFR Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Ed. by Erin Kelly, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.\n LP The Law of People, MA: Harvard University Press.\n PL Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.\n\n（二）中文與翻譯書目\nCassirer, Ernst.\n 1984 《啟蒙運動的哲學》，李日章譯。台北：聯經。\nGray, John.\n 2002 《自由主義的兩種面貌》，蔡英文譯。台北：巨流。\nKant, Immanuel.\n 2002 《康德歷史哲學論文集》，李明輝譯。台北：聯經圖書公司。\nKukathas, Chandran and Philip Pettit.\n 1999 《羅爾斯》，姚建宗等譯。哈爾濱：黑龍江人民出版社。\nKymlicka, Will.\n 2003 《近代政治哲學導論》，劉莘譯。台北：聯經圖書公司。\nMadison, James and Alexander Hamilton and John Jay.\n 2000 《聯邦論》，謝淑斐譯。台北：貓頭鷹。\nRorty, Richard.\n 1998 《偶然、反諷與團結》。徐文瑞譯。台北：麥田出版。\nRousseau, Jean-Jacques.\n1986 《社會契約論》。何兆武譯。台北：唐山出版社。\n川本隆史\n 2001 《羅爾斯：正義原理》。詹獻斌譯。石家莊：河北教育出版社。\n石元康\n 1989 《洛爾斯》，台北：東大。\n江宜樺\n 2005 「西方『政治』概念之分析」，《政治與社會哲學評論》，第十二期，頁1至57。\n李俊增\n 2004 「多元分歧與正當性：對Habermas程序主義法理論之檢證」，《政治與社會哲學評論》，第十一期，頁83至127。\n何懷宏\n 2002 《公平的正義：解讀羅爾斯正義論》，濟南：山東人民出版社。\n林火旺\n 1998 《羅爾斯正義論》，台北：台灣書店。\n 2004 「公共理性的功能及其限制」，《政治與社會哲學評論》，第八期，頁47至78。\n林遠澤\n 2005 「真理為何？――從哈伯瑪斯真理共識理論的實用轉向論真理的規範性意涵」，《歐美研究》，第三十五卷第二期，頁363至404。\n周明泉\n 2005 「『啟蒙理性』與『宗教信仰』：哈伯瑪斯與拉慶格關於『自由國家的前政治道德基礎』之論辯」，《當代》，第二一一期，頁4至15。\n陳曉林\n 1987 《學術巨人與理性困境》，台北：時報。\n陳瑋鴻\n2004 《理性與重建――哈伯瑪斯的現代性政治哲學》。政治大學政治學研究所碩士論文。\n許國賢\n 2001 《財產與政治：政治理論論文集》，台北：桂冠。\n楊深坑\n 1995 「哈伯瑪斯的溝通理性、民主理論及其在公民教育上的意義」，張福建、蘇文流主編：《民主理論：古典與現代》，頁199至223。台北：中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所專書。\n錢永祥\n 1995 「社會整合與羅爾斯自由主義的政治性格」，錢永祥、戴華主編：《哲學與公共規範》，頁115至133。台北：中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所專書。\n 2001 《縱欲與虛無之上：現代情境裡的情境倫理》，台北：聯經。\n謝世民\n 2002 「邁向務實的烏托邦：《作為公平的正義：正義新論》導讀」，John Rawls著，姚大志譯，《作為公平的正義：正義新論》，頁V至XII。台北，左岸文化。\n戴華\n 1995 「羅爾斯與理性直覺主義：對『政治性正義觀』的一項後設研究」，錢永祥、戴華主編：《哲學與公共規範》，頁77至114。台北：中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所專書。\n 2004 「羅爾斯論康德『定言令式程序』」，《政治與社會哲學評論》，第九期，頁79至112。\n應奇\n 1999 《羅爾斯》，台北：生智。\n蕭高彥\n 2001 「立法家、政治空間與民族文化－盧梭的政治創造論」，《政治科學論叢》，第十四期，頁25至46。\n\n（三）英文書目\nAckerman, Bruce.\n 1992 The Future of Liberal Revolution. New Haven: Yale University Press.\n 1994 “Political Liberalism,” The Journal of Philosophy, Vol.91:7, pp.364-386.\nBaynes, Kenneth.\n1992 The Normative Grounds of Social Criticism. Albany: State University of New York Press.\nBenson, Peter.\n 1994 “Rawls, Hegel, and Personhood: A Reply to Sibyl Schwarzenbach,” Political Theory, Vol.22:3, pp.491-500.\nBillings, David.\n 2000 “Reason and Democracy: Kant, Arendt, Rawls, and Habermas on the Public Use of Reason,” Chicago, IL: Ph. D. dissertation, Loyola University.\nBoettcher, James.\n 2004 “What is reasonableness?” Philosophy & Social Criticism, Vol.30:5-6, pp.597-621.\nBohman, James.\n 1996 Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge: The MIT Press.\nBrower, Bruce W.\n 1994 “The Limits of Public Reason, ” The Journal of Philosophy, Vol.91:1, pp.5-26.\nChambers, Simone.\n 2003 “Deliberative Democratic Theory,” Annual Review of Political Science. Vol.6, pp.307-326\nCharney, Evan.\n 1998 “Political Liberalism, Deliberative Democracy, and the Public Sphere,” The American Political Science Review, Vol.92:1, pp.97-110.\nCohen, Joshua.\n1996 “Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy,” in Seyla Benhabib ed., Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp.95-119.\n 1997a “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy,” in James Bohman and William Rehg eds., Deliberative Democracy: Essay on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, pp.67-92.\n 1997b “Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy,” in James Bohman and William Rehg eds., Deliberative Democracy: Essay on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, pp.407-437.\nCooke, Maeve.\n 2000 “Five Arguments for Deliberative Democracy,” Political Studies, Vol.48, pp.947-969.\nDreben, Burton.\n 2003 “On Rawls and Political Liberalism,” in Samuel Freeman ed., The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.347-367.\nDryzek, John S.\n 2000 Deliberative democracy and beyond : liberals, critics, contestations. New York: Oxford University Press.\nElster, Jon.\n1998 “Introduction,” in Jon Elster ed., Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1-18.\nFarrelly, Colin.\n 1999 “Public Reason, Neutrality and Civil Virtues,” Ratio Juris, Vol.12:1, pp.11-25.\nFearon, James.\n1998 “Deliberation as Discussion,”in Jon Elster ed., Deliberative Democracy. Cambrudge: Cambridge University Press, pp.44-68.\nFerrara, Alessandro.\n 2004 “Public reason and the normatively if the reasonable,” Philosophy & Social Criticism, Vol.30:5-6, pp.579-596.\nFestenstein, Matthew.\n 2004 “Deliberative Democracy and Two Models of Pragmatism,” European Journal of Social Theory, Vol.7:3, pp.291-306.\nFreeman, Samuel.\n2003 “Introduction: John Rawls – An Overview,” in Samuel Freeman ed., The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1-61.\n2004 “Public reason and political justifications,” Fordham Law Review, April, pp.2021-2071.\nGambetta, Diego\n1998 “’Claro!’:An Essay on Discursive Machismo,”in Jon Elster ed., Deliberative Democracy. Cambrudge: Cambridge University Press, pp.19-43.\nGaus, Gerald F.\n1997 “Reason, Justification, and Consensus: Why Democracy Can’t Have It All,” in James Bohman and William Rehg eds., Deliberative Democracy: Essay on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, pp.205-242.\n2003 Contemporary Theories of Liberalism. London: Sage Publications Ltd.\nGeorge, Robert P.\n 1997 “Natural Law and Liberal Public Reason,” American Journal of Jurisprudence, pp.31-49.\nGreenawalt, Kent.\n 1994 “On Public Reason,” Chicago-Kent Law Review, pp.669-689.\n 1995 “Some Problems with Public Reason in John Rawls`s Political Liberalism,” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, June, pp.1303-1317.\n2002 “Natural Law and Public Reasons,” Villanova Law Review, pp.531-552.\nGutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson.\n1996 Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.\n2004 Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton University Press.\nHabermas, Jürgen.\n 1995 “Reconciliation Through the Public use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls`s Political Liberalism,” The Journal of Philosophy, Vol.92:3, pp.109-131.\n1996 Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Trans. By William Rehgs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.\n1998 The Inclusion of the Other:Studies in Political Theory. Ed. by Cianran Cronin and Pablo DeGreiff, Cambridge, MA: Mit Press.\nHorton, John.\n 2003 “Rawls, Public Reason and the Limits of Liberal Justification,” Contemporary Political Theory, Vol.2, pp.5-23.\nKnight, Jack and James Johnson.\n1994 “Aggregation and Deliberation: On the Possibility of Democratic Legitimacy,” Political Theory, Vol.22:2, pp.277-96.\nLaden, Anthony Simon.\n 2003 “The House That Jack Built: Thirty Years of Reading Rawls,” Ethics, Vol.113:2, pp.367-390.\nLarmore, Charles.\n 1990 “Political Liberalism,” Political Theory, Vol.18:3, pp.339-360.\n 2003 “Public Reason,” in Samuel Freeman ed., The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.368-393.\nMacedo, Stephen.\n1999 Deliberative Politics: Essay on Democracy and Disagreement.（ed.） Oxford: Oxford University Press.\nMadigan, James P.\n 2002 “The Idea of Public Reason Resuscitated,” William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, pp.719-778.\nMcCarthy, Thomas.\n 1999 “Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue,” in Paul J. Weithman ed., The Philosophy of Rawls: A Collection of Essays.（Reasonable Pluralism）New York: Garland Publishing, Inc, pp.320-340.\nMichelman, Frank I.\n1997 “How Can the People Ever Make the Laws? A Critique of Deliberation Democracy,” in James Bohman and William Rehg eds., Deliberative Democracy: Essay on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, pp.145-172.\nMoon, J. Donald.\n 2003 “Rawls and Habermas on Public Reason: Human Right and Global Justice,” Annual Review, pp.257-274.\nNagel, Thomas.\n 1978 “Rawls on Justice,” in Norman Daniels ed., Reading Rawls: critical studies on Rawls’ A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.\nNnodim, Paul.\n 2004 “Public Reason as a Form of Normative and Political Justification: A Study on Rawls’s Idea of Public Reason and Kant’s Notion of the Use of Public Reason in What is Enlightenment?” South African Journal of Philosophy, Vol.23:2, pp.148-157.\nO’Neill, Onora\n 1997 “Political Liberalism and Public Reason: A Critical Notice of John Rawls, Political Liberalism,” The Philosophical Review, Vol.106:3, pp.411-428.\n2003 “Constructivism in Rawls and Kant,” in Samuel Freeman ed., The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.347-367.\nRawls, John.\n 1971 A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.\n 1996 Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.\n1999a The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.\n1999b Collected Papers. Ed. By Samuel Freeman, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.\n2000 Lectures On The History of Moral Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.\n2001 Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Erin Kelly ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.\nReidy, David.\n 2000 “Rawls’s Wide View of Public Reason: Not Wide Enough,” Res Publica, Vol.6, pp.49-72.\nSaward, Michael.\n 2000 “Rawls and Deliberative Democracy,” Paper for the Political Studies Association-UK 50th Annual Conference, pp.1-21.\nSchwartzman, Micah.\n 2004 “The Completeness of Public Reason,” politics, philosophy & economics, Vol.3:2, pp.191-220.\nSchwarzenbach, Sibyl A.\n 1991 “Rawls, Hegel, and Communitarianism,” Political Theory, Vol.19:4, pp.539-571.\nSimmons, John.\n 1999 “Justification and Legitimacy,” Ethics, Vol.109:4, pp.739-771.\nSolum, Lawrence B.\n 1993 “Constructing an Ideal of Public Reason,” San Diego Law Review, pp.729-762.\nStokes, Susan C.\n1998 “Pathologies of Deliberation,”in Jon Elster ed., Deliberative Democracy. Cambrudge: Cambridge University Press, pp.123-139.\nThompson, Dennis F.\n 2004 “Public Reason and Precluded Reasons,” Fordham Law Review, pp.2073-2088.\nWaldron, Jeremy.\n 1987 “Theoretical Foundations of Liberalism,” The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol.37:147, pp127-150.\nWolgast, Elizabeth.\n1994 “The Demands of Public Reason,” Columbia Law Review, October, pp.1936-1949. | zh_TW |
| item.openairecristype | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec | - |
| item.grantfulltext | none | - |
| item.fulltext | No Fulltext | - |
| item.openairetype | thesis | - |
| item.cerifentitytype | Publications | - |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 | |
Google ScholarTM
Check
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.