摘要
政治义务是政治哲学的核心问题。哈特首先用“相互限制原则”来解释政治义务,这一原则为罗尔斯所继承并加以修正。鉴于该原则存在的诸多问题,罗尔斯在《正义论》中削减了它在政治义务的道德证明中的作用,而诉诸正义的自然责任原则。这个原则仍然受到来自多方面的批评,许多罗尔斯的追随者对这些批评作了回应。罗尔斯从公平游戏原则到自然责任原则的转变反映了他对契约论不同的态度。
Political obligation is the core problem in Political philosophy. In account for political obligation, H. L. A. Hart resorts to a principle he labels “mutual restriction”. Rawls accepts this principle and makes some revision. Given a lot of difficulties inherent in this principle, Rawls curtails it＇s validity in accounting for the political obligation in A Theory of Justice and appeals to the natural duty of justice. This new principle confronts even more criticism. Many disciples of Rawls have responded to these comments. The turn from principle of fair play to principle of natural duty of justice registers Rawls＇ different attitude to contractarianism.
出处
《现代哲学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2005年第4期28-34,共7页
Modern Philosophy
基金
西南师范大学青年基金项目
