应得正义观与运气平等主义

The Desert-based Conception of Justice and Luck Egalitarianism

在日常生活中,人们普遍持有一种朴素的应得正义观,即认为正义就在于每个人得到其所应得的。为了明确界定应得正义观,两种不同的“应得”概念被区分开来:前制度性应得与制度性应得。应得正义观一贯使用的应得概念指的是前制度性应得。在当代,这种正义观遭到了罗尔斯的质疑,他认为应得正义观是不适用的和不可行的。虽然罗尔斯对应得正义观的质疑是站不住脚的,但它却促成了运气平等主义。从表面上来看,运气平等主义不但没有否定应得正义观,而且似乎还是对它的一种扩展,但是对二者关系的深入考察表明它们在本质上并不一致。此外,运气平等主义作为一种正义观存在着一个重要缺陷,即它忽略了生产资料私有制所造成的巨大不平等;而应得正义观则不存在这样的缺陷,显得更为合理。

In everyday life,a naive conception of justice is widely held by people,which contends that justice consists in the condition where each one gets what he deserves.This conception of justice can be called the desert-based conception of justice.In order to clarify it,two concepts of desert are distinguished:pre-institutional desert and institutional desert.The concept of desert consistently used by the desert-based conception of justice refers to pre-institutional desert.This conception of justice is criticized as inapplicable and impracticable by John Rawls in the contemporary time.Although Rawls’s criticism is untenable,it inspired luck egalitarianism.It appears that luck egalitarianism does not deny the desert-based conception of justice but develops it.Nonetheless,an in-depth investigation of their relations shows that they are different in essence.In addition,luck egalitarianism as a conception of justice is found with an important defect,namely,it neglects the great inequalities generated by private ownership of the means of production.Comparatively,the desert-based conception of justice without this defect seems more plausible.