分配正义的两种不同诠释——罗尔斯和诺齐克之辩解

Two Different Explanations about the Distribution of Justice——Arguments between Rawls and Nozick

针对正义如何来分配,尽管罗尔斯和诺齐克都赞同正义首要性,但罗尔斯更为强调平等。他通过设定“原初状态”,在此基础上借助正义的两个原则来解除“无知之幕”,使得最少受惠者得到补偿,从而实现平等;诺齐克认为正义的首要问题不在平等,而在于权利的神圣不可侵犯。他借助“持有正义原则”通过“最弱意义的国家”来反驳罗尔斯的分配正义理论。尽管二者对如何分配正义分歧很大,但他们都是围绕经济领域中自由与平等孰更优先的问题展开。罗尔斯和诺齐克的正义观的矛盾反映了西方社会自由与平等观念的矛盾,对我国社会主义市场经济的健康发展与谐社会的构建有着重要的借鉴与启示意义。

Regarding the distribution of justice, though both Rawls and Nozick approved the importance of justice, Rawls more emphasized equality. Through the hypothesis of ＂original position＂ and with the aid of the two principles of justice, he relieved the ＂ignorance veil＂ so that the least beneficiary could be compensated and equality obtained. Nozicks thought that the most important question was not equality, but the sacred right. He refuted Rawls＇ theory of justice distribution through ＂minimal state＂ and with the aid of ＂principle of justice maintenance＂. Though these two arguments differed greatly, they all concerned about the priority of freedom and equality in the economic domain. The two views revealed the contradiction between freedom and equality in western society, and they were significant in our construction of a harmonious society.