合乎自然的秩序与合乎权利的秩序

An Order According to Nature versus an Order According to Rights

为说明正义与善的关系，列奥·施特劳斯在《自然权利与历史》第四章“古典自然正当’’中举了一个例子：“一个大孩子有一件小外套，一个小孩子有一件大外套。大孩子是小外套的合法拥有者，因为他或者她的父亲买了这件外套。可是，这件外套对他来说并不好，不适合他。”同样的，大外套对于小孩子来说也不合适。那么，应该如何处理这件事情呢？施特劳斯说：“明智的统治者就会从小孩子那儿把大外套拿走，给大孩子，而丝毫不考虑什么合法所有权的问题。”

By comparing three philosophers',Leo Strauss,David Hume and Xenophon,different interpretations of the same case,this essay attempts to demonstrate that (1) the classic political philosophy which Strauss prefers to claims an order according to nature,which assumes the God Eye with benevolence and wisdom;however,modern political philosophy maintains an order according to rights,which is to understand the political order from the perspective of individuals;(2) Strauss's criticism of Locke is based on his peculiar understanding of law of nature,which is very different from mainstream of traditional understanding of law of nature;(3) Strauss claims that the reconciliation between the wisdom of philosopher and the consent of the unwise is the philosophical root of the distinction between the primeval natural right and the secondary natural right,to admitting the importance of the consent of the unwise is amount to admitting a right of unwise,i.e.,an irrational right.In contrast with Strauss's idea,I argue that the reconciliation between wisdom and consent is not a kind of modus vivendi but inherent in the logic of tradition of moral philosophy and law of nature.In that sense,the correlation between wisdom and consent is not only reconciliation but also identical,moreover,it is necessary and legitimate to transfer from the primeval natural right to the secondary natural right.