“好人”与“好公民”:一个政治伦理难题的亚里士多德解

“Good Man”and“Good Citizen”: An Aristotelian Solution to a Difficult Issue in Political Ethics

对于好人与好公民能否兼得这个千古政治伦理难题,亚里士多德的解答具有典范意义。他认为,在最理想、最优秀的政体中,好公民与好人都具有同样完满的德性。现实中的公民很难都成为好人,但至少可能成为一个对城邦的美好生活有所贡献的好公民。然而,在现代政治实践中,亚里士多德的公民德性很有可能变异为绝对主义政权中的臣民服从德性。这种德性要求政治共同体成员对国家权力表示绝对的认同与服从。变异的古典公民德性理论与现代公民的基本权利诉求是相悖的,使得好公民与好人出现悖谬。有必要在现代道德底线意义上重申好人的德性,从而使人们对绝对的国家权力保持怀疑和警惕,避免陷入失去道德信仰的怀疑主义与虚无主义困境。

Whether we can be both a good man and a good citizen has been a difficult issue in political ethics through ages. Aristotle＇s answer to this question is of classic value. From Aristotle＇s perspective, within the perfect form of regime, a good citizen possesses the complete virtue as a good man does. It＇s nearly impossible that each citizen is capable of being a perfect good man in a real life. However, one could at least be a good citizen who dedicates himself to the polity and ＂functions＂ appropriately to complete the happiness of the polity. Aristotle＇s theory of civic virtue has its mutant in modern political theory： subjects＇ virtue of obedience in absolutism, which declares that the ruler is granted to request members of political community to completely identify and submit to the national power. This mutant kind of political virtue is contrary to the modern political principle of civil rights, which has caused a paradox of giving priority to either becoming a good citizen or becoming a good man. It is thus necessary to reaffirm the virtue of a good man in the bottom-line sense of modern morality, so as to prevent people from losing their moral faith and rolling into nihilism and skepticism, as they realized the absolute national power should he questioned and vigilantly watched.