“道德人假定”与中国式公益问责的泛道德逻辑

Moral Person Hypothesis and Pan-moralization Logic in China Accountability of Public Interest

公益问责不是一个简单的技术、法律或权利问题,而是一个具有复杂性和多样性的社会、政治及文化命题。流行理论将公益各方视为边界清晰、目标理性和权责明确的制度化关系,因而公益问责亦依循权利逻辑展开。当我们用西方理论关照中国公益的现实,便会发现理论与实践之间存在难以逾越的鸿沟。中国式公益问责的逻辑力量,很大程度上来源于公众对公益慈善及其行为主体的"道德人假定"。这一道德预设不仅将公益行动者置于道德镁光灯下,而且使不特定的公众立足于道德制高点,去居高临下地打量公益人士及其行为表现。公众对公益慈善本身及其行动者的德性完美的想象,成为基于道德的公益问责的逻辑起点。当老百姓的道德期待与公益领域的瑕疵两相遭遇时,公众便获得了道德的感召。在集体道德认同的支配之下,由公益问责所引发的集体行动会快速演变为一场轰轰烈烈的群众运动。泛道德的问责逻辑经过群众运动实践往往异化为一种道德暴力。因此,应该通过制度规制,建立多中心协同问责机制,将公益问责的集体情绪和道德感纳入理性轨道,实现硬机制(制度问责)和软机制(道德问责)的平衡。

Accountability of public interest isn’t an easy problem about technology, law or right but a complex proposition that filled with the elements of society, politics and culture. The accountability of public interest unfolds by the logic of right because the different aspects of public interest are always regarded as a systematical relationship including the clean borders, reasonable aim and specific responsibility as well as right. There is a deep gap that can’t be passed between theory and practice when we consider the reality of public interest in China by western theories. The logical power of public interest in china comes from a moral person hypothesis given to the public charity and behavioral agent by the public. The hypothesis not only puts the people contributing to public interest to the light of moral attention but also make the uncertain people reach moral high ground so that they could evaluate the behaviors of the people belong to public interest. It has become the beginning of accountability of public interest based on morality that a perfect moral imagination about charity and the pure ethical actors was formed by public. When expectations on moral from the public meet the flaws in public interest area, the public will get the moral recalls. The collective actions raised by accountability of public interest will turn into a serious mass movement under the dominance of identification on collective morals. Pan-moralization logic about accountability of public interest normally changes to moral violence by the practice of mass movement. So the balance between hard mechanism(institutional accountability) and soft mechanism(moral accountability) comes true which relies on regulation of system as well as the establishment of multi-centers corporate accountability, in addition put the emotions of mass and moral into the rational track.