论诺齐克“个人权利”理论对洛克“自然权利”学说的背叛

On the Betrayal of Nozick's Theory of Individual Rights to Locke's Doctrine of Natural Rights

通过对诺齐克"个人权利"理论与洛克"自然权利"学说之间矛盾的揭示,我们可以清楚地断定两种权利理论分歧的根源在于——诺齐克主张个人完全的自我-所有权不受侵犯是至高的道德价值,甚至自我-所有权是其他个人权利的源泉;但是洛克只承认个人有限的自我-所有权,而且"自然权利"的道德根源并非来自于个人本身,而是来自于上帝,自然法既体现上帝意志又能够被理性认识,从而规范和约束自然权利。既不存在与诺齐克的消极个人权利同义的"洛克式权利",也不存在承认完全的自我-所有权的"洛克式权利",而只存在主张个人拥有有限的自我-所有权的"洛克式权利"。

By revealing the contradiction between Nozick＇s theory of individual rights and Locke＇s doctrine of natural rights, we can clearly conclude that the divergence between them is as follows ： Nozick argues that one＇s full self-ownership is not only the supreme moral value but also the source of other personal rights; Locke just admits one＇s limited self - ownership, and thinks that the moral origin of natural rights is not from the individual but from the God, and the natural law not only reflects the will of the God but also can be understood by human reason so as to control and regulate the natural rights. There exist neither ＂ Lockean rights＂ synonymous to Nozick＇s negative individual rights nor ＂ Lockean rights＂ which admit complete self-ownership. There exist only ＂Lockean rights＂ admitting that the individual has only restricted self-ownership.