明理之人与理性之人——论罗尔斯原初状态立约人的定位问题

Reasonable Persons and Rational Persons:On Rawls’s Definition of the Contracting Parties in the Original Position

罗尔斯在刻画原初状态中的立约人时,给出了两种形象:其一为理性之人的形象,其二为明理之人的形象。这两种形象是截然不同的。明理之人具有公平感,关心自己的行为能否面向他人得到证成,希望以人们无法合理拒斥或可以合理期待人们都会同意的原则来证成自己的行为,理性之人却不具备公平感,欠缺相应的欲望和动机。面对这种内在的不一致,罗尔斯需要做出选择。他会选择以理性之人来界定立约人,抹除与这一界定不相容的有关论述,因为这种选择不会使其正义理论经受颠覆性的改变。可这种选择未必是合理的。以明理之人还是理性之人来界定立约人关涉契约理论的合适出发点,关涉确定道德原则的恰当视角,影响重大。至少可以说,明理之人代表了一种不同的、值得罗尔斯严肃对待的视角。

Rawls gives two different conceptions of the contracting parties in the original position: the conception of reasonable persons and the conception of rational ones. Reasonable persons have a sense of fairness, care about whether their actions can be justified to others, and desire to justify their actions on principles that others cannot be reasonably expected to reject or that can reasonably expect others to endorse, but rational persons don’t have a sense of fairness, and lack the relevant desire and motivation. Faced with this kind of inconsistency, Rawls needs to make a choice. He chooses to characterize the contracting parties as rational persons, and erases the kind of statements incompatible with this characterization, for this can leave his theory of justice not subject to fundamental adjustments. But this might not be a reasonable choice. Whether to characterize the contracting parties in terms of reasonable persons or rational ones concerns the proper starting point for the contract theory, connects it with the proper perspective related to defining morality, so it is not a small thing. We can at least say that reasonable persons represent a different perspective worth being taken seriously by Rawls.